Federal Register, Volume 60 Issue 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11702-11766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4746]

[[Page 11701]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Parts 148 et al.

Land Disposal Restrictions--Phase III: Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 11702]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148, 266, 268 and 271

[EPA #530-2-95-002, 6 FRL 5160-7]
RIN 2050-AD38

Land Disposal Restrictions--Phase III: Decharacterized
Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today, the Agency is proposing treatment standards for certain
hazardous wastes--namely, wastes from the production of carbamate
pesticides, organobromine flame-retardants, and aluminum--under its
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program. The purpose of the LDR
program, authorized by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), is to minimize short and long-term threats to human health and
the environment from exposure to hazardous chemical constituents. The
treatment standards for these wastes will minimize threats from
exposure to hazardous constituents which may potentially leach from
landfills to groundwater.
The Agency is also proposing to revise the treatment standards for
other wastes which are hazardous because they display the
characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
These wastes, known as ``characteristic'' hazardous wastes, are
sometimes treated in lagoons which are regulated under the Clean Water
Act, and sometimes injected into deepwells which are regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Currently, these wastes are no longer
regulated under RCRA once the characteristic property is removed.
Today's revised treatment standards require treatment, not only to
remove the characteristic, but also to treat any underlying hazardous
constituents which may be present in the wastes, even though they are
not what causes the characteristic property (i.e., a corrosive waste
could have underlying hazardous constituents that, although not
corrosive, are nevertheless toxic to human health). Therefore, these
revised treatment standards will minimize threats from exposure to
hazardous constituents which may potentially migrate from these lagoons
or wells.
Finally, EPA is proposing today to forbid the use of hazardous
wastes to fill in holes in the ground. EPA proposes that this practice
is illegal disposal of hazardous wastes. EPA is also proposing to add
to the regulations an existing policy which states that hazardous
wastes which are predominantly metal should not be burned.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted by May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The public must send an original and two copies (and a
voluntary copy on computer diskette) of their comments to: RCRA
Information Center (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Place the docket number F-95-PH3P-
FFFFF on your comments. The official record for the proposed rulemaking
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 a.m. to 4 p.m. 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 $0.15 per page. The mailing address is EPA RCRA Docket (5305),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. For additional information on submitting computer diskettes
please see the heading ``Paperless Office Effort'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the LDR
program, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800-424-9346 (toll-free) or 703-
412-9810 locally. For information on today's proposed rule, contact
Peggy Vyas in the Office of Solid Waste, phone 703-308-8594. For
specific information on the treatment standards for carbamates and/or
organobromine wastes, contact Shaun McGarvey at 703-308-8603; for
specific information on the treatment standards for K088 wastes,
contact Mary Cunningham at 703-308-8453; for specific information on
the Universal Treatment Standards, contact Lisa Jones at 703-308-8451.
For information on the capacity analyses, contact Les Otte at 703-308-
8440. For information on the regulatory impact analyses, contact Linda
Martin at 202-260-2791.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperless Office Effort

EPA is asking prospective commenters to voluntarily submit one
additional copy of their comments on labeled personal computer
diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a word processing format that can
be converted to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to specify on the disk
label the word processing software and version/edition as well as the
commenter's name. This will allow EPA to convert the comments into one
of the word processing formats utilized by the Agency. Please use
mailing envelopes designed to physically protect the submitted
diskettes. EPA emphasizes that submission of comments on diskettes is
not mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to
any commenter. Rather, EPA is experimenting with this procedure as an
attempt to expedite our internal review and response to comments. This
expedited procedure is in conjunction with the Agency ``Paperless
Office Effort'' campaign. For further information on the submission of
diskettes, contact the Waste Treatment Branch at 703-308-8434.

Glossary of Acronyms

BAT--Best Available Technology
BDAT--Best Demonstrated Available Technology
BIFs--Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
CAA--Clean Air Act
CWA--Clean Water Act
EP--Extraction Procedure
HON--Hazardous Organic NESHAPs
HSWA--Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HWIR--Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
ICR--Ignitable, Corrosive, and Reactive wastes, or, Information
Collection Request (in section XI.D.)
ICRT--Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and TC Wastes
LDR--Land Disposal Restrictions
NESHAPs--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
POTW--Publically-Owned Treatment Works
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
TC--Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP--Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TRI--Toxic Release Inventory
UIC--Underground Injection Control
UTS--Universal Treatment Standards

Outline

I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste [[Page 11703]] Amendments, and Requirements of the
1993 Proposed Consent Decree with the Environmental Defense Fund
B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's Opinion on the Third Third
Standards for Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and Toxic
Characteristic Wastes and EPA's Implementation of the Opinion to
Date
1. Summary of the Third Third Standards
2. The Court's Decision
3. Options Prepared for the Notice of Data Availability
4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule
5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Wastes in the LDR
Phase II Rule
6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement Agreement with CWM, et al.
II. EPA's Interpretation of the Third Third Opinion
A. Statutory Language
B. Legislative History
C. Judicial Opinions
III. Integration of BDAT with Other Agency Actions
A. Phase IV LDRs--Cross-Media Transfer and Equivalency Issues
1. Cross-Media Implications
2. Background of Equivalency Issues EPA is Considering for LDR
Phase IV
a. Sludges
b. Leaking Surface Impoundments
c. Air Emissions
B. The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
C. Water Rules--the Pulp and Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries
Rules
IV. End-Of-Pipe Treatment Standards
A. EPA's General Approach to Setting Treatment Standards and its
Relation to the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed Today
B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for Clean Water Act and
Equivalent Wastewater Treatment Systems
1. CWA Standards and Limitations as RCRA Section 3004(m)
Treatment Standards
2. Implementation When CWA Standards and Limitations Will Be the
Exclusive Standard
a. Direct Dischargers
b. Indirect Dischargers
C. Treatment Standards for Class I Nonhazardous Injection Wells
1. Introduction
2. Compliance Options for Class I Nonhazardous UIC Wells
3. Pollution Prevention Compliance Option
4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion
D. Point of Generation Discussion
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Similar Streams Generated by Similar Processes
4. Streams From a Single Process
5. ``Battery Limits''
6. Another Approach on Which EPA Seeks Comment
7. Situations Where Existing Point of Generation Determinations
May Remain Appropriate
a. Listed Wastes
b. Prohibited Wastes Whose Treatment Standard is a Method of
Treatment
8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules
V. Discussion of the Potential Prohibition of Nonamenable Wastes
from Land-Based Biological Treatment Systems
A. Technical Overview
B. Summary of the ETC's Position
C. Summary of the CMA's Position
D. Summary of EPA's Preliminary Response to CMA's and ETC's
Technical Concerns
1. Feed Limits
2. Technical Concern
3. Constituent Properties of Concern
a. Water solubility
b. TC Metals
c. Toxicity
F. Additional Issues
1. List of Hazardous Constituents
2. Biotreatment as BDAT
3. Toxics Along for the Ride
G. Treatment Standard for Wastes with a High Concentration of
Organics
VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes
A. Carbamates
1. Proposed Treatment Standards
2. Request for Comments
B. Organobromines
1. Proposed Treatment Standards for Organobromine Wastes
2. Applicable Technology
C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)
1. Possible Determination of Inherently Waste-Like
2. Overview of Today's Proposal
a. Proposed Regulated Constituents
b. Specific Companies Investigating K088 Recovery/Treatment
Technologies
VII. Improvements to the Existing Land Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Completion of Universal Treatment Standards
1. Expansion to Cover All Components of Newly Listed Wastes
(Carbamates and Organobromines)
2. UTS Organic Constituents in Wastewater and Nonwastewater
Forms
a. Nonwastewaters
b. Wastewaters
3. Application to Listed Waste
a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs
b. Elimination of Redundant Methods of Treatment
4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater standard
b. Revoking the special wastewater/nonwastewater definition for
acrylonitrile wastes
5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as BDAT for Petroleum
Refinery Wastes
B. Dilution Prohibition
1. Dilution Prohibited as a Method of Treatment
2. Permissible Dilution
3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and Combustion
4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes
5. The Addition of Iron Dust to Stabilize Characteristic
Hazardous Wastes: Potential Classification as Impermissible Dilution
C. Expansion of Methods Requiring Incineration
D. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
1. Section 268.8
2. Sections 268.10--268.12
3. Section 268.2(f)
VIII. Proposed Prohibition of Hazardous Waste as Fill Material
IX. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
C. Requests for Comment
X. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorization
XI. 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. Economic Impact Methodology
d. Benefits Methodology
2. Results
a. Volume Results
b. Cost Results
c. Economic Impact Results
d. Benefit Estimate Results
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Underground Injected Wastes
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Background

A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments, and Requirements of the 1993 Proposed Consent
Decree 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).
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)).
[[Page 11704]]
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 that establishes a schedule for adopting
prohibitions and treatment standards for newly identified and listed
wastes. (EDF v. Reilly, Cir. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.) This proposed consent
decree was 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); hereafter referred to
as CWM v. EPA, or the Third Third opinion). Today's proposed rule
fulfills several provisions of the proposed consent decree. The rule
proposes land disposal restrictions for characteristic hazardous wastes
managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent treatment systems, and injected into
underground injection control (UIC) Class I nonhazardous injection
wells regulated under the SDWA. Today's rule also proposes treatment
standards for carbamate and organobromine wastes. The rule also
proposes treatment standards for newly listed spent aluminum potliners
(K088), which according to the proposed consent decree need not be
proposed until June 30, 1995.

B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's Opinion on the Third Third Standards
for Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and Toxic Characteristic Wastes and
EPA's Implementation of the Opinion to Date

Characteristic hazardous wastes that are treated or diluted such
that they no longer exhibit the hazardous characteristic are no longer
subject to RCRA Subtitle C management standards, and thus may be
discharged into units that are not subject to the stringent RCRA
Subtitle C standards, such as UIC wells. In CWM v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2
(D.C. Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
interpreted RCRA section 3004(m) as requiring treatment of underlying
hazardous constituents in decharacterized hazardous wastes so as to
minimize threats to human health and the environment. As yet, the
Agency has not set minimize threat levels under RCRA and therefore must
require treatment.
However, the Agency has a process to set levels under the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). If risk-based minimize threat levels
are established under HWIR, these levels would implement section
3004(m) and consequently supersede the technology-based treatment
standards presently utilized. See HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362-63. Wastes
treated to these levels also would not be classified as hazardous
wastes and consequently could be disposed in units not subject to
subtitle C standards (e.g., landfills not receiving federal permits.)
EPA has lodged a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court
to propose the HWIR levels not later than August 15, 1995, and finalize
by December 15, 1996. As was previously mentioned, the Agency entered
into a consent decree setting out a schedule for fulfilling the court's
mandate for the wastes addressed in today's rule. This consent decree
requires the Agency to set treatment standards for these wastes before
the HWIR rulemaking.
That being said, the risks addressed by this rule, particularly UIC
wells, are very small relative to the risks presented by other
environmental conditions or situations. In a time of limited resources,
common sense dictates that we deal with higher risk activities first, a
principle on which EPA, members of the regulated community, and the
public can all agree.
Nevertheless, the Agency is required to set treatment standards for
these relatively low risk wastes and disposal practices during the next
two years, although there are other actions and projects with which the
Agency could provide greater protection of human health and the
environment. At the same time, however, EPA has sought to exercise the
full extent of its authority under current law to develop innovative
options designed to significantly lower the potential cost of these
controls while ensuring protectiveness, such as giving credit for up-
stream reductions in hazardous constituents, and crafting limited
exemptions for wastewaters containing de minimis amounts of hazardous
constituents. Through the public comment process and further
consultation with stakeholders, EPA expects to obtain guidance for any
future action we may take.
A detailed discussion of the Agency's interpretation of the opinion
in CWM v. EPA is provided in the next section. For background
information on the relevant portions of the Third Third final rule
(i.e., the treatment standards promulgated for hazardous wastes
exhibiting the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity), see 55 FR 22653-
22659 (June 1, 1990).
The Agency's immediate response following issuance of the opinion
can be found in the January 19, 1993 Supplemental Information Report to
the Notice of Data Availability (58 FR 4972). This report sets out the
Agency's options for complying with the court's decision. The options
discussed in this report applied to reactive, as well as ignitable and
corrosive wastes, since EPA knows of no inherent differences among
these wastes with respect to propensity to contain hazardous
constituents.
1. Summary of the Third Third Standards
On May 8, 1990, EPA promulgated regulations addressing the last of
five congressionally-mandated prohibitions on land disposal of
hazardous wastes, which was the third one-third of the schedule of
restricted hazardous wastes, referred to as the Third Third. Among
other things, the Third Third final rule promulgated treatment
standards and prohibition effective dates for hazardous wastes that
exhibited one or more of the following characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity (40 CFR 261.21-261.24). The
Third Third rule established treatment standards for the characteristic
wastes in one of four forms: (1) a concentration level equal to, or
greater than, the characteristic level; (2) a concentration level less
than the characteristic level; (3) a specified treatment technology
(e.g., for ignitable wastes containing high levels of total organic
carbon); and (4) a treatment standard of ``deactivation'' which allowed
the use of any technology, including dilution, to remove the
characteristic.
The Agency also evaluated the applicability of certain provisions
of the land disposal restrictions' framework with respect to
characteristic wastes, including wastes regulated under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or pretreatment programs
under sections 402 and 307(b) of the CWA and the SDWA UIC programs to
try to ensure successful integration of these programs with the
regulations being promulgated under RCRA. See generally 55 FR 22653-59
(June 1, 1990). Specifically, the Agency considered the appropriateness
of the dilution prohibition for each of the characteristic waste
streams, and the applicability of treatment standards expressed as
specified methods.
The Agency found, generally, that mixing waste streams to eliminate
certain characteristics was appropriate and permissible for corrosive
wastewaters, or in some cases, reactive or ignitable wastewaters.
Furthermore, EPA stated that the dilution prohibition did not normally
apply to characteristic wastewaters that are managed in treatment
trains including surface impoundments whose ultimate
[[Page 11705]] discharge is regulated under the pretreatment and NPDES
programs under sections 307(b) and 402 of the CWA, or in Class I
underground injection well systems regulated under the SDWA. The Agency
stated that the treatment requirements and associated dilution rules
under the CWA are generally consistent with the dilution rules under
RCRA, and that the Agency should rely on the existing CWA provisions.
The Agency also singled out certain particularly toxic wastewaters to
which the dilution prohibition still applies notwithstanding management
in CWA systems. 40 CFR 268.3(b). Similarly, EPA stated that a
regulatory program had been established under the SDWA to prevent
underground injection which endangers drinking water sources. Class I
deep wells inject below the lowermost geologic formation containing an
underground drinking water source and are subject to federal location,
construction, and operation requirements. The Agency stated that
application of the dilution rules to these wastes would not provide
further protection to human health and the environment, and that
disposal of these wastes by underground injection at the characteristic
levels was as sound a practice as treating them.
2. The Court's Decision
On September 25, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ruled on the various petitions for review.
The principal holdings of the case with respect to characteristic
wastes are that: (1) EPA may require treatment under RCRA section
3004(m) to more stringent levels than those at which wastes are
identified as hazardous, 976 F. 2d at 12-14; (2) section 3004(m)
requires that treatment standards address both short-term and long-term
potential harms posed by hazardous wastes, and consequently must result
in destruction and removal of hazardous constituents as well as removal
of the characteristic property, id. at 16, 17, 23. As a consequence,
dilution is permissible as an exclusive method of treatment only for
those characteristic wastes that do not contain hazardous constituents
``in sufficient concentrations to pose a threat to human health or the
environment'' (i.e., the minimize threat level in section 3004(m)), id.
at 16; and (3) situations where characteristic hazardous wastes are
diluted, lose their characteristic(s) and are then managed in
centralized wastewater management land disposal units (i.e., subtitle D
surface impoundments or Class I nonhazardous injection wells) are legal
only if it can be demonstrated that hazardous constituents are reduced
or destroyed to the same extent they would be pursuant to otherwise
applicable RCRA treatment standards, id. at 7.
As a consequence of these holdings, the court held that the
deactivation standard for ignitable and corrosive wastes did not fully
comply with RCRA section 3004(m). This was because that standard could
be achieved by dilution, and dilution fails to destroy or remove the
hazardous constituents that can be present in the wastes. Id. (A more
detailed analysis of the D.C. Circuit's Third Third opinion is found in
section II of this notice.)
3. Options Prepared for the Notice of Data Availability
On January 19, 1993, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability to
solicit as many comments as possible on all issues in the court opinion
(58 FR 4972). The Agency prepared a Supplemental Information Report
that was distributed to the public that set out the Agency's options
for complying with the court's decision. The options discussed in this
report applied to reactive, as well as ignitable and corrosive wastes,
since EPA knows of no inherent differences among these wastes with
respect to propensity to contain hazardous constituents.
The report included options for establishing treatment standards
for the underlying hazardous constituents in ignitable, corrosive and
reactive (ICR) wastes that would have to be met prior to land disposal
(including disposal in UIC wells). (It should be noted that the Agency
also believes that underlying hazardous constituents can be present in
wastes displaying the toxicity characteristic.) Two approaches were set
out, along with the Agency's views on possible advantages and
disadvantages of each.
Under approach one, the Agency discussed the possibility of
adopting concentration limits for underlying hazardous constituents.
Under approach two, the Agency discussed specifying required treatment
technologies. The Agency discussed how these possible approaches might
apply to ICR wastes that are not managed in CWA centralized wastewater
treatment systems. Furthermore, the applicability of LDR treatment
standards to CWA facilities, and possible implementation scenarios
under the CWA, were also discussed.
The Agency also discussed options for how to determine the
equivalency of CWA treatment systems with treatment under RCRA. The
``equivalency'' discussion included possible options for addressing air
emissions, leaks, and sludges from CWA treatment surface impoundments.
Also mentioned were other Agency efforts such as the Hazardous Organic
NESHAPs (HON) (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994) developed by the Office of
Air. These options will be developed in a later LDR rulemaking, but are
discussed here and elsewhere in this preamble in order to inform and
gather comments from all potentially affected persons.
Approximately 60 public comments were received in response to the
Notice of Data Availability. Those that pertain to establishing
treatment standards for characteristic waste managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, and Class I nonhazardous UIC wells have been considered as
this proposed rule was developed.
4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule
EPA issued an interim final rule on May 24, 1993 (58 FR 29860) to
address those treatment standards that were vacated (as opposed to
remanded) by the court. Today's rule proposes treatment standards for
some of the portions of the rule that were remanded. The distinction
between vacated and remanded rules is that vacated rules are no longer
in effect after the court's mandate issues, whereas remanded rules
remain in force until the Agency acts to replace them.
The Agency's opinion at that time was that the rules dealing with
centralized wastewater management involving land disposal
(Secs. 268.1(c)(3) and 268.3(b)) were remanded, not vacated. (See 976
F. 2d at 7, 19-26 where these rules are discussed and not expressly
vacated.) This means that the only wastes to which the interim final
rule applied were those ignitable and corrosive wastes for which the
treatment standard was deactivation (since the deactivation standard
for these wastes was vacated) and which were not managed in the types
of centralized wastewater management systems covered by the remanded
rules cited above.
The Agency thus promulgated revised treatment standards for certain
ignitable and corrosive wastes that are managed in systems other than
those managed: (1) In centralized wastewater treatment systems subject
to the CWA or in Class I underground injection wells subject to the
SDWA UIC program; or, (2) by a zero discharger with a wastewater
treatment system equivalent to that utilized by CWA dischargers prior
to land disposal. The treatment standards retained the requirement of
deactivation to remove the hazardous characteristic (see DEACT in Table
1, 40 CFR 268.42); however, the rule also set numerical treatment
standards for the underlying hazardous [[Page 11706]] constituents that
could reasonably be expected to be present in the wastes. EPA also
promulgated alternative treatment standards of incineration, fuel
substitution, and recovery of organics for ignitable wastes. In
addition, EPA established new precautionary measures to prevent
emissions of volatile organic constituents or violent reactions during
the process of diluting ignitable and reactive wastes.
5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase
II Rule
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 were ``newly identified wastes'' for purposes of the LDR program.
Included are wastes identified with the codes D012 through D043 based
on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC
wastes. In the LDR Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19,
1994), EPA established treatment standards for each of these
constituents if they are managed in systems other than those regulated
under the CWA, those engaging in CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land
disposal, and those injected into Class I deep injection wells
regulated under the SDWA. In addition, because wastes exhibiting the TC
can contain treatable levels of other hazardous constituents, EPA
established treatment standards for the underlying hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be present in the waste. These
rules are consistent with the Third Third opinion and adopt the same
approach as the May 24, 1993 interim final rule.
Furthermore, as part of a regulatory response to implement the
court's ruling, EPA required in the LDR Phase II final rule 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 into any Class I
nonhazardous injection well that does not have a no-migration variance.
See 59 FR at 48013. Therefore, these wastes can no longer be legally
diluted to remove the characteristic and then be injected into Class I
nonhazardous injection wells.
6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement Agreement With CWM, et al.
This proposed rule continues to fulfill the requirements of the
settlement agreement with the petitioners in CWM v. EPA. Today's rule
proposes concentration-based treatment standards for the underlying
hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present in ignitable,
corrosive, reactive and TC wastes managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent
treatment systems, and injected into UIC Class I nonhazardous injection
wells regulated under the SDWA. The settlement agreement calls for
developing standards for ignitable and corrosive wastes only; however,
the Agency believes that underlying hazardous constituents may also be
present in reactive and toxic wastes, and is therefore proposing
regulations for these wastestreams as well.
Today's rule also complies with the settlement agreement by
describing and discussing the following option for implementing the
opinion: the identification of underlying hazardous constituents that
are not amenable to treatment in certain CWA centralized treatment
systems, and the subsequent prohibition on the introduction of such
nonamenable wastes into such systems.

II. EPA's Interpretation of the Third Third Opinion

EPA's action in this rulemaking is taken to implement key portions
of the court's mandate in CWM v. EPA, the opinion vacating and
remanding (among other things) EPA's rules allowing treatment standards
for hazardous constituents in characteristic hazardous wastes to be
achieved solely by diluting these constituents. EPA's initial view of
the opinion is that it interprets the statute to require that hazardous
constituents present in hazardous wastes at concentrations exceeding a
minimize threat level to be treated so that they are destroyed,
removed, or immobilized before the waste is land disposed. Some
commenters to the May 24, 1993 interim final rule and the LDR Phase II
proposed rule, however, have argued that dilution nevertheless can be
utilized as the sole means of treating characteristic hazardous wastes,
if dilution reduces hazardous constituent concentration levels to
levels reflecting either performance of Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) or minimize threat levels. This argument is based
largely on language in the court's opinion that treatment of hazardous
constituents is required if, after dilution, hazardous constituents are
present in concentrations sufficient to pose a threat to human health
and the environment. See, e.g., 976 F. 2d at 7, 17, 18, 19-20, 23. Some
commenters have added the further argument that section 3004(m)
requires that treatment ``substantially reduce the toxicity of the
waste'', which is accomplished when dilution lowers hazardous
constituents to BDAT levels.
If these arguments were accepted, it would mean that characteristic
wastes could be disposed after dilution, without further treatment of
hazardous constituents, provided sufficient dilution had occurred.
Although this argument has been made chiefly by representatives of
facilities engaged in underground injection, the argument is not
limited to the injection context, or even to the context of
characteristic wastes. Thus, if EPA accepted this argument, it would
mean that any hazardous waste could be land disposed into any type of
land disposal unit provided the waste was sufficiently diluted before
land disposal, notwithstanding that the same volume of hazardous
constituents as in the initial waste would be land disposed.
EPA does not accept this interpretation of the court's opinion or
of the statute. In the Agency's view, the statute and opinion are best
interpreted by requiring hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes to
be treated so that hazardous constituents are destroyed, removed, or
immobilized before land disposal. The Agency's basis for this
conclusion is set out below.

A. Statutory Language

Section 3004(m)(1) requires EPA to establish, as a precondition to
land disposal of hazardous waste, treatment standards ``which
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.'' Although the first prong of the test--
``substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste''--conceivably is
satisfied by dilution,\1\ the treatment must not only diminish the
waste's toxicity but also do so in a manner that minimizes short-term
and long-term harms to human health and the environment.\2\
[[Page 11707]] Furthermore, although EPA has maintained that
``minimization'' of threats does not necessarily require elimination of
all possible hazards (see, e.g., 55 FR 6641 and n.1 (February 26,
1990)), the phrase certainly requires something more substantial than
merely diluting hazardous constituents.

\1\If, for example, a wastewater starts out with cadmium
concentrations exceeding 100 mg/l and is diluted so that cadmium is
present at concentrations below the MCL of 0.1 mg/l, the toxicity of
the waste has been diminished.
\2\``Treatment is required not only for purposes of protecting
against the short-term or acute risks associated with the land
disposal of hazardous wastes, but more importantly focuses on the
long-term hazards associated with migration of the wastes and
subsequent contamination of ground or surface water.'' 130 Cong.
Rec. S9178 (July 25, 1984) (Statement of Sen. Chaffee introducing
the amendment that became section 3004(m))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allowing the waste's toxicity to be diminished solely by dilution
also is at odds with RCRA's enumerated goals and policies. Congress
prohibited land disposal of hazardous waste because of ``long-term
uncertainties associated with land disposal'',\3\ and persistence,
toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate'' of hazardous
constituents in the waste. Sections 3004 (d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5);
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 1355, 1362-63 (D.C.
Cir. 1989), cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990) (upholding technology-
based treatment standards due to the uncertainties inherent in
determining when land disposal is protective). Land disposal of
untreated hazardous waste is only allowed in ``protective'' land
disposal units, defined as meaning units from which no hazardous
constituents will migrate for as long as the waste remains hazardous--
to be demonstrated ``to a reasonable degree of certainty''. Sections
3004 (d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5). Allowing dilution of hazardous
constituents fails to take account of these long-term uncertainties,
propensity to bioaccumulate, and the like. As a result, it arguably
fails to minimize long-term threats posed by the wastes.

\3\See also section 1002(b)(7) which states that ``certain
classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring
long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid
substantial risk to human health and the environment, reliance on
land disposal should be minimized or eliminated * * *.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another provision indicating that Congress did not intend for
dilution to be a means of treating toxic hazardous wastes is section
3004(h). Congress, in sections 3004(h) (2) and (3), authorized EPA to
postpone LDR prohibition effective dates for up to two years (renewable
for up to two additional years for individual facilities) if there is
inadequate available treatment capacity for a particular waste. This
provision would not have been necessary if dilution could be used as a
means of treatment, since it would never take two years (or longer) for
a facility to develop the means (i.e. adding dirt or water) of diluting
wastes to meet a treatment standard.

B. Legislative History

The legislative history states that dilution is not to be allowed
as a means of treating hazardous constituents. See S. Rep. No. 284,
98th Cong. 2d sess. 17, which states that ``(t)he dilution of wastes by
the addition of other hazardous wastes or any other materials during
waste handling, transportation, treatment, or storage is not an
acceptable method of treatment to reduce the concentration of hazardous
constituents. Only dilution which occurs as a normal part of the
process that results in the waste can be taken into account in
establishing concentration levels.''\4\ The House Report is similarly
explicit.\5\ The Conference Report similarly states that ``the
Conferees intend that through the vigorous implementation of the
objectives of this Act, land disposal will be eliminated for many
wastes and minimized for all others, and that advanced treatment,
recycling, incineration and other hazardous waste control technologies
should replace land disposal.'' H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong. 2d sess.
80.

\4\The final sentence undoubtedly refers to situations where
dilution occurs as part of the manufacturing process that generates
the waste (see House Report quoted in the next footnote), not to
dilution that occurs once the waste is generated.
This legislative history was to a bill containing the
predecessor provision to section 3004(m). The critical provision
would have mandated treatment only of hazardous wastes containing
significant concentrations of hazardous constituents, and required
treatment to levels that would be ``protective'', defined as
satisfying the no-migration test. EPA does not view these
differences as being critically different from the enacted section
3004(m), and so views the Senate legislative history as being
relevant to ascertaining Congressional intent regarding dilution of
hazardous constituents as a means of achieving treatment standards.
\5\``The Committee intends that dilution to a concentration less
than the specified thresholds by the addition of other hazardous
waste or any other material during waste handling, transportation,
treatment, or storage, other than dilution which occurs as a normal
part of a manufacturing process, will not be allowed. Such hazardous
waste would still be prohibited from land disposal.'' H. Rep. No.
198, 98th Cong. 1st sess. 34; see also id. at 38 (``(t)he
Administrator may also impose limitations on the use of waste
dilution to avoid disposal restrictions. The late (sic) is
particularly important where regulations are based on concentrations
of hazardous constituents.'')
The House Bill did not expressly require pretreatment before
disposal, the scheme of the enacted law, but nevertheless
illuminates Congressional intent not to allow dilution as a means of
treating hazardous constituents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other legislative history indicates that Congress intended for EPA
to adopt technology-based treatment standards: ``The requisite levels
o(r) methods of treatment established by the Agency should be the best
that has (sic) been demonstrated to be achievable. This does not
require a BAT-type process * * *. The intent here is to require
utilization of available technology in lieu of continued land disposal
without prior treatment.'' 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178 (daily ed. July 25,
1984) (statement of Sen. Chaffee introducing the amendment that became
section 3004(m)); see also 130 Cong. Rec. 20803 (1984 (statement of
Sen. Moynihan on section 3004(m)): ``The requisite levels o(r) methods
of treatment established by the Agency should be the best that has been
demonstrated to be achievable.'' The legislative history also indicates
that Congress intended treatment to result in destruction of total
cyanide and organic hazardous constituents. 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178
(statement of Sen. Chaffee). Dilution of hazardous constituents, of
course, is not BDAT, and does not destroy or remove hazardous
constituents.
The legislative history consequently strongly supports reading
section 3004(m) as not allowing dilution of hazardous constituents.

C. Judicial Opinions

The D.C. Circuit's position in the Third Third opinion is
potentially contradictory on this point. At points in the opinion, as
noted above, this court states that dilution could satisfy section
3004(m) requirements, perhaps even for hazardous constituents.
Elsewhere, however, the court unequivocally stated that dilution does
not satisfy section 3004(m) because hazardous constituents are not
destroyed, removed, or immobilized:

We wish to make explicit the impact of our holding * * *. First,
where dilution to remove the characteristic meets the definition of
treatment under section 3004(m)(1), nothing more is required.
Second, where dilution removes the characteristic but does not
``treat'' the waste by reducing the toxicity of hazardous
constituents, then the decharacterized waste may be placed in a
surface impoundment if and only if the resulting CWA treatment fully
complies with RCRA section 3004(m)(l).

In other words, the material that comes out of CWA treatment
facilities that employ surface impoundments must remove the hazardous
constituents to the same extent that any other treatment facility that
complies with RCRA does. 976 F. 2d at 23. Dilution thus cannot be used
as the sole means of treating hazardous constituents because it does
not remove hazardous constituents from the waste. The court made this
explicit in a footnote quantifying the above-quoted passage:

To illustrate RCRA's focus on treatment of the hazardous
constituents in a waste, consider a waste stream hazardous by
characteristic for cadmium. Both the [[Page 11708]] characteristic
and treatment levels for the hazardous waste are l.0 mg/l. Assume
that a stream of 3.0 mg/l daily deposits 1000 liters into a
treatment facility. A RCRA treatment facility would remove at least
2000 mg of cadmium from the waste stream. A CWA must do the same--
although to do so it will have to process at least three times as
much water (because dilution of 1000 liters of 3.0 mg/l to just
below the characteristic level will yield just over 3000 liters).
Allowing dilution alone would decharacterize the waste, but it would
not reduce the total amount of cadmium entering the environment. 976
F 2d at 23 n. 8.

Applying this same standard to injection of decharacterized
wastewaters into Class I nonhazardous injection wells, the court
stated:

(W)e hold that dilution followed by injection into a deep well
is permissible only where dilution itself fully meets section
3004(m)(l) standards or where the waste will subsequently meet
section 3004(m)(l) standards. Because deep well injection is
permanent land disposal, our holding in effect permits diluted
decharacterized wastes to be deep well injected only when dilution
meets the section 3004(m)(l) standard or where the deep well secures
a no-migration variance. 976 F. 2d at 25. This means that ``any
hazardous waste (must) be treated in such a way that hazardous
constituents are removed from the waste before it enters the
environment.'' 976 F. 2d at 24 (emphasis added). Since injection
wells are disposal units and do not engage in treatment, they are
incapable of satisfying this standard. Id. at 25.

EPA believes that the thrust of the opinion is to require treatment
of hazardous constituents before land disposal. The court's explicit
and quantified insistence that treatment standards are to reduce mass
loadings of hazardous constituents makes this clear. If the court
intended to allow dilution as the sole means of treating hazardous
constituents, it would at least have discussed how this squared with
statutory language, goals and objectives, and legislative history.
Thus, the Agency does not accept the commenters' reading of the
opinion. Today's rule consequently proposes that prohibited,
decharacterized wastes be treated so that underlying hazardous
constituents are removed, destroyed, or immobilized before final
disposal into the environment.

III. Integration of BDAT With Other Agency Actions

As EPA makes decisions in this LDR Phase III rule on so-called end-
of-pipe equivalence for direct and indirect dischargers treating
prohibited, decharacterized wastes in surface impoundments, there are
related Agency rulemaking activities warranting mention: The LDR Phase
IV rule, which will consider leaks, sludges, and air emissions from
surface impoundments; the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR),
which provides a risk based assessment of when wastes are hazardous,
and may result in capping the extent of treatment of some hazardous
constituents; the Pulp and Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries effluent
limitations guidelines which affect industries using impoundment-based
treatment systems to manage decharacterized wastes; and rules for
control of hazardous air pollutants issued under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), which regulate similar air emissions. These interrelationships
are explored below, so that the public can be made aware of how future
regulations may impact decisions to be made in response to this rule.
Comments and data are requested on the LDR Phase IV options discussed
in this part.

A. Phase IV LDRs--Cross-Media Transfer and Equivalency Issues

1. Cross-Media Implications
The LDR Phase IV rule will consider equivalent treatment for
centralized wastewater treatment systems with impoundments managing
wastewaters that are decharacterized. The principle potentially at
issue is the transfer of pollutants from one media to another without
being destroyed, removed, or immobilized. Treatment of the wastewaters
transfers the pollutants , to groundwater from leaks, or to the air.
The transfer of pollutants from one media to another is an Agency-wide
concern. The environment is not well served by piecemeal regulation
which simply transfers pollutants, nor is industry well-served by
piecemeal regulation. The Agency's preference is to look at these
situations holistically so that pollutants are not simply transferred,
and so that the Agency provides industry with a coordinated
understanding of the ``environmental requirements'' for all media. How
the Agency pursues this preference has not been decided, but the
following discussion outlines some of the issues being examined.
2. Background of Equivalency Issues EPA is Considering for LDR Phase IV
EPA is considering, in addition to evaluating equivalence at the
point of ultimate discharge to surface waters or to a Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) (``end-of-pipe equivalence''), conditions for
determining equivalence of treatment for decharacterized wastes managed
in nonhazardous waste (subtitle D) surface impoundments which would
involve consideration of whether treatment is not equivalent due to
cross-media transfers of untreated hazardous constituents. In
evaluating the above approaches, EPA is looking both at RCRA and other
Agency authorities and programs that would ensure protection and
provide control equivalent to RCRA.
The Agency has not made any determination as to the best manner to
implement the standard enunciated in the opinion. It is certain that
the opinion requires at least a demonstration of end-of-pipe
equivalence, which will be accomplished when the treatment standards in
today's proposed rule are finalized. Whether it requires more is
unclear. The opinion appears to focus on treatment of wastewaters. For
example, the court stated ``treatment of solid wastes in a CWA surface
impoundment must meet RCRA requirements prior to ultimate discharge
into waters of the United States or publicly owned treatment works * *
*.'' 976 F. 2d at 20, emphasis added). See also id. at 7, 20 (focus on
treatment of waste ``streams'', i.e. the liquids in the impoundment);
23 n. 8 (reduction of mass loadings of hazardous constituents of waste
stream entering and exiting an impoundment); 24 (court indicates that
decharacterized wastes are not held permanently in impoundments, a
statement that is uniformly correct for wastewaters but not wastewater
treatment sludges); 24 (court focuses on treatment of ``liquids'' in
impoundments). At one point, the court also noted, in distinguishing
between subtitle C and subtitle D surface impoundments, that sludges in
subtitle C impoundments require further management in accord with
subtitle C, id. at 24, n. 10, perhaps suggesting by negative
implication that sludges in subtitle D impoundments do not.
Equally important, the court held that ``RCRA requires some
accommodation with (the) CWA'', id. at 20, see also id. at 23,
indicating that to some degree RCRA need not mandate a wholesale
disruption of existing wastewater treatment impoundments, provided the
CWA treatment system really achieves treatment equivalent to RCRA
section 3004(m) treatment: ``In other words, what leaves a CWA
treatment facility can be no more toxic than if the waste streams were
individually treated pursuant to the RCRA treatment standards.'' Id.
On the other hand, the opinion can be read more broadly to
encompass requirements respecting surface impoundment integrity. The
court's fundamental concern with dilution, echoing the requirements of
section [[Page 11709]] 3004(m), is that dilution does not reduce or
destroy hazardous constituents, and thus does not prevent those
constituents from entering the environment. Id. at 22, 24, 29-30; see
also id. at 23 n. 8 stressing the court's holding that total mass
loadings of pollutants ``entering the environment'' must be reduced in
order to comply with section 3004(m).
Moreover, the court distinguished a number of times between
temporary placement of diluted wastes in impoundments for treatment and
permanent disposal in land disposal units, stating that only the
temporary placement represents a satisfactory accommodation between
RCRA and the CWA. Id. at 24, 25. To the extent hazardous constituents
leak or volatilize from impoundments, it can be argued that permanent
disposal of untreated hazardous constituents is occurring.
The schedule for issuing the LDR Phase III and IV rules are both
subject to settlement agreement, and, according to the schedule
established by these settlement agreements, will be proposed only six
months apart. Therefore, industry will be able to evaluate the LDR
Phase III proposed end-of-pipe equivalency requirements while keeping
in mind the upcoming LDR Phase IV rule which must consider sludges,
leaks, and air emissions from treatment surface impoundments. The
Agency has not yet decided how to pursue the potential equivalency
issues related to sludges, leaks, or air emissions; however, the Agency
is taking this opportunity to discuss the issues and potential options
in these three areas. Furthermore, the Agency solicits data
characterizing sludges, leaks, and air emissions from surface
impoundments,
a. Sludges. Characteristic wastewaters managed in CWA and CWA-
equivalent impoundment-based systems invariably are treated to generate
a sludge. Under EPA's existing interpretations of the rules, such
sludges are usually considered to be prohibited wastes only if they are
themselves hazardous. 55 FR at 22661. This is because generation of a
new treatability group is considered to be a new point of generation
for purposes of determining where LDR prohibitions attach. The Agency
has not determined whether the court decision could or should be read
to invalidate this interpretation (although the Agency adopted a
``waste code carry through'' approach for the characteristic wastes
addressed in the emergency interim final rule). This will be an issue
that must be resolved in the LDR Phase IV rule.
In addressing this issue, it should be noted that the LDR treatment
standards for nonwastewaters and wastewaters are by now well
established. There are 521 hazardous waste codes subject to LDR
technology-based treatment standards. In instances where analytical
methods are available, these hazardous wastes are subject to UTS that
were promulgated in the LDR Phase II final rule (UTS are, however,
based on treatment standards that have been in effect, in some cases,
since 1986 and thus are well established). While no decision has been
made on whether to regulate these sludges, if the Agency decides to
control sludges from CWA and CWA-equivalent surface impoundments, the
treatment standards (UTS levels) are already in place.
EPA believes that the likely impact of such an approach would be
mixed--that is, some facilities will continue to use surface
impoundments and remove and treat the sludge, if necessary, while
others will move away from the use of surface impoundments. For
example, aggressive biological treatment, such as that typically used
by the petroleum refining industry, may achieve UTS levels as
generated. Sludges from primary treatment in surface impoundments are
more likely to exceed UTS levels. If the Agency decides to control
sludges, such an approach may impose significant costs on the facility.
Subjecting sludges to UTS may encourage pollution prevention and
recycling alternatives to be used prior to placement of wastes in the
impoundment, so that sludge treatment standards are not triggered.
Comments are solicited on these issues.
b. Leaking Surface Impoundments. While hazardous wastes entering
surface impoundments constitute temporary land disposal (because they
are being placed there for treatment), leaks from such impoundments
constitute permanent land disposal. Such permanent land disposal was
clearly a concern of the court. 976 F. 2d at 25-6.
The Agency is considering the following additional controls if the
decision is made to address leaking surface impoundments:
EPA already has UTS limits that could be applied to the influent
into the surface impoundment when it is determined that it leaks
underlying hazardous constituents at levels above UTS. Applying UTS to
the influent would assure that only wastes that have been treated in a
manner equivalent to RCRA treatment are land disposed.
EPA is also considering applying some of the subtitle D municipal
solid waste landfill criteria to address leaking surface impoundments
(Municipal Landfill Rule (56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991). The impacts of
such an approach on aggressive biological surface impoundments may not
be significant. On the other hand, facilities with leaking impoundments
engaged in primary treatment could have to perform some type of action
such as retrofitting, remediating groundwater, or switching to tank
treatment.
A third option being considered is using triggering controls based
on the potential risk of any leak. The Agency could require as a
performance standard that owners demonstrate that the expected leaks
would pose a low level of risk to nearby receptors. Facilities would
have the flexibility to change the influent, install engineering
controls, or limit potential exposure in order to comply with this
performance standard.
c. Air Emissions. Achieving wastewater or nonwastewater standards
by merely transferring hazardous constituents to the air may be
inconsistent with the court opinion in that excessive, uncontrolled
volatilization could be viewed as unequivalent treatment, or unsafe
treatment conditions. For example, treatment of volatile organic
compounds in surface impoundments may achieve compliance with a
wastewater treatment standard by simply transferring pollutants to the
air.
If EPA should determine that the court's opinion should be read to
require control of excessive volatilization from impoundments to
demonstrate equivalent treatment, one option is deferral to CAA NESHAP
standards, such as the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAPs and the HON.
The Benzene NESHAPs were promulgated on January 17, 1993, and the HON
was promulgated on April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19402). The Agency will
explore further whether the CAA standards for hazardous air pollutants
provide equivalent protection or control of the hazardous constituents
of concern.
Another option is extend the applicability of existing air emission
controls in RCRA--the recently promulgated RCRA Air Emission Standards
(59 FR 62585 (Dec. 6, 1994)). The RCRA Air Emission Standards are self-
implementing and are applicable to 90-day units at hazardous waste
generator sites. These standards do not apply to surface impoundments
which receive waste that was hazardous at the point of generation but
was ``decharacterized'' (i.e., rendered nonhazardous) before being
placed in the surface impoundment.
The approach EPA is considering in the second option is a ``target
mass removal'', which would ensure that hazardous constituents are
effectively [[Page 11710]] removed or destroyed and that standards are
not achieved through dilution or air emissions. A key to this approach
is that all waste streams commingled with the hazardous waste streams
are accounted for, and calculations are made to ensure that dilution is
not credited toward achieving the standard. The target mass removal
approach is to identify a hazardous waste at its point of generation
and determine the mass of hazardous constituents that must be removed
to meet UTS. The mass of constituents removed can be calculated by
comparing a post-treatment waste determination to the point of
generation waste determination. An alternative is to calculate the
percent reduction of hazardous constituents that is required to meet
the standard, and ensure that associated treatment devices operate at
that level of efficiency. Application of this approach could also
address the issue of nonamenable waste discussed in Section VI of this
preamble. Comments are solicited on the application of this approach.
The likely impacts of establishing air emission requirements are
that facilities will pursue pollution prevention, recycling, steam
stripping or other treatment to remove volatile organics prior to
treatment in surface impoundments. Under this approach, hazardous
constituents would either need to be removed prior to entering the
surface impoundment, or the impoundment would have to be retrofitted in
a way that prevents escape of air emissions.
Comments and data are solicited on options for addressing these
three areas of potential cross media transfer from wastewater treatment
surface impoundments. Comments and data are also solicited on potential
costs and human health benefits.

B. The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)

A recurring concern expressed by many commenters is the
relationship between technology-based and risk-based RCRA limits. EPA
has established technology-based limits for all LDR rules and will
continue to do so in the LDR Phase III rule. The Agency is considering
the establishment of risk-based levels, however, under the HWIR that is
scheduled to be proposed in the fall of 1995.
The integration of the two approaches could impact how facilities
comply with all LDR treatment standards. For example, if the HWIR risk-
based limits are determined to minimize threats to human health and the
environment, when they are higher than the LDR standards (less
stringent), they will satisfy RCRA section 3004(m) and the waste would
not have to be treated to meet the LDR technology-based limits. HWTC
III, 886 F. 2d at 362. Integration of the LDR and HWIR will be further
addressed in the HWIR rulemaking process.

C. Water Rules--the Pulp and Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries Rules

The LDR Phase III end-of-pipe RCRA wastewater treatment standards
(i.e., the standards which will satisfy the end-of-pipe equivalence
standard enunciated by the court) being proposed today will be applied
at the same location that CWA effluent limitation guidelines and
pretreatment standards are currently applied. EPA is currently amending
effluent limitation guidelines and standards for two industries that
use surface impoundments extensively: the pulp and paper and the
pharmaceutical industries. Both of these rules are considering in-
process limitations of the highly-volatile constituents.
The combined CWA and CAA Pulp and Paper rule was proposed on
December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66077). The Pharmaceutical Industry effluent
guidelines are scheduled to be proposed by February 1995. One key
issue, with respect to both of these industry categories, is the timing
of these amended effluent guidelines and standards in relation to
promulgation of LDR Phase III standards. EPA believes that these
amended guidelines and standards should establish end-of-pipe
equivalence. However, these amended rules may not be promulgated or
effective until after this LDR Phase III rule takes effect. For reasons
discussed later in today's preamble, however, EPA is proposing to wait
until the amended rules for these industrial categories take effect
before establishing end-of-pipe equivalence standards for these
industries.

IV. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards

A. EPA's General Approach to Setting Treatment Standards and Its
Relation to the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed Today

In the recently-promulgated LDR Phase II rule, EPA significantly
simplified the existing treatment standards by adopting Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS). 59 FR 47982 (September 19, 1994). These
standards apply the same concentration limit for the same constituent
in all prohibited wastes. The Agency believes these standards are
typically achievable for all prohibited wastes, and greatly improve the
implementation of the LDR program by reducing the numbers of different
treatment standards from thousands to essentially one per constituent.
That being said, however, the Agency is nevertheless proposing
today that UTS not apply to hazardous constituents in decharacterized
wastewaters discharged by CWA facilities subject to the rule so long as
the facility is subject to an appropriate CWA technology-based or water
quality-based standard or limitation for that hazardous constituent. As
explained more fully in section B below, the Agency believes that such
CWA limitations and standards satisfy RCRA section 3004(m) requirements
and therefore that the best means of integrating RCRA and CWA
requirements is to have the CWA limitation or standard be the RCRA
treatment standard as well. This choice by the Agency, should it be
finalized, should not be viewed as any retreat from general
applicability of UTS. Indeed, as proposed elsewhere in this preamble,
EPA is proposing to apply UTS to various newly identified and listed
wastes, as well as to prohibited decharacterized wastes injected into
Class I nonhazardous injection wells.

B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for Clean Water Act and Equivalent
Wastewater Treatment Systems

As discussed before, EPA must impose treatment standards on wastes
that heretofore have not been subject to RCRA regulation. Both RCRA and
CWA programs require treatment notification, monitoring, and
enforcement; however, they do so using different procedures. This rule
proposes an approach, discussed in the following subsections, that
integrates requirements under both statutes to the maximum extent
possible.
The nonhazardous waste surface impoundments in CWA and CWA-
equivalent systems currently have no RCRA permit. For CWA systems, the
discharge into navigable waters are subject to a NPDES permit, while
discharges to POTWs are subject to pretreatment standards. EPA is today
proposing to require that the treatment standard be met at the same
point that the NPDES and pretreatment limits are required to be met:
Generally, at end-of-pipe. CWA-equivalent systems may be subject to
state or local permits, and would be subject to the treatment standards
before final discharge to the land.
[[Page 11711]]

1. CWA Standards and Limitations as RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment
Standards
RCRA section 1006(b) requires EPA (among other things) to integrate
provisions of RCRA and the CWA when implementing RCRA and to avoid
duplication to the maximum extent possible with CWA requirements. In
keeping with this requirement, EPA is proposing to implement the end-
of-pipe equivalency standard in the court's opinion so that a
technology-based or water quality-based CWA standard for an underlying
hazardous constituent in a CWA facility's discharge will also be
considered to be the RCRA BDAT treatment standard for that constituent.
(If a CWA standard for an underlying hazardous constituent is not
included in the CWA permit, the facility must meet UTS at end-of-pipe.
See further discussion in the next subsection.) Consequently,
satisfying the CWA standard or limitation for that constituent will
also satisfy RCRA. Thus, for example, if a facility managing
decharacterized wastes containing benzene has an NPDES permit with a
limitation for benzene which reflects Best Available Technology (BAT),
that limitation would also satisfy RCRA LDR requirements. In addition,
the facility would not be subject to a separately enforceable RCRA
standard for benzene. In order to limit the amount of potential
administrative duplication, EPA is proposing that the standard remain
enforceable only under the Clean Water Act.
EPA is proposing that a technology-based CWA limitation or standard
for a hazardous constituent satisfies RCRA because such a limitation or
standard best reflects the capability of best treatment technologies to
treat a specific industry's wastewater (or, when the limitation is
determined by a permit writer using Best Professional Judgment, a
specific plant's wastewater). The RCRA UTS for wastewaters were
developed by transferring performance data from various industries, and
thus EPA need not make that same transfer when industry-specific (or
plant-specific) wastewater treatment data is available. (EPA notes,
however, that the UTS reflect treatment of wastewater matrices that are
particularly difficult to treat, and hence that the Agency's conclusion
that these standards are typically achievable is sound.)
It is also reasonable for water quality-based limitations to
satisfy RCRA requirements. These limitations must be at least as
stringent as the limitations required to implement an existing
technology-based standard. (See CWA section 301(b)(1)(c).) Even where
there is no existing BAT limitation for a toxic or nonconventional
pollutant, a permit writer must determine whether BAT would be more
stringent than the applicable water quality-based limitation, and
again, must apply the more stringent of the two potential limitations.
(40 CFR 125.3(c)(2).) Consequently, a water quality-based limitation
not only reasonably satisfies RCRA section 3004(m) requirements, but
can be viewed as a type of site-specific minimize threat level.
If a facility has received a Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)
variance, EPA is proposing that the limitations established by that
variance also satisfy RCRA requirements. Limitations established by the
FDF variance process are technology-based standards reflecting
facility-specific circumstances, and hence can appropriately be viewed
as BDAT as well, just as with RCRA treatability variance standards. See
51 FR at 40605 (Nov. 7, 1986).
EPA also believes that there are adequate constraints in the CWA
implementing rules to prevent these end-of-pipe standards from being
achieved by means of dilution. First, many of the effluent limitation
guidelines and standards regulate the mass of pollutants discharged,
and thus directly regulate not only the concentration of pollutant
discharged but the degree of wastewater flow as well. Where rules are
concentration-based, NPDES permit writers can set requirements which
preclude excessive water use, and EPA has so instructed permit writers.
(See 58 FR 66151, December 17, 1983, encouraging permit writers to
estimate reasonable rate of flow per facility and factor that flow
limit into the permit.) These permit conditions can take the form of
best management practices, explicit mass limitations, and conditions on
internal waste streams. 40 CFR 122.44(k); 122.45(f), (g) and (h).
Indirect dischargers are also subject to specific CWA dilution rules in
both the general pretreatment rules and the Combined Wastestream
Formula (as well as through many of the categorical standards). 40 CFR
403.6(d) and (e). Many of the guidelines and standards also preclude
addition of stormwater runoff to process wastewater to preclude
achieving treatment requirements by means of dilution. The Agency is
accordingly of the view that end-of-pipe equivalence would be achieved
by treatment that removes or destroys hazardous constituents, as
required by section 3004(m). (This discussion, of course, still leaves
open the questions, left for the LDR Phase IV rule, of how existence of
leaks, air emissions, or depositions of constituents in sludges affects
determinations of equivalent treatment and similar issues.)
With respect to indirect dischargers, EPA is further proposing that
national categorical standards or, potentially, plant-specific
standards contained in control mechanisms (i.e. contracts between
industrial users and the POTW or other governmental entity) satisfy
RCRA where these standards reflect pass through findings. If it is
found that a particular pollutant/hazardous constituent will not pass
through to navigable waters because of efficacious treatment by the
POTW, there will be full-scale treatment of the pollutant/hazardous
constituent before its final release into the environment. EPA is
proposing that such full-scale treatment satisfies the court's
equivalency test. EPA is also proposing to add such pass-through
situations as a valid ground for indirect dischargers to obtain a RCRA
treatability variance, for the same reasons.
However, the Agency is not proposing that standards based on
interference with POTW operations be deemed to also satisfy RCRA
requirements. Interference findings reflect the effect the pollutant
may have on overall POTW treatment, not necessarily treatment of the
particular constituent. Because the relationship of an interference-
based standard with treatment of a particular pollutant is tenuous, the
Agency does not believe such a standard can be said to be equivalent to
RCRA treatment. The Agency solicits comment on the prevalence of
interference-based standards.

2. Implementation When CWA Standards and Limitations Will Be the
Exclusive Standard

a. Direct Dischargers
EPA is proposing that if a direct discharger subject to this rule
(i.e. generating ICRT wastes containing hazardous constituents at
concentrations exceeding UTS at the point the wastes are generated and
treating those wastes in surface impoundments) has an NPDES permit
containing a limitation for that pollutant based on BAT, New Source
Performance Standards, or a more stringent water quality standard, or
is regulated through controls on an indicator pollutant, then there are
no RCRA requirements other than documentary recordkeeping. An indicator
pollutant is a pollutant for which control of that pollutant is
considered to indicate control of a [[Page 11712]] specific
constituent. For example, total phenols is an indicator for a specific
phenol. The Agency solicits comments on specific circumstances where a
pollutant is an indicator of a specific underlying hazardous
constituent.
If the existing NPDES permit either does not contain a limitation
for the pollutant or does not regulate the pollutant through an
indicator, a facility would have several choices. It could do nothing,
in which case the hazardous constituent would be subject to the UTS,
and compliance would be monitored at end-of-pipe (unless the facility
chooses to segregate the wastestreams for treatment, in which case
compliance would be measured in the segregated stream after treatment).
These standards would be implemented by rule, and thus would not be
embodied in a permit. Enforcement would be solely under RCRA.
In the alternative, a facility could seek amendment of its NPDES
permit pursuant to Sec. 122.62(a)(2), requesting that the applicable
permitting authority modify the permit to add limits for the underlying
hazardous constituents reflecting BAT for that pollutant at the
facility. Assuming proper design and operation of the wastewater
treatment technology, a permit writer in such a case could modify the
permit to add a limitation for the pollutant based on Best Professional
Judgement reflecting actual treatment (40 CFR 125.3(c)). Modification
requests would be processed pursuant to the procedures found at
Sec. 124.5. The modified permit limitation would be a CWA requirement
and enforceable solely under that statute.
A final alternative is for the facility to seek a RCRA treatability
variance. EPA is proposing to amend the grounds for granting such a
variance to include situations where a facility is treating
decharacterized wastes by treatment identified as BAT, the technology
is designed and operated properly, but is not achieving the UTS (see
proposed amendments to Sec. 268.44(a)). The amendment would also apply
to indirect dischargers properly operating technology identified as the
basis for their PSES (Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources) or
their PSNS (Pretreatment Standard for New Sources) standard.
b. Indirect Dischargers
The same alternatives exist for indirect dischargers. First, if an
underlying hazardous constituent is not regulated nationally by a PSES,
PSNS, or by a local limit, and so therefore becomes subject to the UTS
for that constituent, that UTS would be enforced as a RCRA standard. In
addition, if there is no pretreatment standard (i.e., PSES/PSNS) for an
underlying hazardous constituent, because the Agency determined that
there was no pass through, then the RCRA standard for that underlying
hazardous constituents does not apply. However, in cases where an
underlying hazardous constituent is not already subject to categorical
PSES, categorical PSNS, or to a local limit in a control mechanism
reflecting PSES or PSNS-level treatment, water quality, or pass
through, the control mechanism between the indirect discharger and the
applicable control authority would have to be modified in order to
avoid application of the UTS by rule. Although procedures for modifying
control mechanisms are less institutionalized than those codified for
modifying direct dischargers' permits, the Agency initially does not
believe this will pose a significant logistical problem because the
number of indirect dischargers significantly affected by this rule
(i.e. those treating decharacterized wastewaters in surface
impoundments before discharge to a POTW where categorical PSES or local
limitation does not address a particular hazardous constituent, and
discharging greater than de minimis levels of hazardous constituents)
appears to be small. The Agency continues to solicit information on the
number of indirect dischargers so affected, however.
EPA also solicits comment on the best means of applying the
equivalency requirement to industries where the Agency is also
undertaking significant revisions to applicable CWA requirements on a
somewhat slower schedule than this rule. The Agency has in mind
particularly the forthcoming amended standards for the pharmaceutical
and pulp and paper industrial categories.\6\ Amended BAT/PSES standards
for these industries are likely to encompass most or all of the
underlying hazardous constituents typically found in these industries'
wastewaters, and will reflect EPA's best judgement of the appropriate
optimized technology-based controls for those pollutants, as well as
the time needed to implement those controls. The Agency's initial
preference, in keeping with the requirements of RCRA section 1006, is
to wait until those controls are in place before evaluating end-of-pipe
equivalency for those industries. The Agency solicits comment on this
matter.

\6\The Pharmaceutical Rule is scheduled to be proposed on
February 28, 1995; the Pulp and Paper Rule was proposed on December
17, 1993 (58 FR 66077).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, if the facility treats to UTS and does not modify its CWA
permit or control mechanism to include a CWA standard/limitation for an
underlying hazardous constituent, EPA is proposing minimal record-
keeping requirements, under RCRA authority. EPA is proposing that
generators can use generator knowledge to identify the underlying
hazardous constituents present at the point of generation of the ICRT
wastes which are not covered by a CWA limitation and hence must be
treated to meet UTS (assuming no permit modification, etc.). Monitoring
at potentially hundreds of points of generation would be unnecessarily
burdensome and so is not being proposed as a requirement. EPA is
proposing that this information be kept on-site in files at the
facility. EPA proposes that the facility will then monitor compliance
with the UTS standard for each of these constituents at the point of
ultimate discharge on a quarterly basis, and that the results of this
monitoring also be kept in the facility's on-site files. Monitoring
compliance with UTS at the point of discharge provides appropriate
assurance of effective treatment. Failure to comply with the RCRA UTS
standard must be reported by the facility to the EPA Regional or
authorized state RCRA personnel.
Finally, the Agency is proposing to grant a two-year national
capacity variance to allow facilities time to repipe and build on-site
treatment, or to modify their CWA permit.
EPA is proposing these same requirements for documenting compliance
for zero dischargers without NPDES permits who are affected by this
rule. The absence of a permit necessitates some alternative means of
documenting compliance, and the scheme outlined above seems to be the
least burdensome scheme which would still provide a reasonable means of
enforcing this rule.

C. Treatment Standards for Class I Nonhazardous Injection Wells

1. Introduction
Generally, facilities injecting decharacterized ICRT wastes into
Class I nonhazardous injection wells do not treat their waste beyond
removing the characteristic by mixing and diluting, plus some filtering
of solids. There are as many as 149 such facilities. The average flow
of a typical Class I nonhazardous well is estimated at 107,000 gallons/
day. Typically, the volume of the hazardous wastestreams is relatively
small (less than 25%) compared to the volumes of
[[Page 11713]] nonhazardous wastestreams being co-injected.
EPA is proposing that these characteristic wastestreams be
considered prohibited at the point they are generated. The Agency is
further proposing that underlying hazardous constituents in these
prohibited wastes be treated to meet UTS levels before the waste is
injected. The treatment must destroy, remove, or immobilize the
underlying hazardous constituents in the waste that are present in
concentrations exceeding UTS at the point the wastes are generated. It
may be that in some situations, one type of treatment may pose more
risk than another type, notwithstanding that it removes or destroys
hazardous constituents to a greater degree. In such cases, facilities
may seek a treatability variance to allow the use of the less
aggressive treatment technology (assuming such treatment technology
satisfies the 3004(m) standard). In such a situation, the technology
posing greater risk could be considered to be ``not appropriate to the
waste,'' (see 40 CFR 268.44(a)) and a variance could be granted to
allow the use of alternative treatment. EPA believes this result
satisfies the court's mandate in the Third Third opinion.
EPA believes that the decision in the Third Third opinion
necessitates revising the applicability of the 40 CFR Part 148
requirements, Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions, as they now apply
to Class I nonhazardous injection wells. The Agency is clarifying in
proposed revisions to 40 CFR 148.1, that owners and operators of Class
I nonhazardous wells must determine, under certain circumstances,
whether the LDRs now apply to their facilities. Class I wells which
inject nonhazardous wastes at the point of injection must now determine
if any of these wastes exhibited a characteristic of hazardous waste at
the point they were generated. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to amend
Sec. 148.1 and redefine the purpose, scope, and applicability of the
Part 148 regulations.
To conform with the Court's ruling the Agency is also proposing to
include Class I nonhazardous wells within the scope of the dilution
prohibition at 40 CFR 148.3. Class I wells thus may not impermissibly
dilute their hazardous waste streams in order to substitute for or
avoid treatment levels or methods established in the LDRs.
2. Compliance Options for Class I Nonhazardous UIC Wells
In order to comply with today's requirements, facilities could
segregate their characteristic streams for separate treatment.
Treatment could occur either on-site or off-site. After the
characteristic wastes have been treated to meet UTS, they can be land
disposed (either by injection or by some other means). A facility could
also treat the aggregated mass of wastewaters (i.e. the commingled
characteristic and non-characteristic wastewaters) to meet UTS before
injection.
Another option is for the facility to seek a no-migration variance
under Sec. 148.20. Thus, EPA is proposing today to amend the provisions
under Sec. 148.20 to allow facilities to seek a no-migration variance
for their injection well(s). This amendment, however, would simply
formalize EPA's existing interpretation that no-migration variances are
already available for such wells. See 59 FR at 48013 (September 19,
1994). If these facilities submit a no-migration petition to EPA and
effectively demonstrate to EPA that their formerly characteristic
wastes (including any hazardous constituents contained in those wastes)
will not migrate from the injection zone for 10,000 years or no longer
pose any threat to human health and the environment because the wastes
are attenuated, transformed, or immobilized by natural means in the
injection zone, then they may continue injection without further
treatment.
Each no-migration petition has, to date, taken on average 3 years
to process. This time may increase if the Agency receives a large
number of petitions. EPA continues to emphasize, however, that
interested petitioners need not wait for this rule to be promulgated
before pursuing the petition process. Petitions for a no-migration
variance for Class I nonhazardous wells receiving decharacterized
wastes can be received and evaluated now. Id.
EPA is also proposing to extend the availability of case-by-case
extensions of the effective date to Class I nonhazardous injection
facilities for any applicable Part 148 prohibition. Proposed revisions
to Sec. 148.1(c)(1) and Sec. 148.4 will allow Class I well owners and
operators on a case-specific basis to follow procedures of Sec. 268.5
to receive a one-year extension, renewable for an additional year, from
the effective date of the prohibitions, in order to acquire or
construct alternative treatment capacity.
EPA today is proposing two other means for facilities with Class I
UIC wells to comply with the LDR requirements. The first involves
removing the same mass of hazardous constituents from streams to be
injected through pollution prevention rather than pre-injection
wastewater treatment. The second involves creating an exception for
situations when the characteristic wastestreams make only a de minimis
contribution to the waste mixture being injected. These two proposed
options are described below in more detail.
3. Pollution Prevention Compliance Option
The D.C. Circuit stressed that the equivalency test, if enunciated,
is required to ensure that mass loadings of hazardous constituents to
permanent disposal units are reduced to the same extent they would be
if a prohibited waste was treated exclusively under a RCRA regime. 976
F. 2d at 23 n. 8. EPA is proposing that these reductions in mass
loadings can be achieved by removing hazardous constituents from any of
the wastestreams that are going to be injected, and that these
reductions in mass loadings can be accomplished by means of pollution
prevention.\7\ Thus, if a facility can, for example, make process
changes that reduce the mass of cadmium by the same amount that would
be removed if the prohibited wastestream was treated to satisfy UTS,
the facility would have satisfied LDR requirements. The facility would
thus no longer have to demonstrate that it is meeting UTS concentration
levels.

\7\In a 1992 memorandum from F. Henry Habicht, then EPA Deputy
Administrator, and reiterated in a June 15, 1993 memorandum from
Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, the Agency has defined pollution
prevention as ``source reduction'' (as defined in the 1990 Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA)), and other practices that reduce or eliminate
the creation of pollutants through (1) increased efficiency in the
use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources; or (2)
protection of natural resources by conservation. The PPA defines
``source reduction'' to mean any practice which (1) reduces the
amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant
entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment
(including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or
disposal; (2) reduces the hazards to public health and the
environment associated with the release of such substances,
pollutants, or contaminants.
``Source reduction'' includes: equipment or technology
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or
redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and
improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory
control. Recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are not
included in the definition of pollution prevention in the PPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under this option, a hazardous constituent could be removed from
either the hazardous or nonhazardous portion of the injectate, and
could be removed before a waste is generated. The result would be that
the mass loading into the injection unit would be reduced by the same
amount as it would be reduced by treatment of the prohibited,
characteristic portion of the injectate. [[Page 11714]]
The mass/day reduction of a particular underlying hazardous
constituent can be calculated by comparing the injected baseline with
the allowance. The injected baseline is determined by multiplying the
volume/day of hazardous waste generated (and subsequently injected)
times the concentration of hazardous constituents prior to the
pollution prevention measure. The allowance is determined by
multiplying the volume/day of a hazardous constituent generated/
injected times the UTS for that constituent. The difference between the
injected baseline and the allowance is the mass/day reduction.
After successful employment of a pollution prevention measure, the
facility must demonstrate that the injected mass achieves the required
mass/day reduction. The post-pollution prevention measures would be
corrected for production variations by multiplying the mass/day
reduction times the ratio of the pre-pollution prevention production
baseline divided by the production on the day of sampling after the
pollution prevention is successfully implemented. A correction for
production variations is needed because the amount of an underlying
hazardous constituent in the injectate is dependent upon the level of
production. If the initial reading is taken on a day of low production,
and the post-pollution prevention reading is taken on a day of high
production, then without the correction factor the mass/day reduction
calculation would be an underestimate.
The following is an example to illustrate this discussion:
Facility X is daily injecting 1 lb. of benzene (an underlying
hazardous constituent in a characteristically hazardous wastestream).
The mass allowed for benzene (based on the volume of the hazardous
wastestream they inject and the UTS for benzene) is 0.3 lbs. Therefore,
the mass of benzene that needs to be removed in order for Facility X to
be in compliance with the LDR is 0.7 lb.
Facility X decides to use pollution prevention to remove the 0.7
lb. of benzene from their system. Before employing pollution
prevention, Facility X monitors and determines that on a day when they
produce 10 tons of product, 3 lbs. of benzene is being injected. After
employment of pollution prevention, Facility X monitors and determines
that 1 lb. of benzene is being injected. On this day of monitoring they
are producing 5 tons of product. Therefore: 3 lbs.-1* (10/5)=1 lb. of
benzene removed, which means they are in compliance with LDR, since 0.7
lb. was all that was necessary to be removed.
EPA is proposing that the results of the monitoring of the
underlying hazardous constituent concentration and the volume of the
hazardous waste stream being injected, both on the day before
employment of pollution prevention, and the day after successful
employment of pollution prevention, be reported to the EPA Region or
authorized State as a one-time notification. The facility will also
include in this report a description of the pollution prevention method
used. In addition, the facility will monitor and keep on-site records
of the results on a quarterly basis. Quarterly monitoring is already
required under SDWA regulations (40 CFR 146.13(b)). The reporting
requirements for this option will be a one-time notification; however,
if the facility changes its pollution prevention method, they must
repeat the initial monitoring and notify the EPA Region or authorized
State. The Agency is proposing to consider only those pollution
prevention measures taken after the date of publication of this
proposed rule.
EPA is proposing that, at this time, the pollution prevention
alternative as described in this section of the preamble, be available
only for facilities using Class I nonhazardous injection wells. EPA is
not proposing the same alternative for facilities using surface
impoundments because until the LDR Phase IV rules are completed, there
will not be a test as to what comprises equivalent treatment at such
facilities. That is, before EPA determines how such issues as potential
releases to air and groundwater are to be resolved, there is no final
equivalency standard for these facilities. It thus appears to EPA to be
premature to determine how a pollution prevention alternative would fit
into such a scheme. EPA also notes that because surface impoundments
can pose particularly adverse environmental risks, see RCRA section
1002(b)(7) and CWM v. EPA, 919 F. 2d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Agency
in any case may wish to develop alternative approaches for
decharacterized wastes being managed in such units.
EPA also solicits comment on a number of issues relating to this
option. The first is comment on using other production parameters
besides or in lieu of volume (e.g., mass, square footage, etc.). The
second is comment on use of site-specific non-linear production
relationships and multiple production factors to deal with potential
differences in underlying hazardous constituents produced in the
hazardous and nonhazardous waste streams. Third, EPA solicits comment
on whether more than one day is needed for monitoring pre and post-
employment of the pollution prevention option (i.e., some pollution
prevention methods may require more than one day to show results).
EPA also solicits comment on the best means of ensuring that the
mass reductions achieved through this pollution prevention alternative
are objectively verifiable and enforceable. In particular, EPA solicits
comments on the best means of documenting baseline levels, and whether
flow reductions (as opposed to hazardous constituent removal) should be
allowed as an exclusive means of obtaining the requisite reductions in
mass loadings of hazardous constituents.
Finally, EPA requests comment as to whether it may eventually be
possible to implement this type of alternative by means of a pollutant
trading type of approach, whereby the hazardous constituent being
removed by means of pollution prevention need not be identical to the
hazardous constituent in the characteristic stream. For example,
carcinogenic metals could all be grouped rather than evaluated
individually. This type of approach may add desirable flexibility if
appropriately constructed.
4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion
There is a question of whether EPA should require treatment of
relatively small decharacterized hazardous waste streams injected into
Class I nonhazardous wells when the result will be essentially the same
level of contaminants being injected (and thus risks are not measurably
reduced). Therefore the Agency is proposing to establish a de minimis
volume exclusion for small volumes of formerly hazardous wastes being
injected into these wells along with a greater volume of nonhazardous
waste.
There are two existing LDR de minimis provisions (Sec. 268.1(e) (4)
and (5)). Both are for ignitable and/or corrosive wastes (D001 and
D002); the first is for de minimis losses of D001 or D002 to wastewater
treatment systems of commercial chemical products, while the second is
for de minimis losses of D001 or D002 laboratory wastes. Under the
approach being proposed today, when underlying hazardous constituents
are present in ICRT wastes at concentrations less than 10 times UTS at
the point of generation, and the combination of all of the
characteristically hazardous streams together are less than 1% of the
total flow at point of injection and after [[Page 11715]] commingling
with the nonhazardous streams, and that the total volume of hazardous
streams are no more than 10,000 gallons/day, no segregation and/or
treatment would be required. The 1% total flow criteria is consistent
with the existing de minimis exemption for laboratory wastes
(Sec. 268.1(e)(5)); however, the Agency solicits comment on the 1%
criteria, the 10 times UTS criteria as well as the 10,000 gallons/day
maximum--should these numbers be higher, lower, or dropped?
The Agency intends to continue analyzing collected data that may
provide additional justification for, or alternatively, cause the
Agency to modify any or all of the criteria on which it has based the
de minimis exemption for injected waste. This analysis will be
conducted in conjunction with revising the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for underground injected wastes, and may include additional computer
modeling used in assessing the health risks posed by Class I injection
wells. The Agency may conduct this analysis, for example, by varying
specific parameters in the modeling, such as well pump rates, total
volume of waste injected, and waste concentrations, and by altering
postulated exposure scenarios describing health risks posed by
injection of Phase III wastes. Upon conclusion, the analysis may
support the proposed de minimis criteria or may cause the Agency to
revise them in the final rule. The Agency solicits any comment on this
planned approach and any alternative suggestions.
The Agency is proposing that if a generator determines that he
meets the requirements of the de minimis exemption, that he place a
one-time notice in his files stating the % flow and concentration of
the underlying hazardous constituents, and volumetric flow of
prohibited wastestreams (i.e. streams exhibiting a characteristic at
the point of generation). The concentration of underlying hazardous
constituents would have to be determined through monitoring, and the %
flow can be determined through several methods. One method for
estimating annual average wastewater stream flow is to use the maximum
annual production capacity of the process equipment, along with
knowledge of the process and mass balance. A second method would
involve using measurements that are representative of average process
wastewater generation rates. A third method is to select the highest
flow rate of process wastewater from the historical records. Other
knowledge-based methods, which would be less expensive alternatives to
actual measurement, could also be used. EPA solicits comment on these
alternatives.

D. Point of Generation Discussion

1. Introduction
It has long been the rule that land disposal prohibitions apply at
the point hazardous wastes are generated. See e.g. 55 FR at 22652 (June
1, 1990); 261.3(a)(2)(iii). Some members of the regulated community,
including the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA), have asked EPA
to reconsider this issue in light of the Third Third rule and the D.C.
Circuit opinion interpreting that rule. See CWM v. EPA (976 F. 2d 2
D.C. Cir. 1992). Among other things, the court held that hazardous
constituents present above concentrations ``sufficient to pose a threat
to human health and the environment'' in prohibited wastes, including
characteristic wastes, must meet LDR treatment standards. See 976 F. 2d
at 16.
The regulated community has argued that continued application of
the point of generation rule could lead to situations where
prohibitions would attach to particular characteristic wastestreams and
trigger a host of potentially disproportionate consequences, without
necessarily furthering any of the protective objectives of the LDR
program. Many industrial processes consist of hundreds or thousands of
streams, some of which exhibit characteristics only for a short time or
(for batch processes) intermittently. The streams often exist within
the physical confines of an industrial process, and may be collected
within a common sump or other aggregation point. If one of the streams
should exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, the entire system
of wastewater treatment or other management could be affected if the
system contains an impoundment or injection well.
These commenters have also requested that EPA revisit the current
interpretation that prohibitions attach at the instant of generation
and that this requires in certain cases knowledge or monitoring of many
internal streams. They argue that some of these streams may not be
readily amenable to monitoring because everything within the process is
hard-piped to a common collection point. It should be noted that EPA
previously considered the practical difficulties associated with
sampling or monitoring wastes within closed-process units. See 55 FR
25760, 25765 (July 8, 1987).
The commenters have expressed concern that there are likely to be
circumstances where mass loadings of hazardous constituents to the
environment are not significantly affected by allowing initial
aggregation of residual streams from a process. They also have
expressed concern with the practical impacts and achievability of
determining the precise content of potentially thousands of internal
wastestreams within an industrial facility.
In response to these concerns raised by industry groups following
the Third Third opinion, the Agency is soliciting comment on a number
of approaches to modify the current point of generation approach for
making LDR determinations for certain types of wastes. These approaches
also could be applied more generally for purposes of subtitle C to
determine at what point a waste is generated.
2. Background
EPA has required LDR determinations to be made at the point which
hazardous wastes are generated since the Solvents and Dioxins final
rule (51 FR 40620, November 7, 1986). EPA asserted the authority to
make LDR determinations at either point of generation or point of
disposal in the Third Third final rule (55 FR 22652-53). The court
invalidated such selectivity (976 F. 2d at 23), but did hold that at
least the dilution prohibition did not have to apply to invalidate use
of CWA treatment impoundments performing RCRA-equivalent treatment. 2d.
at 23-4.
In the course of finalizing the California list rule, EPA solicited
comment on a ``point of aggregation'' approach to assessing when
prohibitions attached. (See 52 FR at 22356 (June 11, 1987) where point
of aggregation is defined as a point of common aggregation preceding
centralized wastewater treatment.) Most commenters at that time
criticized such an approach on the grounds that the ``point of
aggregation'' was by no means readily determinable and could result in
wastes being treated less or, in some cases, being diluted
impermissibly. EPA rejected the approach for these reasons. 52 FR at
25766 (July 8, 1987).
The following options, which are being presented for comment, would
narrowly redefine the point at which the land disposal prohibitions
attach.
3. Similar Streams Generated by Similar Processes
One possible revision would address situations in which like
streams are generated from like processes and combined as a matter of
routine practice. An example would be collection of rinses from
sequential [[Page 11716]] rinses in a manufacturing process, or
multiple rinses from parallel manufacturing lines all making the same
product. In these circumstances, all the rinse water could contain the
same hazardous constituents in roughly the same concentrations.
Variations in hazardous constituent concentrations would reflect normal
process variability, so that mass loadings of hazardous constituents to
the environment over time would not alter if the rinses are aggregated
and disposed. EPA seeks comment on whether or not such collection of
like streams from like units should be considered impermissible
dilution, since some in the regulated community might view it as
counter-intuitive in many cases to even consider these similar process
outputs to be separate.
4. Streams From a Single Process
Industrial facilities frequently collect residual streams from a
process in a common unit such as a sump. In many cases, these streams
are similar in composition because they all come from a common unit
process. Consequently, although some of the residual streams could
exhibit a characteristic before common collection, long-term average
mass loadings of hazardous constituents per unit of production may not
vary significantly, even though the waste concentrations may vary
within a normal range over time.
Moreover, where residues are generated within a unit process, it
might be possible to view these streams as still within the ``normal
part of the process that results in the waste'', S. Rep. No. 284, 98th
Cong. 2d sess. at 17, and consequently that any routine combination of
these streams from the common process would not be impermissible
dilution. Id. Of course, there is the possibility of abuse in any
approach that allows combination of residues. Characteristic
wastestreams not normally generated as part of the unit process could
be re-piped in order to dilute the characteristic and avoid treatment
of underlying hazardous constituents. This would remain impermissible
dilution under any of the approaches EPA is considering.
This approach differs from the ``point of aggregation'' approach
EPA rejected as part of the California List rule in that it limits the
mixing of waste streams to wastes generated within a single unit
process. In the initial ``point of accumulation'' approach, wastes from
various sources could be mixed in a sump, as long as the sump was the
first point of accumulation. This option limits the mixing to single
manufacturing steps (unit operations).
5. ``Battery Limits''
The CMA has suggested an expanded version of the option discussed
above. Instead of limiting aggregation to that normally occurring
within a single unit process, they would view an entire battery of
processes (associated with making a single product or related group of
products) as a single manufacturing step. CMA would use the logic of
the approach described in the previous section to allow all residues
generated from that sequence of processes to be combined before a
determination is made as to whether wastes are prohibited. Under CMA's
approach, determinations as to whether characteristic wastes are
prohibited could be made at this point where all of the aqueous waste
streams from a unique industrial process are aggregated (referred to by
CMA as ``battery limits''), or at a point that a stream exits the
manufacturing process unit where it is generated (``point of
rejection'').
Such aggregation could, in CMA's view, be considered to be ``part
of the normal process that results in the waste'' (S. Rep. No. 284,
98th Cong. 1st sess. 17) so that the aggregation within the industrial
process battery limits need not be considered to be impermissible
dilution. CMA believes that this approach could ease monitoring
burdens, simplify point of generation determinations, facilitate
legitimate wastewater treatment and avoid accounting for characteristic
properties and underlying hazardous constituents in intermittent
streams such as streams from batch processes, or from characteristic
streams resulting from one-time spills or other process
emergencies.^{8

\8\However, spills of commercial chemical products exhibiting a
characteristic, an example mentioned by CMA, are already not
considered to be prohibited provided amounts spilled are de minimis,
as defined at 268.1(e)(4) (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994). See
generally, CMA's submission to EPA of October 5, 1994, part of the
record for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Solicitation of Comment
The Agency solicits comment on the composition of internal residual
streams within discrete processes when one or more of the streams
exhibits a characteristic in order to determine how frequently such
streams are similar with respect to identity and concentration of
hazardous constituents. EPA also solicits comments on how difficult it
is to identify the physical boundaries of a unit process, and what
safeguards could be developed to assure that characteristic streams not
normally part of a unit process are not diluted by re-piping and
combination with unrelated streams.
The Agency seeks comment on potential difficulties with all three
options, but mostly the third option. Namely, the various limits do not
seem to be graphically self-defining, and, hence, could be difficult to
implement. The Agency is also concerned about the possibility of
impermissible dilution of non-de minimis characteristic wastewater
streams whenever large numbers and volumes of wastewaters are brought
together and characteristics are eliminated without hazardous
constituents being removed or destroyed.
7. Situations Where Existing Point of Generation Determinations May
Remain Appropriate
a. Listed Wastes. In considering the above approaches, as well as
others, it could be argued that any modification to the point of LDR
determination should apply only to characteristic wastes and F001-F005
(spent solvents) listed wastes. In evaluating wastes from other sources
for listing (including other ``F'' series wastes), EPA has carefully
evaluated the various waste streams and has defined the point of
generation as part of the listing description. Therefore, it may be
inappropriate to modify that description with a more generic point of
prohibition rule. EPA solicit comment on this issue.
b. Prohibited Wastes Whose Treatment Standard is a Method of
Treatment. Section 261.3(b) states that characteristic wastes whose
treatment standard is a specified method of treatment may not be
diluted to remove the characteristic in lieu of performing the
specified method of treatment. Principal examples of such wastes are
high TOC ignitable wastes, characteristic pesticide wastes, and certain
characteristic mercury wastes. 55 FR at 22657. EPA indicated that these
wastes are not typically amenable to adequate treatment by means other
than the designated treatment methods,^{9 so that aggregation to
remove the characteristic is impermissible dilution unless treatment by
the required method follows. Id.

\9\De minimis losses of the discarded commercial chemical
product form of these wastes are not considered to be prohibited. 40
CFR 268.1(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's initial view is that these wastestreams should remain
prohibited at the current point of generation. The Agency has made a
considered decision that these wastes require a particular type of
treatment, and the wastestreams themselves are clearly delineated. 55
FR at 22657. In addition, the treatment [[Page 11717]] methods for a
number of these wastes (including high TOC ignitable wastes and
characteristic mercury wastes) include or require resource recovery,
another reason to ensure that this type of treatment continues to
occur. Steel Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 27 F. 3d 642, 647 (D.C.
Cir. 1994). EPA solicits comment as to whether any alteration of the
point at which LDRs attach to these wastes should be reconsidered.
8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules
The Agency believes that narrowly redefining the point at which
wastes are subject to RCRA regulation should be considered because of
industry's concerns with the impact this approach is having on the
program currently and what potential impact it may have in the future.
Strict interpretation of the current point of generation has already
raised questions with respect to the status of a variety of similar
wastes that sometimes exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic and
are routinely mixed (e.g., spent antifreeze from automobiles, boiler
cleanout wastes, emission control residues). This issue may become even
more important in the future as EPA adopts exit levels which may be
established by the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule.
While absolute clarity of the applicability of RCRA may result from
the current point of generation requirement, industry commenters feel
that it could be magnified in the future by this and other rulemakings.
In considering these concerns, EPA does not wish to undermine the
effort to segregate the most concentrated wastes for source reduction
or treatment. EPA solicits comment on whether any of the approaches
described achieves the proper balance among these goals.

V. Discussion of the Potential Prohibition of Nonamenable Wastes From
Land-Based Biological Treatment Systems

This section solicits comment on two regulatory frameworks received
from industry and from treaters of hazardous wastes concerning
refractory underlying hazardous constituents in land-based biological
treatment systems. First, the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
submitted comments to the Agency on EPA's March, 1993 Supplemental
Information Report on potential responses to CWM v. EPA. The ETC raised
concern as to whether the constituents from these decharacterized
wastes when placed into biological impoundments are merely being
diluted and discharged; volatilized from the surface of the
impoundment; or simply end up concentrating in the sludge at the bottom
of the impoundment. The ETC labeled these constituents whose primary
fate is air or sludge (or discharge without treatment) via one of these
paths as ``nonamenable to biotreatment.'' The comment suggested several
criteria for determining whether process streams with ``nonamenable''
constituents should be kept out of surface impoundments.
Secondly, CMA provided EPA with similar recommendations in August
1993. This section also considers CMA's suggestions for managing
refractory chemicals in land-based biological treatment units.

A. Technical Overview

Many ``decharacterized'' wastes (i.e., wastes that were formerly
hazardous wastes due to their ignitable, corrosive or reactive
properties as generated but which no longer exhibit a characteristic by
the time they are land disposed) are placed in Subtitle D surface
impoundments for the purpose of biological treatment. In theory,
microorganisms in the impoundment can degrade organic constituents in
these wastes (under aerobic and/or anaerobic conditions) to carbon
dioxide and water.
The ETC comment suggested that EPA identify and prohibit wastes
containing these ``nonamenable'' constituents from biological treatment
impoundments. The issue facing EPA is whether there are wastes for
which biological treatment is not BDAT either because biological
treatment cannot adequately reduce hazardous constituents or because
biological treatment simply transfers hazardous constituents to other
media, and, if so, whether an alternative regulatory scheme is
appropriate. While the LDR Phase IV rule will specifically address the
concerns with respect to sludges, leaks and air emissions, EPA has
committed to raising certain technical issues concerning
``nonamenability'' in the LDR Phase III proposed rule and has also
committed to discuss the suggested regulatory resolutions submitted by
both the ETC and the CMA, who also submitted comments pertaining to
this issue.
What follows is EPA's interpretation of the fundamental concerns
which fostered this option, a discussion of the technical issues
inherent to this approach and an identification of alternative
approaches to address these underlying concerns. The issue of whether
RCRA can require segregation of refractory hazardous wastes streams
entering land-based surface impoundments is closely connected to the
Agency's approach to sludges, leaks and air emissions in the LDR Phase
IV rule. The Agency is therefore delaying any final action on the
components of the ETC comments, or on the CMA suggestions, until LDR
Phase IV when more comprehensive decisions can be made on each issue.

B. Summary of the ETC's Position

The full text of the ETC's comments can be found in the
administrative record for today's rule. This section summarizes that
document.
The ETC asserts that ``Hazardous constituents in ICR wastes that
are not amenable to the biological or sedimentation systems used in CWA
lagoons are not receiving RCRA-equivalent treatment.'' They then
propose a definition of ``nonamenable waste streams'' and suggest a
regulatory scheme for keeping these streams out of surface
impoundments.
In particular, the ETC recommends that EPA should establish
treatment standards for ICR wastes that require destruction and removal
of hazardous constituents in the waste as generated, and allow only
those ICR wastes that contain hazardous constituents for which
biological treatment is the best method to be managed in nonhazardous
waste surface impoundments. They provide lists of individual
constituents and constituent categories that should be segregated and
restricted from biological units. These include the following
individual chemicals: mercury, vanadium, chromium, cadmium, lead, and/
or nickel, or the following groups of chemicals: aromatic compounds;
acrylates, phenolics, and highly oxidized constituents such as
phthalates, aldehydes, and ketones; nitrosamines, amines,
nitrophenolics, and aniline compounds and most chlorinated and
brominated organic constituents. ETC also recommends segregating the
following categories of waste: Highly volatile and non-water-soluble
constituents, because of the likelihood of air emissions during
biological treatment; and the acutely toxic P-listed wastes, because
they are poisonous to the biological treatment system. The ETC
explicitly recommends the following criterion for designating a waste
stream ``amenable to biological treatment'': the waste must contain
less than 1% solids, must be free of oil and grease, and must contain
less than 10 ppm total heavy metals.
ETC then defines ``ICR waste streams not amenable to biological
treatment'' as: ICR wastes with constituents (from the groups listed
above) at individual concentrations greater than 100 x F039 wastewater
treatment standards; and ICR wastes with ``water insoluble and
[[Page 11718]] highly volatile'' F039 constituents ``that are more
likely to be released to air and not treated. (ETC did not indicate at
what point these concentrations should be measured, although they did
suggest that wastes should be segregated at ``battery limits''.)
The ETC believes that such ``nonamenable'' wastes should either be
required to undergo pretreatment prior to aggregation with other
wastewaters (e.g., steam stripping of volatile compounds), or be
required to go to other appropriate treatment (e.g., precipitation of
metals). The ETC argues that such segregation of nonamenable wastes
will promote pollution prevention because companies will have an
incentive to modify raw materials or production processes to keep such
hazardous constituents out of the waste stream.

C. Summary of the CMA's Position

The full text of CMA's comments can be found in the administrative
record for today's rule. This section summarizes that document. CMA
describes ``three situations in which characteristically corrosive or
ignitable hazardous wastes could be sent to biological treatment in
surface impoundments without jeopardizing the treatment units
effectiveness by introducing non-amenable compounds''. CMA implicitly
requests that the LDR Phase III rule allow CWA-permitted biological
treatment in the following three situations:
(a) When the stream to the impoundment only contains hazardous
constituents amenable to biological treatment (listed below);
(b) When the stream contains hazardous constituents amenable to
biological treatment plus other (nonamenable) constituents present at
concentrations equal to some multiple (e.g., 1000) of the F039/UTS
treatment standards in the influent to the surface impoundment; or,
(c) The facility can demonstrate on a case-by-case basis that a
nonamenable hazardous constituent is amenable to treatment occurring in
the treatment system.
CMA identifies most of the organic UTS constituents as ``amenable
to biological treatment''. This includes all the constituents for which
biological treatment is the basis of the F039 wastewater treatment
standards plus a number of organic constituents generally recognized in
the literature as biodegradable.
The BDAT List constituents not designated by CMA as ``amenable to
biological treatment are: all UTS metals, fluoride, sulfide and the
volatile and semivolatile organics in the table that follows.

Nonamenable Volatile Organics

Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Ethylene oxide
Iodomethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride

Nonamenable Semivolatile Organics

Benzal chloride
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
1,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Isosafrole
Methapyriline
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Phenacetin
Pronamide
Safrole
Methoxychlor

D. Summary of EPA's Preliminary Response to CMA's and ETC's Technical
Concerns

EPA presents its preliminary evaluation of three major issues that
are raised by both CMA's and ETC's suggestions: the question of feed
limits for land-based biological treatment units; behavior of
nonamenable constituents in land-based biological treatment units and
constituent-specific solubility and toxicity questions.
1. Feed Limits
The CMA and ETC approaches both suggest constituent-specific
limitations of decharacterized ICR waste streams entering surface
impoundments to ensure that certain toxic constituents do not bypass
treatment by volatilizing into the atmosphere, by adsorbing permanently
onto sludge sediments at the bottom of the impoundment or by inhibiting
biodegradation processes in the impoundment. The Agency agrees that all
three of these mechanisms can hinder treatment.
While many aspects of both the ETC and CMA positions have technical
and regulatory merit, there appear to be fundamental technical
disagreements that need to be resolved. First and primary is the fact
that ETC and CMA differ on which constituents (and chemical families of
constituents) are ``amenable'' or ``nonamenable'' to treatment. Second,
proposing regulations requiring segregation of streams entering
impoundments would raise the following issues:
(a) Surface impoundments have traditionally provided an engineering
advantage--in addition to low energy, maintenance and construction
costs--in that, they offer a means of ``equilibrating'' and
``equalizing'' the relatively frequent variations in chemical
compositions of process wastes (i.e., aggregated waste streams). As
such, they receive variable wastes in their capacity as large-volume
holding units for process upset streams, stormwaters, spill washdown
and other unscheduled wastewater releases. Segregation of these various
streams would require construction of holding tanks that may not be
able to provide the same equalization capability of an impoundment;
(b) Mandatory analyses and separation may impose considerable added
expense; and,
(c) EPA, in some cases, assumed that impoundments would be used for
these purposes by not including the costs of impoundment replacement
when developing effluent guidelines for affected industries.
2. Technical Concern
In theory, EPA agrees that certain RCRA waste streams should be
kept out of certain types of Subtitle D impoundments. (Listed wastes
already must go to Subtitle C impoundments, and High TOC D001
ignitables, as well as high mercury wastes, are also restricted from
Subtitle D impoundments.) In addition, in 55 FR at 22666 (June 1,
1990), EPA presented general criteria that could affect amenable/
nonamenable determinations. All parties seem to agree that certain
metal-bearing wastes could also be restricted from impoundments.
However, there are additional factors that need to be considered, such
as impoundment size, depth, temperature, and retention time. (An
individual [[Page 11719]] organic compound is more treatable in some
systems than in others and without information about the extent to
which the lagoon supports aerobic and anaerobic processes we cannot
assess how treatable these constituents are.)
In addition, the overall composition of each waste--i.e. the entire
matrix--must be considered in order to characterize its relative
amenability to biological treatment. In particular, waste composition
can enhance or inhibit a particular organic compound's amenability to
biological destruction. Enhancement occurs, for example, if
microorganisms can use one compound as a co-metabolite or co-substrate
in metabolizing another. A feature story on biological treatment in the
February 1993 issue of Environmental Science and Technology reports ``*
* * highly chlorinated compounds such as trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and chloroform will transform under aerobic conditions
if methane, phenol or toluene is provided as a primary source of carbon
and energy for biological growth. However, these reactions are co-
metabolic * * *. Therefore it is important to define exact conditions
when discussing biodegradation results.'' Inhibition occurs when one
compound poisons the metabolic pathway by which another compound is
otherwise degraded. The degree to which the microbial population in the
impoundment has been acclimated to a particular constituent is a
significant factor in determining that constituent's amenability.
Acclimation determines the balance between inhibition and enhancement
and is a factor to be defined in discussing biodegradation results.
The fact that ``consortia'' of microorganisms, rather than members
of a single bacterial strain, accomplish the degradation of complex
molecules further complicates the extent to which a compound can
accurately be labeled ``amenable'' (Rittman and Saez in Levin and Gealt
Biological Treatment of Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, 1993, McGraw-
Hill, New York). The presence of different microorganisms in a
consortium increases the number of compounds that can be degraded in
that impoundment by virtue of the wider array of metabolic degradation
pathways present. However, the various microbial species may require a
narrower range of pH, dissolved oxygen and other parameters in order to
function and may therefore be more liable to collapse and fail than a
simpler more robust microbial strain.
Some of the technical issues that are likely to arise include:
(a) Biotreatment systems vary. Constituents that are amenable to
treatment in one system may be nonamenable in another, thus an accurate
determination of what is a nonamenable waste might have to consider
site-by-site factors, which would present considerable problems in the
implementation of the program. If EPA set up a more generic approach,
other problems are likely to occur, as described below.
(b) The ETC uses the term ``battery limits'' to describe where
nonamenable ICR wastes should be segregated. This term, however, is
undefined and could represent the point where the wastestream leaves
the production equipment, or a variety of aggregation points.
(c) What levels of constituents justify requiring segregation and
recovery?
(d) If EPA required segregation of nonamenable wastes from
biological treatment impoundments, there is a very good possibility
that facilities would merely replace the surface impoundments with RCRA
exempt tanks. Biological treatment in tanks could have the same air
emissions unless they are properly controlled.
With respect to specific hazardous organic constituents, EPA is
currently investigating whether the BDAT list of compounds could be
ordinally ranked into a series of compounds more or less amenable to
biological treatment, based on published treatability data.
``Amenability'' is a continuous variable. Treatability data shows that
some compounds are more amenable to biological degradation than are
other compounds: there are no organic chemicals, other than polymers,
which are absolutely resistant to biological degradation.
Due to the technical problems associated with determining which
wastestreams should be kept out of certain impoundment lagoons, and the
policy concerns raised by these approaches, we are setting out these
issues for comment in this proposed rule.
3. Constituent Properties of Concern
The following three items are criteria ETC suggests in addition to
individual constituent concentrations. EPA invites comments on means of
managing these waste properties.
a. Water solubility. EPA does not share ETC's concern that less
soluble compounds are significantly less amenable to biological
treatment than relatively hydrophilic compounds. For example, PCB's are
virtually insoluble; nevertheless the literature documents cases where
PCB's have been successfully degraded to hydrochloric acid, carbon
dioxide and water.
b. TC Metals. EPA believes the LDR Phase IV limitations on land
disposal of wastes that meet the definition of toxicity based on their
metals concentration will address ETC's and CMA's concerns about the
inadequacy of surface impoundments for metal treatment.
c. Toxicity. EPA solicits comments on the suggestion that P-waste
constituents be managed as particularly toxic and thus likely to poison
metabolic pathways in the degradation process. EPA further solicits
comment on additional constituents or categories of constituents that
are likely to be acutely toxic to biological treatment processes,
rather than merely resistant to biological treatment.
The target mass removal approach described earlier in this preamble
can be applied to biological treatment units to determine whether
constituents managed in the units are being effectively degraded. The
application of this approach could address the question of wastes
nonamenable to biotreatment. The target mass removal approach requires
a waste determination prior to the waste entering the treatment unit,
and either (1) a waste determination after treatment in the unit, or
(2) a determination of the operating efficiency of the treatment unit.
This approach has been applied to biotreatment units for at least two
promulgated standards that regulate hazardous organic chemicals: the
HON and the Subpart CC air rules. Comments are solicited on the
approach to address the nonamenable waste concerns.

F. Additional Issues

In addition to the issues raised in the section ``Summary of EPA's
Preliminary Response'' above, there are other technical issues arising
in developing a list of UTS constituents that are not amenable to
biological treatment. Another issue concerns those UTS constituents for
which biological treatment is BDAT: could a wastestream containing such
constituents have such a high concentration of other compounds known to
be refractory to biological treatment that biotreatment no longer
effectively treats the constituents? A third issue considered here is
the extent to which ``nonamenable'' constituents evade treatment by
volatilizing into the air or by adsorbing onto sludge, in addition to
flowing out untreated in effluent.
1. List of Hazardous Constituents
In order to ensure that all the constituents in a decharacterized
waste [[Page 11720]] are adequately addressed, the starting point
should not be the BDAT list but rather the entire list of U and P,
appendix VIII, and other toxic chemicals present in the hazardous waste
universe. The next LDR rulemaking (``Phase IV'') will discuss the
universe of hazardous constituents regulated by RCRA (i.e., a composite
of the above lists) and may propose which constituents from the
composite list are considered ``nonamenable'' or ``amenable''. Today's
preamble, however, raises general issues associated with
``amenability'' in order to solicit comments on specific questions.
These questions will be addressed in LDR Phase IV. For example, the
Phase IV proposed rule may include a discussion of quantification
problems and the use of surrogate parameters such as BOD/COD/TOC ratios
to assist in measuring performance where analytical methods do not
exist.
2. Biotreatment as BDAT
EPA has already promulgated biodegradation (BIODG) as a specified
method of treatment for quite a few U and P waste codes that fall under
the category that ETC has asked to be classified as ``nonamenable''.
(For example, nitrosamines easily break down in water to nitroamines.
Nitrogen-containing organics can typically be biodegraded. Most
microorganisms flourish in the presence of nitrogen containing
chemicals.) EPA has also established numerical standards for many
chemicals based on biotreatment data. EPA is including all of the
chemicals in both of these cases in this proposed rule and is asking
for comment on them and seeking data that would refute or support that
biotreatment is BDAT for these chemicals.
3. Toxics Along for the Ride
EPA intends that the Phase IV proposed rule will expand the
discussion on the concept of ``toxics along for the ride'' in
biotreatment (i.e., concern about how best to regulate those toxic
compounds that are not degraded to less toxic compounds and
consequently pass untreated through the unit and on to land disposal).
While the concept is environmentally attractive, in order to create a
regulatory construct prohibiting such constituents from biotreatment,
the Agency must consider the following constituent-specific factors:
(a) Is the elemental composition of the chemical such that it is
truly not ``amenable to biotreatment'' such as for metals?
(b) Does a low rate of hydrolysis indicate low biodegradability?
(c) Does high volatility necessarily indicate low biodegradability?
(d) What retention time is required for biodegradation?
(e) Is the biological system responsible for degradation of the
compound sensitive to upsets in either the chemistry of the impoundment
or its biocomposition?
(f) Is the bioactivity considered ``aggressive''?
(g) Is the constituent actually chemically treated in the
impoundment?
(h) Will the constituent encounter treatment after the impoundment?
(i) Is the waste containing the constituent difficult to segregate
from other wastes?
(j) Does the chemical occur naturally in the surrounding soil or
water?
(k) Is the chemical already present in the sludge and could then be
released by the sludge even though the influent is reduced?
(l) Is the chemical present in other nonhazardous waste that are
commingled with the decharacterized wastes?
(m) Is the chemical generated at concentrations below that which is
considered neither a chronic nor an acute health risk?
(n) Is there an ecological risk from the inorganic composition of
the waste such as the high salinity (dissolved solids) of most D002
wastes?
(o) Is the chemical a surprise presence from the use of some
product that contains trace levels that couldn't be measured when the
product was used (below product specifications)?
(p) Is the chemical appearing due to corrosion of pipes and
equipment?

G. Treatment Standard for Wastes With a High Concentration of Organics

In the Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA
finalized regulations prohibiting the disposal in Class I nonhazardous
waste injection wells ignitable characteristic wastes with a high total
organic carbon (TOC) content and toxic characteristic pesticide wastes,
unless either the well is subject to a no-migration determination, or
the wastes are treated by the designated the LDR treatment method. The
treatment method promulgated was either combustion (i.e. incineration
or fuel substitution) or recovery of organics. Today the Agency is
raising the option of proposing the same treatment standard for
characteristic wastes with high concentrations of organics managed in
surface impoundments. This would result in a prohibition of these
wastes going into biological impoundments.
The Agency requests comment on this option, including the question
of how to define ``high'' levels of organics that would justify
prohibition from surface impoundments. The Agency believes this option
provides many of the benefits of segregation of refractory
``nonamenable'' streams with significantly lower analytical
requirements.

VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes

A. Carbamates

Hazardous Wastes from Specific Sources (K Waste Codes)

K156--Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms, light
ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from the production
of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
K157--Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters,
washwaters, and separation waters) from the production of carbamates
and carbamoyl oximes.
K158--Bag house dust, and filter/separation solids from the
production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
K159--Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.
K160--Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and spent
catalysts) from the production of thiocarbamates and solids from the
treatment of thiocarbonate wastes.
K161--Purification solids (including filtration, evaporation, and
centrifugation solids), baghouse dust, and floor sweepings from the
production of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts. (This listing
does not include K125 or K126.)

Acute Hazardous Wastes (P Waste Codes)

P203 Aldicarb sulfone
P127 Carbofuran
P189 Carbosulfan
P202 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
P191 Dimetilan
P198 Formetanate hydrochloride
P197 Formparanate
P192 Isolan
P196 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate
P199 Methiocarb
P190 Metolcarb
P128 Mexacarbate
P194 Oxamyl
P204 Physostigmine
P188 Physostigmine salicylate
P201 Promecarb
P185 Tirpate
P205 Ziram

Toxic Hazardous Wastes

U394 A2213
U280 Barban
U278 Bendiocarb
U364 Bendiocarb phenol
U271 Benomyl
U400 Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram tetrasulfide [[Page 11721]]
U392 Butylate
U279 Carbaryl
U372 Carbendazim
U367 Carbofuran phenol
U393 Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate
U386 Cycloate
U366 Dazomet
U395 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
U403 Disulfiram
U390 EPTC
U407 Ethyl Ziram
U396 Ferbam
U375 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
U384 Metam Sodium
U365 Molinate
U391 Pebulate
U383 Potassium dimethyl dithiocarbamate
U378 Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-n-methyldithiocarbamate
U377 Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate
U373 Propham
U411 Propoxur
U387 Prosulfocarb
U376 Selenium, tetrakis (dimethyldithiocarbamate)
U379 Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate
U381 Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate
U382 Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
U277 Sulfallate
U402 Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide
U401 Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide
U410 Thiodicarb
U409 Thiophanate-methyl
U389 Triallate
U404 Triethylamine
U385 Vernolate

For background information on waste characterization data, data
gathering efforts, and applicable technologies, see the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Newly
Listed or Identified Wastes from the Production of Carbamates and
Organobromines.
1. Proposed Treatment Standards
The Agency has promulgated the listing of the wastes from the
carbamate industry specified above. The final listing was signed by the
administrator on January 31, 1995, and published in the Federal
Register on February 9, 1995. EPA is today proposing concentration-
based treatment standards for these wastes. The concentration limits
for the regulated constituents are based on both existing and newly
proposed UTS (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994). UTS standards have
already been promulgated for 21 of the constituents of concern for
these waste codes (16 organic constituents and 5 metals). These
standards were promulgated in the LDR Phase II final rule and are based
on the following technologies: (1) Incineration was the primary basis
for organic constituents in nonwastewaters; (2) biological treatment or
carbon absorption was the basis for organics in wastewaters; (3) high
temperature metal recovery and stabilization were the basis for metals
in nonwastewaters; and (4) chemical precipitation was the basis for
metals in wastewaters. These treatment standards were developed by
examining essentially all the BDAT treatment data the Agency had at the
time.
The Agency is proposing new UTS for 42 constituents associated with
carbamate wastes. 40 of these constituents are chemicals produced by
this industry which may be grouped into the following categories:
carbamates and carbamate intermediates, carbamoyl oximes,
thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates. Please refer to the Background
Document for definitions of these chemical groups and the
categorization of these 40 chemicals. The other 2 constituents for
which new UTS are being proposed (triethylamine, and o-phenylene
diamine) are not carbamate products, but are hazardous constituents
present at levels of regulatory concern in carbamate wastes. Note that
although specific dithiocarbamate chemicals have been added to Appendix
VII and VIII, the basis for listing K161, and the waste descriptions of
P196, P205, U277, U366, U376-379, U381-384, U393, U396, U400-U403, and
U407, the regulated constituent for these chemicals and codes is
specified as ``Dithiocarbamates (total)'', because the analytical
method for dithiocarbamates does not distinguish among specific
dithiocarbamate constituents.
The Agency is proposing to base the UTS for the carbamate,
carbamate intermediate, carbamoyl oxime, dithiocarbamate, and
thiocarbamate constituents in wastewaters on data developed by the
Office of Water for the development of effluent guidelines, and data
from treatability studies performed by RREL. Wastewater standards for
carbamate and carbamoyl oxime constituents are based on data from
alkaline hydrolysis, with the exception of thiodicarb which is based on
biological treatment. Wastewater standards for thiocarbamates are based
on GAC adsorption, while wastewater standards for dithiocarbamates are
based on ozone/UV light oxidation. In cases where data were not
available for a specific constituent, the standard has been transferred
from the constituent with the most similar chemical structure and
properties.
The Agency is proposing to base the UTS for the carbamate,
carbamate intermediate, carbamoyl oxime, thiocarbamate, and
dithiocarbamate constituents in nonwastewaters on analytical detection
limits compiled from sampling and analysis reports prepared to support
the proposed listing for these wastes. Although data from the treatment
of these constituents in nonwastewater matrices is not currently
available, the thermal destruction technologies currently employed to
treat these nonwastewaters can routinely achieve destruction to levels
below the detection limit.
In addition, the Agency is proposing UTS standards for
triethylamine based on data transferred from the treatment of
methapyrilene. The treatment standards for methapyrilene are 0.081 mg/l
for wastewaters and 1.5 mg/kg for nonwastewaters. Methapyrilene was
selected as the basis for this data transfer because it is the only
tertiary amine for which UTS standards have been promulgated.
Finally, the Agency is proposing UTS standards for o-
phenylenediamine based on analytical detection limits compiled from
sampling and analysis reports prepared to support the proposed listing
for these wastes. For the treatment standards being proposed today for
waste codes K156-161, P127, P128, P185, P188-192, P194, P196-199, P201-
205, U271, U277, U279, U280, U364-367, U372, U373, U375-379, U381-387,
U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411, see Sec. 268.40 table--Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes in the proposed amendments to the
regulatory language.
2. Request for Comments
In the LDR Phase II rule establishing UTS, the Agency was able to
make modifications to the proposal, where commenters submitted data.
The Agency strongly encourages parties affected by these proposed
standards to submit any available treatment data for these newly
regulated constituents; if such data become available, the Agency will
make appropriate adjustments to these proposed standards. The Agency is
soliciting comments, technical descriptions, and performance data
regarding the characterization and treatability of these wastes and the
achievability of these proposed standards. EPA is especially interested
in any information regarding the feasibility of product recovery for
these wastes, any available treatment data for the new constituents
being added to the list of UTS, detection limits for these constituents
in treatment residues, and suggestions for specified methods which
could be alternatives to the concentration based standards proposed
today.
Because standards for organics are based on treatment of organic
constituents to non-detect levels, EPA solicits comment on the use of
constituent specific detection levels used during the testing of these
wastes for purposes of the listing [[Page 11722]] determination. The
Agency recognizes that there may be differences between detection
limits prior to and after treatment. Detection levels may be lowered
for these wastes after treatment due to the ``cleaner'' matrix. This
data has been placed in the docket for today's proposed rule.

B. Organobromines

K140--Waste solids and filter cartridges from the production of
2,4,6-tribromophenol.
U408--2,4,6-Tribromophenol

For further information on waste characterization data, data
gathering efforts, and applicable technologies, see the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Newly
Listed or Identified Wastes from the Production of Carbamates and
Organobromines.
1. Proposed Treatment Standards for Organobromine Wastes
EPA proposed to add 2,4,6-Tribromophenol to Appendix VIII of Part
261 on May 11, 1994, and is today proposing to add this constituent to
the list of UTS in 40 CFR 268.48. The decision to add 2,4,6-
tribromophenol to appendix VIII was based on the determination that the
toxicities of this chemical and its chlorinated analogue, 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol, are essentially the same, due to the Quantitative
Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) between these two compounds.
Since treatment data is not currently available on 2,4,6-
tribromophenol, the Agency is proposing to set the UTS for 2,4,6-
tribromophenol based on data transferred from the treatment of 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol. The structures of 2,4,6-tribromophenol and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are sufficiently similar to be considered halogenated
congeners of phenol. Both halogenated phenols contain three
symmetrically placed bromine or chlorine substituents which are
difficult to remove by chemical substitution. The chemical behavior and
mechanisms of action for 2,4,6-tribromophenol is expected to be similar
to its chlorinated analogue, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Thus, the Agency is
proposing UTS standards of 7.4 mg/kg for nonwastewaters and 0.035 mg/l
for wastewaters for 2,4,6-tribromophenol.
The Agency is soliciting comment regarding the achievability of
this standard by demonstrated available technologies and regarding the
analytical detection limit of 2,4,6-tribromophenol in treatment
residual matrices. The Agency is also soliciting any available data on
the concentrations 2,4,6-tribromophenol in treatment residuals from the
recovery or destruction of wastes containing 2,4,6-tribromophenol. The
analytical method for 2,4,6-Tribromophenol is SW846 method 8270 (GC/MS
for semivolatiles, capillary column).
2. Applicable Technology
The lone facility which produces 2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes uses a
Bromine Recovery Unit (BRU) to recover bromine values from organic
liquid and vapor waste streams. In this unit, the organics are burned
and the combustion products are removed by a wet scrubber. The BRU is a
halogen acid furnace which meets the regulatory definition of
industrial furnace in 40 CFR 260.10. The combustion of hazardous waste
in industrial furnaces is regulated under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H,
which regulates air emissions from these units and requires monitoring
and analyses. The facility which produces 2,4,6-tribromophenol burns
listed spent solvents and still bottoms in this BRU; therefore, it is
already subject to the performance standards of part 266, subpart H.
Treatment of 2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes in the BRU should be effective
in destroying the phenolic component of 2,4,6-tribromophenol and
providing for recovery of bromine. Based on available information, EPA
proposes that treatment by BRU is BDAT for 2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes.
EPA solicits comment on this assertion and on the potential
applicability of other technologies which destroy 2,4,6-tribromophenol
and provide recovery of bromine.

C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)

K088--Spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction.

For background information on waste characterization, see the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology Background Document (BDAT) for Newly
Listed or Identified Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.
1. Possible Determination of Inherently Waste-Like
Certain current and potential K088 management methods have features
of both recycling and conventional treatment. For example, there are a
number of management methods involving some type of combustion process
that produce a treatment residue from which resources may be recovered
and reused. These management methods either destroy or drive off
cyanides and toxic organics. Nevertheless, the technologies may useful
alternative management methods for K088 if valuable resources are
recovered. The Agency has a long-standing preference for recovery over
simple treatment. This position is based on the preference in RCRA for
environmentally protective recovery versus waste treatment. Any
consideration of relative safety must include not just the recovery
step, but transport and storage preceding recovery, and proper
management of all residues from recovery. RCRA section 1003(a)(6) as
well as S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17.
EPA is considering how best to balance the potential promise of
spent potliner recovery technologies with their similarities to
conventional treatment technologies, especially with respect to the
fate of (and risks generated by) hazardous constituents present in the
waste. The Agency would prefer to provide consistent regulatory
requirements for these recovery as well as for conventional treatment
technologies in order to ensure both safe recovery and treatment.
However, the existing regulatory framework may make it difficult to
achieve this objective. For example, many of these recovery
technologies already could be subject to the existing regulations for
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste (the so-called BIF
rules).^{10 See 56 FR at 7142 (Feb. 21, 1991); 50 FR at 49171-174
(Nov. 29, 1985).

\10\ Because the Agency is not fully aware of all of the details
of some of the projected potliner treatment/recovery technologies,
we cannot state at this time whether the technologies will meet the
regulatory definition of an industrial furnace. It should be noted
that processes recovering both energy and material values from a
waste are subject to BIF rules, and energy recovery in an industrial
furnace need not involve any export of energy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For K088 recovery technologies subject to BIF regulations, only
those facilities in existence on the effective date of the BIF rules
(August 21, 1991) could operate without first obtaining a permit. This
could create a significant barrier to commercial operation of the
technology in the near term. If, however, these units operate in a
manner that does not subject them to the BIF regulations, then it is
possible that they could operate with little or no oversight under
RCRA.
The regulatory classification of residues as hazardous or
nonhazardous wastes is another area where there would be dissimilar
requirements under current rules. For example, one company has obtained
from EPA a delisting determination that residues from their
conventional treatment process are at levels low enough to no longer be
classified as listed hazardous wastes. Other companies have not
obtained such determinations, even though they potentially could treat
spent potliners to delisting levels. As a result, these companies face
the cost [[Page 11723]] and time of seeking a delisting petition, or
the cost disadvantage of disposal of all residuals as hazardous waste.
Because of the similarities in risks, EPA is soliciting comment on
whether there are ways to subject all of these technologies to the
same, or nearly the same, regulatory requirements, while assuring that
the ultimate goals of protecting human health and the environment are
not compromised. The Agency has discussed with aluminum industry
representatives the possibility of achieving this objective by
designating spent aluminum potliners as inherently waste-like materials
pursuant to 261.2(d),^{11 and using this designation as a triggering
event for a determination of ``substantial confusion'' pursuant to
270.10(e)(2), which could establish a date for eligibility for interim
status after August 21, 1991. See generally 56 FR at 7142 making this
type of designation and finding of ``substantial confusion'' for
halogen acid furnaces. The Agency solicits comment on this possibility.
The benefit of this approach would be to guarantee that these
technologies all would be subject to a minimum level of RCRA oversight,
especially with respect to design of storage equipment, control of air
emissions from the process, minimum treatment standards for residuals,
and mandatory corrective action in response to releases of hazardous
constituents to the environment.

\11\ The basis for such a designation would be that spent
potliners contain cyanides and polyaromatic hydrocarbons which are
destroyed rather than recycled, even by recovery technologies. These
hazardous constituents are present in concentrations not ordinarily
found in raw materials or products for which the spent potliners
would be substituting, and the spent potliners could pose a
substantial hazard to human health and the environment when
recycled. The combustion process itself, for example, would seem to
pose all of the risks the BIF rule is intended to address. Past
storage practices for spent potliners also have led to significant
environmental damage (although much of this storage utilized open
piles).
A designation of inherently waste-like, incidentally, would only
apply to the potliners and not to legitimate products obtained by
processing the potliner (so long as those products were not burned
as fuels or used directly on the land). 56 FR at 7141. Another
option, therefore, would be to designate the use of K088 in certain
types of recycling (e.g., all processes involving thermal
destruction of cyanide, processes that incorporate cyanide/PAHs into
product unchanged) as inherently waste-like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to mitigate some of the potential delay and costs in
complying with RCRA, EPA also requests comment on the feasibility of
establishing uniform delisting levels for residues from processing
spent potliners, much as it did for residues from processing K061
wastes in high temperature metal recovery furnaces. Under this
approach, we believe, levels would need to be established for organics,
metals, cyanide and fluoride.
Another possibility for assuring safe processing of the potliners
would be to develop air emission standards for the processing units
pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. This alternative would
have to be implemented in such a way as to assure proper management of
the potliners before processing, and satisfactory treatment and
management of residues from the processing. EPA solicits comment on all
of these issues.
EPA wishes to add that its Region 10 office and the Washington
State Department of Ecology have already evaluated the spent potliner
recovery process used by one vender (Enviroscience). Washington State
determined that it is an excluded recycling process, and EPA Region 10
determined that the process is not required to meet emission standards
for BIFs, provided the process is conducted pursuant to certain
conditions.\12\ In light of the existing industry reliance on this
determination, any decision made regarding designation of spent
potliners in this rulemaking would not change the specific decisions
concerning the Enviroscience process that have been completed to date.

\12\These evaluations were conducted at the express, voluntary
request of Enviroscience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Overview of Today's Proposal
EPA is proposing treatment standards for K088 expressed as the
maximum concentration of specific constituents that would be allowed
for land disposal. The tables at the end of this section summarize the
constituents proposed for regulation and the maximum allowable
concentrations. These maximum concentrations are the UTS for metals,
cyanides, and other organics that were developed in the LDR Phase II
final rule. These standards are based on a variety of technologies as
follows: (1) Alkaline chlorination was the basis for the cyanide
wastewater standards; (2) alkaline chlorination of the wastewater to
destroy the cyanide prior to the generation of the nonwastewater
residual was the basis for the cyanide nonwastewater standard; (3)
incineration was the primary basis for other organic constituents in
nonwastewaters; (4) biological treatment or carbon absorption was the
basis for organics in wastewaters; (5) high temperature metal recovery
and stabilization were the basis for metals in nonwastewaters; (6)
chemical precipitation was the basis for fluorides and metals in
wastewaters; and (7) immobilization through either vitrification or the
addition of calcium as a stabilization reagent was the basis for
fluorides in nonwastewaters.
These treatment standards were developed by examining essentially
all the BDAT treatment data the Agency had at the time. The Agency is
also proposing new nonwastewater treatment standards based on leachate
tests for fluoride. The leach tests must be conducted using the TCLP
(SW-846 Method 1311 as described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II).
These leach standards were developed by the Agency when granting a
delisting for certain K088 wastes. The treatment standard for fluoride
wastewaters is taken from the UTS promulgated in the LDR Phase II final
rule. More information on the development of these treatment standards
can be found in the docket to today's rule.
Treatment and recycling technologies such as mineral wool cupolas,
metallurgical processes, iron and steel industrial furnaces, and other
recovery and recycling technologies should be able to meet the proposed
standards. K088 treatment data from Reynolds Metals, Comalco Aluminum
Ltd., Ormet Corporation and the EPA Combustion Research Facility (CRF)
show that K088 can be treated to meet the UTS. Because EPA is proposing
numerical treatment standards, any recycling or treatment technologies
can be used as long as the treatment standards are met by actual
treatment, rather than impermissible dilution. More discussion on these
various technologies is presented later in this preamble.
a. Proposed Regulated Constituents. EPA is proposing to regulate
the following constituents: acenapthene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)-anthracene, fluoranthene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, pyrene, antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, cyanide and fluoride. Based on the available waste
characterization data (see Best Demonstrated Available Technology
Background Document (BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for
K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners found in the docket to this rule for
details), these constituents were found to be present in either the
untreated K088 wastes or in the K088 treatment residuals at levels
exceeding the UTS. See the proposed delisting of K088 for Reynolds
Metals at 56 FR 33004 and 33005, July 19, 1991, and the corresponding
docket for that [[Page 11724]] rulemaking. See also the docket for
today's proposal for more data on constituent concentrations in
untreated and treated K088. EPA is specifically requesting comment on
regulating the phthalates: bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl
phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate. These constituents can show up in
the untreated potliner and the treated residue; however, there is some
question that their presence may simply be due to lab contamination.
Treatment technologies for K088 are also designed to recover or
stabilize the fluoride. Therefore, EPA is proposing to regulate
fluoride in K088 in order to ensure that the fluoride is actually
recovered or that it is properly treated. Fluoride is also being
regulated because of its toxicity and the high concentrations found in
untreated K088 (see Tables 2 and 3 in 56 FR 33004 (July 19, 1991)--the
proposed delisting of K088 generated by Reynolds Aluminum Company). If
a treatment standard is promulgated for fluoride, the Agency will add
fluoride to the UTS for K088. EPA has some data on the toxicity of
fluoride (see the docket for today's proposed rule), and is in the
process of gathering more information. For more information on
regulated constituents see the Best Demonstrated Available Technology
Background Document (BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for
K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners found in the docket to this rule.
Section 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), and (g)(5) require that land disposal
of hazardous wastes is prohibited unless a prohibition is no longer
warranted to protect human health and the environment. EPA reads this
language to require that land disposal may still be prohibited after
treatment of hazardous constituents if the waste might still pose
substantial hazards due to presence of other constituents or
properties. 56 FR at 41168 (August 19, 1991); NRDC v. EPA, 907 F. 2d
1146, 1171-72 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (dissenting opinion). These hazards
could be posed due to lack of treatment of other constituents in the
waste, in this case, fluoride. It should be noted that this action is
consistent with previous Agency actions, since EPA regulated fluoride
in the delisting granted to treatment residues from the Reynolds Metals
treatment process, and also regulates discharge of fluorides in the CWA
effluent limitation guidelines for the primary aluminum subcategory.
Consequently, the Agency is proposing a treatment standard for fluoride
to assure that ultimate disposal of treated K088 is protective.
EPA is proposing treatment standards for fluoride, as well as the
hazardous constituents contained in the waste. Flouride is present in
these wastes in very high concentrations: upwards of 10%. Untreated
concentrations of this magnitude can cause significant adverse effects
to human health and the environment if improperly land disposed. The
Agency requests comment on whether fluoride should be added to Appendix
VIII, as well.
b. Specific Companies Investigating K088 Recovery/Treatment
Technologies. It has been mentioned earlier that there are numerous
technologies either available or being developed that recycle or
recover the value (carbon, fluoride, etc.) in K088. Some of these
technologies are described below. This is by no means a comprehensive
discussion on those technologies, but rather is intended to give the
public some idea of treatment options that are, or may be, available.
These technologies or companies are only those of which the Agency has
been made aware. EPA has placed in the RCRA Docket of this proposed
rule all the recycling/treatment studies, as well as literature and
videos submitted to the Agency on the various technologies. The EPA
requests comment and data on these technologies and any other recycling
or recovery technologies applicable to K088.
Enviroscience, Inc. (ESI) has completed a pilot plant
demonstration sponsored by Kaiser Aluminum, Vanalco and Columbia Falls
Aluminum Company. Their process uses K088, K061 (electric arc furnace
dust) and F006 (electroplating sludges) to produce zinc oxide, mineral
wool fiber and pig iron. The K088 is first formed into briquettes and
then heated to approximately 3000 F in a furnace, with lime and silica
being added to attain an optimal acid:base ratio for proper fiber
formation. The carbon and the cyanide from the potliner are used to
reduce the metals in the K061 and F006. The non-reducible metal oxides
are spun into a mineral wool from the molten slag.
Alcan International Limited has developed a Low Caustic
Leach and Liming hydrometallurgical process to treat K088. This process
converts the fluorides to acid grade fluorspar and recovers the sodium
and aluminum as sodium aluminate and caustic feed to be used in
aluminum smelter operations. Alcan claims that the remaining brick and
carbon fraction constitutes a high ash solid fuel whose reduced sodium
content enhances its value as a chemical reducing agent.
Ormet Corporation has used a pilot-scale melting system
vitrification process to treat K088 wastes. The process involves the
rapid suspension heating of the waste and other additives in a
preheater prior to physical and chemical melting which occur within a
cyclone reactor. Ormet has submitted a petition to the EPA requesting a
delisting of their residues from this process. They intend to scale-up
this plant upon receiving a delisting of their waste. They claim the
process produces a nonhazardous reusable product with the qualities of
industrial glass that can be used as glass insulation material, roofing
shingle granules or in the manufacture of tiles.
Comalco Aluminum Ltd. (CAL), an Australian company, has
developed the Comtor process, which is a full-scale calcination process
which thermally destroys the cyanide in K088. This process also
recovers the fluoride and carbon values in K088 by using
hydrometallurgical techniques with lime dewatering. The precipitate can
be used as a fluxing agent or in cement making. The caustic liquor may
be recycled to the alumina plant or can be used as a scrubbing agent.
Comalco has plans to upgrade their plant to 10,000 ton/yr and build a
second plant in New Zealand. They have a licensing agreement with Aisco
Systems of Canada to commercialize the technology.
Elkem Technology is a Norwegian company which has done
bench-scale testing consisting of smelting K088 along with iron ore to
produce pig iron and a slag which they hope to get delisted. The
process uses the carbon in K088 to act as a reducing agent and destroy
the cyanides and other toxic organics, while rendering all other
constituents immobile in a glassified, inert slag. For each ton of
K088, they produce 0.85 ton of iron. Elkem plans a demonstration plant
in the U.S. next year. They also plan to pilot a process to recover
fluoride from the molten slag.
Ausmelt Limited is an Australian company which has
performed pilot scale tests using their submerged lance technology,
which is a pyrometallurgical process, to destroy the toxic constituents
in K088 and produce a stable slag. Fluorides are recovered for re-use
in the aluminum smelting process. Ausmelt has plans to build a facility
which could process approximately 15,000 tons per year of K088.
For more specific information on these technologies, see the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology Background Document (BDAT) for Newly
Listed or Identified Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.
For the treatment standards being proposed today for K088, see
Sec. 268.40 table-- Treatment Standards for [[Page 11725]] Hazardous
Wastes in the proposed amendments to the regulatory language. For
performance data supporting these standards, see the aforementioned
K088 Background Document.

VII. Improvements to the Existing Land Disposal Restrictions Program

A major part of today's rule is designed to improve the quality and
efficiency in the LDR program. Areas that are addressed in this
proposed rule include: Completion/adjustments to UTS and expansion/
consolidation of certain required methods of treatment.

A. Completion of Universal Treatment Standards

Today's rule proposes further streamlining and simplification of
the LDR treatment standards based on the UTS promulgated in the LDR
Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994). The proposed
modifications apply to: (1) all UTS and therefore to all hazardous
wastes regulated with numerical treatment standards included in the UTS
as summarized in the Consolidated Standards Table at Sec. 268.40, and
(2) the numerical treatment standards proposed for carbamate,
organobromine and spent aluminum potliner wastes. These proposed
changes to UTS therefore extend to all F-, K-, U- and P- waste codes
with individually regulated constituents plus ignitable, corrosive,
reactive and characteristically toxic wastes with underlying hazardous
constituents.
1. Expansion to Cover All Components of Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates
and Organobromines)
A number of constituents regulated with numerical treatment
standards in certain waste codes are not represented in UTS. EPA lacked
adequate data to cover all the BDAT List with UTS in the LDR Phase II
final rule and today the Agency is proposing numerical treatment
standards for additional constituents in carbamate and organobromine
wastes which are not yet on the current BDAT List. These 43
constituents are:

A2213
Aldicarb sulfone
Barban
Bendiocarb
Bendiocarb phenol
Benomyl
Butylate
Carbaryl
Carbenzadim
Carbofuran
Carbofuran phenol
Carbosulfan
Cycloate
Dimetilan
Dithiocarbamates (total)
EPTC
Formetanate hydrochloride
Formparanate
m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
Isolan
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Metolcarb
Mexacarbate
Molinate
Oxamyl
Pebulate
o-Phenylenediamine
Physostigmine
Physostigmine salicylate
Promecarb
Propham
Propoxur
Prosulfocarb
Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
Thiodicarb
Thiophanate-methyl
Tirpate
Triallate
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Triethylamine
3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
Vernolate

The proposed UTS for these constituents can be found in Sec. 268.48
of today's proposed rule.
2. UTS for Constituents in Wastewater and Nonwastewater Forms
For a number of constituents, there exist UTS in wastewater forms
of wastes but none in nonwastewaters. EPA believes that these
constituents should be controlled in both sets of waste streams
associated with a given waste code. This enhances consistent and
complete treatment. The organic constituents for which EPA has
promulgated wastewater UTS but no nonwastewater UTS include acrolein,
4-aminobiphenyl, aramite, chlorobenzilate, 2-chlorovinylethyl ether,
1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene oxide, methyl methanesulfonate, p-
dimethylaminoazobenzene, and 2-naphthylamine.
Today's rule requests comment on potential UTS values for these
constituents in nonwastewaters. Although EPA does not have definitive
treatability data on hand at the time of proposal, EPA believes that
nonwastewater UTS for these constituents would close gaps in the
current LDR framework and ensure adequate treatment of all waste
streams.
a. Nonwastewaters.
(i) The Environmental Technology Council Data. EPA is soliciting
comment on the treatment standards originally proposed, but not
promulgated, in the Third Third F039 standards for acrolein, 4-
aminobiphenyl, chlorobenzilate, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene, aramite, and
2-naphthylamine. EPA had withdrawn these as constituents of
nonwastewater forms of F039 following comments from the ETC that these
were analytically problematic. Specifically, in a study reporting
detection limits and spike recoveries in incinerator ash from the
combustion of hazardous wastes (as analyzed by six different
laboratories), ETC reported anomalous levels of detection limits or
spike recoveries for these compounds. Detection limits and spike
recoveries are of concern because the numerical treatment standard for
any constituent in incinerator ash is equal to the product of the
detection limit times the accuracy correction factor, the inverse of
the percent recovery times a variability factor representing the extent
of the data.
ETC reported detection limits and percent recovery values for
acrolein, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB), 4-aminobiphenyl (4AB),
aramite, chlorobenzilate (CB), methylmethanesulfonate (MMS) and 2-
naphthylamine (2NA), and also for dibenzo(a,e)pyrene (DBP). The
detection limit results are labeled LIMITS A-F to represent the six
different laboratories and the percent recovery results are similarly
labeled % REC A-F to represent the six different laboratories. These
data, together with the complete ETC investigations for the Third Third
proposed rule and the subsequent pesticide study are available for
inspection in the RCRA Docket for the LDR Phase II final rule.

Table 1.--Detection Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent
Limit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................................................ 0.029 1.82 6.94 17.18 4.87 9999 2.438 12.561
B........................................................ 9999 3.2 9999 614.43 8.29 9999 1.85 26.82
C........................................................ 0.161 9.43 26.89 243.05 7.98 18.72 2.3 6.96
D........................................................ 9999 1.38 14.06 4.52 2.61 9999 0.75 2.214
[[Page 11726]]

E........................................................ 9999 48.26 0.065 2.37 11.34 9999 9999 2.43
F........................................................ 9999 1.78 14.18 9999 10.53 9999 1.37 9999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Percent Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent
% Rec ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................................................ 1.6 36 13.661 5.47 138.04 0 50.7 8.77
B........................................................ 0 118.87 473.41 79.23 175.85 0 63.54 125.48
C........................................................ 1.954 40.77 34.95 120.34 105.99 27.34 100.38 18.73
D........................................................ 0 126.74 1.69 0.11 160.43 0 74.11 3.98
E........................................................ 0 134.65 31.54 80 247.725 0 0 8.89
F........................................................ 0 558.13 17.55 330.24 436.82 0 33.31 3.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although ETC reports relatively few detection limits for acrolein,
the consistently problematic low recoveries, all below 2% were the
basis of EPA's concern in the Third Third rule. Similarly,
dibenzo(a,e)pyrene exhibits extremely and consistently low recoveries
while several detection limits are missing from the report. Aramite
exhibited several extremely high detection limits plus an erratic set
of percent recoveries ranging from very high to very low. The other
four constituents, p-dimethylaminoazo-
benzene, 4-aminobiphenyl, chlorobenzilate and 2-naphthylamine show a
pattern of generally high detection limits and high recoveries, with
much variation in recoveries and with several significantly high values
in each set. The methylmethanesulfonate data were supplied by ETC
despite the fact that EPA did not propose a nonwastewater standard for
this constituent in the Third Third rule; this data is presented here
for completeness and to stimulate comment on the development of today's
proposed methylmethanesulfonate nonwastewater standard discussed below.
(ii) EPA's Treatability Data Detection Limits and Recoveries. High
or erratic detection limits and recoveries are of concern to EPA. For
both parameters, high values indicate a barrier to quantification and
erratic values indicate unreliable quantification.
Analysis of the fourteen EPA incinerator burns used to generate
nonwastewater treatability data shows both a narrower range of
detection limits and lower values of detection limits than the ETC
study achieved. The following table presents the ranges of detection
limits achieved.
In generating treatability data for listed hazardous wastes EPA
undertook a series of fourteen incinerator burns. Analysis of ash from
these burns provided the numerical basis for nonwastewater standards.
Detection limit data were obtained from the ash itself for all
constituents. However, recovery levels were determined for only a
handful of constituents. After these recoveries were determined by
spiking ash with the selected constituents and measuring the percentage
of the spike which was recovered, these recovery values were
transferred to chemically similar constituents and incorporated into
the nonwastewater treatment standard calculations. EPA generally
rejected recoveries ranging outside the 20% to 200% range following the
guidance of the BDAT program's Quality Assurance Project Plan.

Original EPA Nonwastewater Incinerator Burn Detection Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection Detection
limits for limits for
EPA test burn volatile semivolatile
organics organics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test #1...................................... 0.1-10.0 0.11-10.0
Test #2...................................... 0.2-50.0 0.08-5.0
Test #3...................................... 0.05-10.0 0.01-10.1
Test #4...................................... 2.0-10.0 2.0-50.0
Test #5...................................... ^{a2.0-50.0 0.5-10.0
Test #6...................................... ^{b0.2-50.0 0.4-7.0
Test #7...................................... ^{c2.0-20 0.2-5
Test #8...................................... 0.025-2.0 1.0-10.0
Test #9...................................... 0.005-0.4 0.42-4.0
Test #10..................................... ^{c1.5-30 1.00-5.0
Test #11..................................... 0.005-0.4 0.531-4.0
Test #13..................................... 0.01-2.0 0.36-1.8
Test #14..................................... ^{a0.010-2 0.36-1.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{aExcluding one outlier out of 40 analytes.
^{bExcluding five outliers out of 40 analytes.
^{cExcluding two outliers out of 40 analytes.

(iii) Solicitation of Treatability Data. EPA solicits additional
treatability and analytical data concerning nonwastewater forms of
these constituents. By taking comment on whether to promulgate
nonwastewater standards for these constituents, EPA is reopening the
discussion of the issues of detection limits and recoveries raised by
ETC in the comments following the Third Third proposal. EPA opens the
question of whether advances in detectability, notably the use of HLPC
(high pressure liquid phase chromatography) may allow reliable
measurement. EPA also solicits comment whether more reliable recovery
values have been achieved for these constituents, and at what detection
level are reliable results achieved.
(iv) Additional Potential Nonwastewater UTS Based on Treatability
Groups. EPA is also soliciting comment on potential treatment standards
for 2-chlorovinyl ether, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene oxide and
methyl methanesulfonate based on the Treatability Group categories
outlined in the LDR Phase II Final Background Document for Universal
Standards, Volume A, Universal Standards for Nonwastewater Forms of
Listed Hazardous Wastes. Specifically, for each of the constituents
listed above, EPA is considering as potential UTS the lowest
nonwastewater treatment standard for the treatability group to which
that constituent belongs.
Treatability groups collect the UTS constituents into sets of
chemically similar compounds with similar behavior in treatment
processes and analytical instruments. UTS for nonwastewater UTS are
based on the detection limits of that compound in incinerator ash.
Since these detection limits reflect the constituent's ``fate and
transport'' in the analytical unit according to its chemical structure
and composition, transferring treatability data among members of
treatability groups accounts for similarities in analytical
quantification as well as in treatment.

Nonwastewater UTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW UTS (mg/
Compound l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein.................................................... 2.8
4-Aminobiphenyl............................................. 13
Aramite..................................................... 2.5
Chlorobenzilate............................................. 6.6
2-Chlorovinyl ether......................................... 5.6
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene........................................... 22
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine....................................... 1.5
Ethylene oxide.............................................. 0.75
Methyl methanesulfonate..................................... 4.6
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene................................... 29
2-Naphthylamine............................................. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(v) UTS for Sulfide in Nonwastewater Form.
EPA is soliciting treatability data for nonwastewater forms of
sulfide. In the absence of treatability data for this inorganic ion in
nonwastewater matrices, EPA is not proposing treatment standards but is
requesting treatability and analytical data on which to develop a
standard.
(vi) UTS for Fluoride in Nonwastewater Form.
EPA is today proposing a 48 mg/l as the UTS for the fluoride ion
identical to that proposed today for fluoride in K088 nonwastewaters.
The basis of the K088 standard is discussed in the section of today's
preamble proposing treatment standards for K088 wastes. Today's
proposed fluoride nonwastewater UTS, like the K088 fluoride standard,
is based on the use of SW-846 leachate method 1311. Fluoride, like
zinc, is not an underlying hazardous constituent in characteristic
wastes, according to the definition at Sec. 268.2(i).
b. Wastewaters. Additionally, today's rule proposes a wastewater
treatment standard for 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is the only UTS
constituent for which EPA had promulgated a nonwastewater standard but
not a wastewater standard. Commenters reported analytical difficulties
in quantifying 1,4-dioxane at the wastewater standard proposed in the
LDR Phase II UTS (0.12 mg/l); this standard was based on a transfer
from ethyl ether. EPA consequently withdrew that standard in the LDR
Phase II final rule. The docket for today's rule includes treatability
data submitted by one such commenter.
Today's rule proposes a wastewater UTS of 0.22 mg/l for 1,4-
dioxane. This standard is being proposed as the maximum daily limit for
1,4-dioxane in the proposed effluent guidelines for the pharmaceuticals
industry, based on the performance of steam stripping followed by
biological treatment.
EPA also solicits comment on a wastewater standard for 1,4-dioxane
of 8.67 mg/l, followed by biological treatment. The basis of this
alternative standard is treatability data for distillation, which was
developed for the proposed pharmaceutical effluent guidelines. The data
supporting this standard represents a transfer of distillation
performance data with methanol to 1,4-dioxane.^{13 [[Page 11727]]

\13\ At the time of signature of this rule, further data on
these effluent guidelines were forthcoming. This additional data, if
not available at the time of publication of this rule, will be made
available shortly thereafter.

Wastewater UTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound WW UTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,4-Dioxane.............................................. 0.22 mg/l
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Application to Listed Waste
a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs. There are several cases where a
constituent is regulated in wastewater forms of particular listed
wastes with UTS but not in nonwastewater and a nonwastewater UTS exists
for these constituents, having been promulgated in LDR Phase II. For
these constituents, EPA proposes to extend the UTS to nonwastewaters,
and vice versa. In other words, in cases where the 40 CFR 268.40--Table
of Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes lists a numerical treatment
standard for a constituent in one form of a listed waste but not in the
other, today's rule proposes the UTS as the standard for the other
form. This section of today's rule does not propose new UTS, rather it
extends existing UTS to gaps in the media-specific standards for
individual constituents in listed wastes. An example is K019 where p-
dichlorobenzene, fluorene and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene are regulated
with UTS in wastewater forms of K019 but are not regulated--indicated
in the Consolidated Table as ``NA''--in nonwastewater forms of K019.
Today's rule proposes filling in these ``NA's'' for p-dichlorobenzene,
fluorene and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene in nonwastewater for K019 with
the UTS and similarly applying UTS in other cases where UTS now apply
to a constituent in either wastewaters and nonwastewaters but do not
apply to both. The gaps between wastewater and nonwastewater coverage
for individual constituents in listed wastes occurred because the
Agency decided on a waste code-by-waste code basis whether to include
constituents in wastewater, nonwastewater or both forms of a waste. EPA
now believes that applying UTS to wastewaters and nonwastewaters
consistently ensures treatment of regulated constituents regardless of
the physical form of the waste or the waste treatment residual
regulated under the ``derived-from'' rule.
The following tables show those regulated constituents, by waste
code, where either a wastewater or a nonwastewater UTS is added by
today's proposal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater
Waste code Constituent standard
(mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F006........ Silver........................................ 0.43
F007........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
Silver........................................ 0.43
F008........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
Silver........................................ 0.43
F009........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
Silver........................................ 0.43
F011........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
Silver........................................ 0.43
F012........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
Silver........................................ 0.43
F038........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
[[Page 11728]]

K018........ Pentachloroethane............................. 0.055
K030........ Hexachlorpropylene............................ 0.035
Pentachlorobenzene............................ 0.055
Pentachloroethane............................. 0.055
K035........ Acenaphthene.................................. 0.059
Anthracene.................................... 0.059
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene......................... 0.055
Fluorene...................................... 0.068
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene........................ 0.0055
K048........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
K049........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
K050........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
K051........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
K052........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
K061........ Antimony...................................... 1.9
Arsenic....................................... 1.4
Barium........................................ 1.2
Beryllium..................................... 0.82
Mercury....................................... 0.15
Selenium...................................... 0.82
Silver........................................ 0.43
Thallium...................................... 1.4
Zinc.......................................... 2.61
P013........ Barium........................................ 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonwastewater standard
Waste code Constituent (mg/kg unless otherwise
noted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F001-5...... Carbon disulfide................ 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
Methanol........................ 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
F037........ Acenaphthene.................... 3.4
Fluorene........................ 3.4
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
F038........ Fluorene........................ 3.4
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
F039........ Acetonitrile.................... 38
Acrolein........................ 2.8
4-Aminobiphenyl................. 13
Aramite......................... 2.5
Carbon disulfide................ 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
Chlorobenzilate................. 6.6
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene.......... 0.28
Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene............... 22
Diphenylamine/ 13
diphenylnitrosamine.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine........... 1.5
Ethylene oxide.................. 0.75
Methanol........................ 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
Methyl methanesulfonate......... 4.6
2-Naphthylamine................. 15
N-Nitrosodimethylamine.......... 2.3
Phthalic anhydride.............. 28
tris-(2,3- 0.10
Dibromopropyl)phosphate.
Beryllium....................... 0.014 (mg/l TCLP)
Fluoride........................ 48
Thallium........................ 0.078 (mg/l TCLP)
Vanadium........................ 0.23 (mg/l TCLP)
K006........ Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K018........ Chloromethane................... 30
K019........ p-Dichlorobenzene............... 6.0
Fluorene........................ 3.4
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene...... 14
K028........ Cadmium......................... 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)
K030........ o-Dichlorobenzene............... 6.0
p-Dichlorobenzene............... 6.0
K048........ Fluorene........................ 3.4
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K049........ Carbon disulfide................ 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
2,4-Dimethylphenol.............. 14
[[Page 11729]]

Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K050........ Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K051........ Acenaphthene.................... 3.4
Fluorene........................ 3.4
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K052........ 2,4-Dimethylphenol.............. 14
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K083........ Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
K086........ Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
Methanol........................ 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
K101........ Cadmium......................... 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
Mercury......................... 0.025 (mg/l TCLP)
K102........ Cadmium......................... 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)
Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
Mercury......................... 0.025 (mg/l TCLP)
P003........ Acrolein........................ 2.8
P056........ Fluoride........................ 48
U038........ Chlorobenzilate................. 6.6
U042........ 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether....... 5.6
U093........ p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene....... 29
U134........ Fluoride........................ 48
U168........ 2-Naphthylamine................. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Elimination of Redundant Methods of Treatment. Several
constituents had been regulated with UTS in one medium (wastewaters or
nonwastewaters) but were regulated with a method of treatment in the
other as alternatives, namely P022 carbon disulfide (nonwastewaters),
U003 acetonitrile (nonwastewaters), U057 cyclohexanone
(nonwastewaters), U108 1,4-dioxane (wastewaters and nonwastewaters),
U110 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (wastewaters), U115 ethylene oxide
(wastewaters), U154 methanol (wastewaters and nonwastewaters). The LDR
Phase II proposal did not suggest that the specified methods be
replaced with the UTS. However, in comments received on the proposal,
commenters requested that EPA apply the UTS to these wastes. Because
EPA had not specifically proposed such a change, the LDR Phase II final
rule allowed both the specified method or the UTS.
EPA believes that the UTS are appropriate so that the alternative
specified method is now unnecessary. Numerical treatment standards,
such as UTS, ensure treatment more reliably than do standards expressed
as methods of treatment because the target concentrations allow for
verification that the waste has been treated. Consequently, EPA intends
to replace required methods of treatment with numerical standards
whenever possible. EPA believes UTS for these constituents provides
such an opportunity. Therefore today's rule proposes to eliminate the
alternative methods of treatment and establishes UTS for both
wastewater and nonwastewater constituents.
4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater standard. EPA reviewed the
constituent-specific standard for acetonitrile nonwastewaters, and
believes that this standard should be raised from 1.8 mg/kg to 38 mg/
kg. The 1.8 mg/kg standard, which was based on incineration, is not
consistent with treatment data and standards for other structurally
related organo-nitrogen UTS compounds. For example, the nonwastewater
treatment standard for both acrylonitrile and methacrylonitrile is 84
mg/kg. The nonwastewater standards for ethyl methacrylate and methyl
methacrylate are 160 mg/kg.
Acetonitrile is one of the compounds singled out by the ETC as
being problematic to analyze for in combustion residues (i.e.,
nonwastewaters). In response to the Third Third Rulemaking, the ETC had
submitted data from which they calculated a method detection limit of
6.678 mg/kg for other combustion residues.
The Agency is soliciting data and comment specifically on the
analytical achievability of the 1.8 mg/kg acetonitrile nonwastewater
standard in combustion residues and the ability of non-combustion
technologies to achieve the 1.8 mg/kg and the proposed standard of 38
mg/kg for acetonitrile in nonwastewaters.
b. Revoking the special wastewater/nonwastewater definition for
acrylonitrile wastes. The Agency also recognizes that K011/13/14
nonwastewaters could consist of over 90% water, and that wastewater
treatment is an appropriate means of treating these wastes. For the
above reasons, the Agency is proposing to revise the treatment standard
for acetonitrile in nonwastewaters to 38 mg/kg based on the existing
treatment data, which comes from treating K011/13/14 wastes containing
greater than 1% TOC by steam stripping. (See the background documents
for K011/13/14 nonwastewaters in the Second Third Final Rule Docket and
the background documents for K011/13/14 ``wastewaters'' in the Third
Third Final Rule Docket).
5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as BDAT for Petroleum Refinery
Wastes
EPA solicits comment whether to specify aggressive biological
treatment as the treatment standard for decharacterized petroleum
refining wastewaters. Aggressive biological treatment is defined in
Sec. 261.31(b)(2) as one of the following four processes: activated
sludge, trickling filters, rotating biological contactors or high-rate
mechanical aeration. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has
submitted data to the Agency on ten of its facilities using aggressive
biological treatment. Along with the data API requested that EPA
specify aggressive biological treatment as the treatment standard for
their wastes. Such a standard, which would operate in lieu of UTS, may
reduce the monitoring burden. EPA [[Page 11730]] solicits comment on
proposing aggressive biological treatment as BDAT for these wastes.
However, because monitoring is required under CWA permits, EPA is also
soliciting comment on whether a reduction in the number of constituents
monitored is significant. The data which API submitted demonstrate that
aggressive biological treatment in the industry may consistently meet
UTS. There was one observation, however, for which a constituent
exceeded UTS, and other observations which involved detection limits
which exceeded UTS. This data is available in the docket for today's
rule.

B. Dilution Prohibition

Under the existing LDR dilution prohibition (40 CFR 268.3), burning
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes can be a form of impermissible
dilution. On May 27, 1994, the Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response issued a Statement of Policy
which clarified this point (59 FR 27546-7). Today the Agency is
proposing to codify and quantify these principles.
1. Dilution Prohibited as a Method of Treatment
Under RCRA, the LDR prohibition on dilution states generally that
no person ``shall in any way dilute a restricted waste * * * as a
substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with (a
treatment standard for that waste)''. 40 CFR 268.3(a). This prohibition
implements the requirement of section 3004(m) of RCRA, which requires
that hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes be destroyed, removed
or immobilized before these wastes can be land disposed. Hazardous
constituents are not destroyed, removed or immobilized if they are
diluted. CWM v. EPA, 976 F.2d at 16, 17, 19-20; see also S. Rep. No.
298, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17 (1983) (``the dilution of wastes by the
addition of other hazardous waste or any other materials during waste
handling, transportation, treatment or storage is not an acceptable
method of treatment to reduce the concentration of hazardous
constituents'').
Consistent with these authorities, the Agency has stated that the
dilution prohibition serves one chief purpose--``to ensure that
prohibited wastes\14\ are treated by methods that are appropriate for
that type of waste.'' (55 FR 22532, June 1, 1990). Impermissible
dilution can occur under a number of circumstances. The most obvious is
when solid wastes are added to a prohibited waste to reduce
concentrations but not volumes of hazardous constituents, or to mask
their presence. Impermissible dilution also may occur when wastes not
amenable to treatment by a certain method (i.e., treated very
ineffectively by that treatment method) are nevertheless `treated' by
that method (55 FR 22666, June 1, 1990) (biological treatment does not
effectively remove toxic metals from wastes; therefore, prohibited
wastes with treatment standards for metals ordinarily would be
impermissibly diluted if managed in biological treatment systems
providing no separate treatment for the metals). See also 52 FR at
25778-79 (July 8, 1987) (impoundments which primarily evaporate
hazardous constituents do not qualify as section 3005(j)(11)
impoundments which may receive otherwise-prohibited hazardous wastes
that have not met the treatment standard).

\14\A ``prohibited'' hazardous waste is one which is actually
subject to a prohibition on land disposal without first being
treated, or disposed in a no-migration unit. See 54 FR 36968 (Sept.
6, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule gives a general distinction between ``adequate
treatment'' and potential violations of the dilution prohibition. The
Agency has evaluated the listed wastes and has determined that 43 of
the RCRA listed wastes (as set forth in 40 CFR 261) typically appear to
be such inorganic hazardous wastes; i.e., they typically do not contain
organics, or contain only insignificant amounts of organics, and are
not regulated for organics\15\. BDAT for these inorganic, metal-bearing
listed wastes is metal recovery or stabilization. Thus, impermissible
dilution may result when these wastes are combusted.

\15\To the extent that these wastes or residues of these wastes
(i.e., biological treatment sludges) contain significant organic
content, combustion may be an appropriate treatment technology. See
later discussion regarding this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule reflects the Agency's concerns about the hazard
presented by toxic metals in the environment. When an inorganic metal-
bearing hazardous waste with insignificant organics is placed in a
combustion unit, legitimate treatment for purposes of LDR ordinarily is
not occurring. No treatment of the inorganic component occurs during
combustion, and therefore, metals are not destroyed, removed, or
immobilized. Since there are no significant concentrations of organic
compounds in inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes, it cannot be
maintained that the waste is being properly or effectively treated via
combustion (i.e., thermally treated or destroyed, removed, or
immobilized).
In terms of the dilution prohibition, if combustion is allowed as a
method to achieve a treatment standard for these wastes, metals in
these wastes will be dispersed to the ambient air and will be diluted
by being mixed in with combustion ash from other waste streams.
Adequate treatment (stabilization or metal recovery to meet LDR
treatment standards) has not been performed and dilution has occurred.
It is also inappropriate to regard eventual stabilizing of such
combustion ash as providing adequate treatment for purposes of the
LDRs. Simply meeting the numerical BDAT standards for the ash fails to
account for metals in the original waste stream that were emitted to
the air and for reductions achieved by dilution with other materials in
the ash. (In most cases, of course, the metal-bearing wastes will have
been mixed with other wastes before combustion, which mixing itself
could be viewed as impermissible dilution).
These inorganic, metal-bearing hazardous wastes should be and are
usually treated by metal recovery or stabilization technologies. These
technologies remove hazardous constituents through recovery in
products, or immobilize them, and are therefore permissible BDAT
treatment methods.
There are eight characteristic metal wastes; however, only wastes
that exhibit the TC as measured by both the TCLP and the EP for D004-
D011 are presently prohibited (see 55 FR 22660-02, June 1, 1990).
Characteristic wastes, of course, cannot be generically characterized
as easily as listed wastes because they can be generated from many
different types of processes. For example, although some characteristic
metal wastes do not contain organics or cyanide or contain only
insignificant amounts, others may have organics or cyanide present
which justify combustion, such as a used oil exhibiting the TC
characteristic for a metal. Thus, it is difficult to say which D004-
D011 wastes would be impermissibly diluted when combusted, beyond
stating that as a general matter, impermissible dilution would occur if
the D004-D011 waste does not have significant organic or cyanide
content but is nevertheless combusted.
2. Permissible Dilution
EPA ordinarily would not consider the following hazardous wastes to
contain ``significant organic or cyanide content'', for which
combustion would otherwise be impermissible dilution (the Agency is
adding criteria beyond that included in the May 27, 1994 policy
memorandum to clarify situations raised in comments received).
Combustion of the following inorganic metal-bearing wastes is therefore
not [[Page 11731]] prohibited under the LDR dilution prohibition: (1)
Wastes that, at the point of generation, or after any bona fide
treatment such as cyanide destruction prior to combustion, contain
hazardous organic constituents or cyanide at levels exceeding the
constituent-specific treatment standard for UTS; (2) organic, debris-
like materials (e.g., wood, paper, plastic, or cloth) contaminated with
an inorganic metal-bearing hazardous waste; (3) wastes that, at point
of generation, have reasonable heating value such as greater than or
equal to 5000 Btu/lb (see 48 FR 11157, March 16, 1983); (4) wastes co-
generated with wastes that specify combustion as a required method of
treatment; (5) wastes, including soil, subject to Federal and/or State
requirements necessitating reduction of organics (including biological
agents); and (6) wastes with greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon
(TOC). An ``inorganic metal-bearing waste'' is one for which EPA has
established treatment standards for metal hazardous constituents, and
which does not otherwise contain significant organic or cyanide
content. (See 40 CFR Appendix XI proposed in today's rule for a list of
waste codes which EPA tentatively believes satisfies this definition.)
The foregoing six categories of waste typically would contain
sufficient organic content to indicate that combustion can be a
reasonable means of treating the wastes prior to land disposal. EPA
solicits comments on whether there are other inorganic wastes that
would technically justify combustion as a means of complying with BDAT.
For example, are there metal bearing organic wastes or complexing
agents not covered by the above criteria that prevent effective
stabilization of metals due to the presence of unregulated organics?
However, as noted above, mixing practices such as fuel blending to add
organics to inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes ordinarily would
be considered to be impermissible dilution. This is because, under
current rules, the dilution prohibition applies at the point a
hazardous waste is generated. CWM v. EPA 976 F.2d at 22-3; see also 48
FR 11158, 11159 and nn. 2 and 4 (March 16, 1983); 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8,
1988) determinations of legitimacy of recycling are made on a waste-by-
waste basis before any blending occurs.
The Agency is aware of a practice within the foundry industry that
recycles foundry sand by thermally oxidizing impurities. It is EPA's
view that this process would violate the policy against combustion of
inorganics, unless the foundry sand being oxidized contains toxic
organic constituents or has a significant organic component (as
described above).
3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and Combustion
A commenter questioned why EPA allows the presence of cyanide to
justify combustion when there are adequate alternative treatment
methods. This approach was adopted because cyanide is destroyed by
combustion. Existing LDR rules, in many cases, identify combustion as
an appropriate BDAT for destruction of cyanide-bearing wastes. The May
27, 1994 policy statement did not change BDAT determinations and thus
reflected that combustion could be appropriate for destroying certain
cyanide-bearing wastes. EPA, however, solicits comments on whether the
cyanide criterion should be dropped.
While cyanide is effectively treated in combustion devices, EPA has
received comments that non-combustion technologies such as alkaline
chlorination are available to effectively treat metal bearing wastes
that contain cyanide and that BDAT for these wastes should not include
combustion. EPA solicits comments on the relative effectiveness and
risks of combustion versus alkaline chlorination in treating cyanides
in inorganic metal bearing wastes.
4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes
The table being proposed in 40 CFR part 268, Appendix XI today
indicates the list of waste codes for which EPA regulates only metals
and/or cyanides that would be affected by this proposed rule. Except
for P122, this list is identical to the list originally published in
the aforementioned Policy Statement on this subject. The Agency is
removing P122 (Zinc Phosphide greater than 10%) from the list of
restricted inorganic metal-bearing wastes, because the Agency has
previously promulgated a treatment standard of INCIN for the
nonwastewater forms of this waste. See 40 CFR 268.40. The policy memo
was in error on this point. The Agency solicits comment on this issue,
particularly with respect to costs associated with the segregation of
these wastes.
5. The Addition of Iron Dust To Stabilize Characteristic Hazardous
Wastes: Potential Classification as Impermissible Dilution
The Agency has become aware that certain industries may be adding
iron dust or iron filings to some characteristic hazardous wastes as a
form of treatment. For example, foundries are known to mix iron dust or
filing with the D008 waste sand generated from their spent casting
molds, viewing this practice as a form of stabilization. The Agency
believes, however, that such stabilization is inadequate to minimize
the threats posed by land disposal of metal-containing hazardous
wastes, and is today proposing to clarify that this waste management
practice is ``impermissible dilution'' under 40 CFR 268.3, for reasons
discussed below.
In particular, when iron dust or filings are added to a
characteristic waste foundry sand, it is considered ``treatment'' under
the definition in 40 CFR 260.10. Nevertheless, the Agency does not
believe it to be adequate treatment; rather, it is merely the addition
of material as a substitute for adequate treatment, and thus
constitutes impermissible dilution. See Sec. 268.3(b), 54 FR at 48494
(Nov. 1989), and 55 FR at 22532 (June 1, 1990). The Agency believes it
is unlikely that any chemical reactions are taking place when iron dust
or iron filings are added, because the waste foundry sand would likely
contain only lead, silica, microscopic pieces of castings, and binders
(clays, phenols, and tars) from the molds. The Agency does not believe
that simply adding iron would provide treatment for either the lead or
the organics (i.e., phenol and tar).
While it is arguable that iron could form temporary, weak, ionic
complexes with silica and/or phenate, so that when analyzed by the TCLP
test the lead appears to have been stabilized, the Agency believes that
this ``stabilization'' is temporary, based upon the nature of the
complexing. In fact, a report prepared by EPA on Iron Chemistry in Lead
Contaminated Materials (Feb. 22, 1994), which specifically addressed
this issue, found that iron lead bonds are weak, adsorptive surface
bonds, and therefore not likely to be permanent. Furthermore, as this
iron-rich mixture is exposed to moisture and oxidative conditions over
time, interstitial water would likely acidify, which could potentially
reverse any temporary stabilization, as well as increase the
leachability of the lead from the foundry sand. Therefore, the addition
of iron dust or filings to characteristic waste foundry sand does not
appear to provide long-term treatment.
Another related concern is that the addition of iron has been
demonstrated to result in false negatives for lead when wastes are
analyzed by means of the [[Page 11732]] TCLP^{.16. This significant
interference with the analytical method for detecting lead, in
conjunction with the concerns about the temporary nature of any
stabilization that would occur, fully supports identifying this
practice as impermissible dilution or otherwise failing to satisfy the
requirements of RCRA section 3004(m) to minimize short- and long-term
threats to human health and the environment. Comments and data are
solicited on whether this type of stabilization is effective in
achieving long-term treatment. Comments and data are also solicited on
whether a test method other than the TCLP is more appropriate for
measuring compliance for this waste.

\16\See memo from John V. Cignatta, Datanet to John Gauthier,
EPA Region 1, dated September 8, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Expansion of Methods Requiring Incineration

EPA is proposing to modify the treatment standard expressed as
INCIN, which specifies hazardous waste incineration, to, CMBST, which
allows combustion in incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces.
The INCIN requirement was set before EPA had issued air emission
requirements for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). Now that BIF
regulations are in place, the need to constrain treatment to one type
of combustion device is no longer appropriate. With the development of
innovative technologies, EPA also solicits comment on whether the
Catalytic Extraction Process, for which Molten Metal Technology
received a determination of equivalent treatment under
Sec. 268.42(b)^{17, should also be allowed for all wastes which have
a treatment standard of CMBST, and whether there are other technologies
which are equivalent to CMBST.

\17\The Catalytic Extraction Process, used by Molten Metal
Technology, involves a molten metal bath, with temperatures around
3000 deg.F, into which liquid wastes are injected, and solid wastes
are fed with a carrier gas (Ar). The process treats the wastes in a
high temperature reduction environment, which reduces the compounds
to their elemental state. The metallic, inorganic ceramic, and
gaseous phases which result are then reused, or purified and
released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268

EPA is proposing further changes to the LDR program to achieve the
goal of simplified regulations. The Agency is committed to improving
the LDR program by implementing participant suggestions from the LDR
Roundtable held on January 12-14, 1993.
The LDR requirements are found, primarily, in 40 CFR Part 268. EPA
intends to remove language that is out-of-date, and to clarify language
which may be confusing, in an effort to make the LDR program easier to
understand, implement, and enforce. This effort will continue in the
LDR Phase IV rule, scheduled for proposal in June 1995.
1. Section 268.8
Section 268.8 stated that First and Second Third wastes for which
EPA did not promulgate treatment standards by their respective
effective dates could continue to be disposed of in landfill and
surface impoundment units until May 8, 1990 (see 55 FR 22526). Because
treatment standards for all scheduled wastes were promulgated in the
Third Third rule in 1990, these ``soft hammer'' requirements are no
longer necessary. Therefore, Sec. 268.8 is proposed to be removed from
part 268.
2. Sections 268.10-268.12
The purpose of Subpart B of Sec. 268 was to set out a schedule for
hazardous wastes by the date when treatment standards were to be
established. Sections 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 of Subpart B included
the First Third, Second Third, and Third Third scheduled wastes
respectively. Deadlines in all three of these sections were met on
time, and the wastes are subject to treatment standards. Therefore,
these three sections are no longer necessary, and are proposed to be
removed.
3. Section 268.2(f)
The existing wastewater definition found in Sec. 268.2(f) includes
wastes that have less than 1% TOC and less than 1% TSS. There are three
exceptions given to this definition: (1) F001-F005 wastewaters have no
criteria for TSS, and must contain less than 1% solvent constituents,
(2) K011, K013, K014 wastewaters must contain less than 5% TOC and less
than 1% TSS, and (3) K103 and K104 wastewaters must contain less than
4% TOC and less than 1% TSS. With the promulgation of UTS in the LDR
Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), such
distinctions are inconsistent and an unnecessary complication of the
regulations. While such initial classifications may have had some
meaning, after effective BDAT treatment the residuals are appropriately
regulated by the wastewater or nonwastewater limit as specified by the
1% TOC and TSS criteria. The Agency is therefore proposing to remove
paragraphs (1)-(3) from Sec. 268.2(f).

VIII. Proposed Prohibition of Hazardous Waste as Fill Material

EPA is also proposing today to amend the LDR rules so as to
prohibit the placement of hazardous waste as a fill material unless the
prohibited waste is treated so that short- and long-term threats have
been minimized. By ``fill material'', the Agency means uses^{18 of
waste as a substitute for low grade material (such as sand or dirt) to
raise the level of land, occupy space, or otherwise fill in
depressions. Hazardous waste includes, of course, any waste that is
identified or listed as hazardous under Sec. 261.3, and so includes
wastes (such as residues from treating listed wastes) that are
hazardous by virtue of the mixture and derived-from rules. The result
of this rule, if finalized, would thus be to confirm that such uses are
prohibited and therefore illegal unless the fill area is a regulated
unit (i.e., a subtitle C landfill).

\18\Incidentally, the term ``use'' here has no specific meaning
other than the normal dictionary definition. It is not meant to
connote the phrase ``used or reused'' found in Sec. 261.1(c)(5),
which is a term of art for determining the scope of the exclusion in
Sec. 261.2(e)(1) (i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA in fact already interprets current rules as ordinarily
providing a similar result. In the preamble to the May 19, 1980 rules
establishing the subtitle C hazardous waste management program, EPA
stated that an exemption from regulation for legitimate recycling
activities does not apply to ``sham uses and recovery or reclamation--
e.g. `landfilling' or `land reclamation'''. 45 FR at 33093. In the
April 4, 1983 Federal Register Notice proposing a separate regulatory
regime for hazardous wastes legitimately recycled in a manner
constituting disposal (ultimately promulgated as 40 CFR 260.20-.23),
the Agency stated that this provision would not apply to hazardous
wastes used as fill material, the specific example provided being
``waste stabilization processes where the stabilized material is then
used as fill.'' 48 FR at 14985. The Agency further stated that it was
``convinced that these waste treatment operations are not production
processes and can therefore be regulated as waste management.'' Id.
The reasons for the Agency's interpretation are evident. The wastes
are being put into the environment without any safeguards to prevent
exposure. Hazardous constituents can migrate into the environment and
reach human and environmental receptors by any number of direct
pathways, including inhalation, dermal contact, surface runoff, and
leaching to groundwater. Indirect exposure pathways exist as well.
The amended rule, if adopted, would prohibit the use of hazardous
waste as fill material, and add a conforming amendment to
Sec. 266.20(b) stating that [[Page 11733]] disposal of hazardous waste
as fill material is not a type of use constituting disposal subject to
the special standards of Part 266 subpart C, but rather disposal plain
and simple, and hence illegal unless occurring in a regulated unit; or,
as explained below, if the prohibited waste can be shown to be treated
to satisfy section 3004(m). Section 3004(m) of the statute states that
EPA is to establish ``levels or methods of treatment, if any, which
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the wastes so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment are minimized.'' (Emphasis added).
In this case, the Agency is unable to determine any level of treatment
of hazardous wastes which can guarantee the requisite minimization of
short-term and long-term threats when prohibited hazardous wastes are
used as fill material.
Because there are no specifications or constraints on placement of
fill material, reliable assessments pose particular uncertainties and
difficulties. These uncertainties relate to release, transport, and
ultimate exposure, and include uncertainties regarding release
mechanisms, types and amounts of hazardous constituents released due to
potential waste variability, location of human and environmental
receptors, and transport mechanisms. cf. HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 1362-
63. The existing LDR treatment standards do not fully address these
potential problems for at least two reasons. First, the LDR standards
are technology-based, not risk-based standards. Second, for metal
hazardous constituents, the LDR standards do not regulate the total
metal content of hazardous wastes. Total metal content is relevant to
many possible exposure pathways when hazardous waste is used as fill
material, including inhalation and direct ingestion pathways. See also
59 FR at 43499 (August 24, 1994), where EPA made similar findings with
respect to use of hazardous waste K061 as anti-skid or deicing material
(uses which are better defined, and hence more assessable, than use as
fill material). Similarly, this type of disposal does not appear to
satisfy the ultimate protectiveness standard in sections 3004 (d), (e),
and (g) (which requires that disposal of hazardous waste that meets a
treatment standard must nevertheless still be protective, taking into
account enumerated uncertainties--including long-term uncertainties
associated with the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate--of land disposed hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents). See 56 FR at 41168 (August 19, 1991), adopting this
standard, which was first articulated in NRDC v. EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146,
1171-2 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (dissenting opinion).
EPA is not, in this notice, proposing to prohibit other uses of
hazardous waste that involve placement on the land. Thus, hazardous
waste presently placed on the land as fill material can be diverted to
a less risky, more acceptable activity. See 59 FR 8583 (Feb. 23, 1994)
noting availability of safer alternatives as justification for the
then-proposed prohibition on non-encapsulated uses of hazardous waste
K061. Nor would the agency preclude the possibility that particular
types of prohibited waste could be used as fill material, provided that
it can be established that threats to human health and the environment
have been minimized, taking into account all of the statutorily-
enumerated uncertainties cited above.
In a recent proposed rule on the product use of High Temperature
Metal Recovery slags derived from K061, F006, and K062 hazardous waste,
the Agency initially evaluated the risks that result from a variety of
uses of these slags, including use as road subbase, an ingredient in
cement and asphalt, top grade material for roads, etc. (59 FR 67256,
December 29, 1994). While this evaluation considered the possible
release and transport of waste constituents, the uses examined did not
include the unrestricted use of the waste-derived product as fill
material. Use as fill could result in placement of the waste residual
in almost any location, including a residential setting. Therefore, an
evaluation of the risks posed by use of waste-derived products as fill
would need to consider the potential for direct exposure to receptors
located on-site (e.g., direct ingestion or inhalation of the material),
in addition to the potential for movement of the material off-site to
other receptors. Such an evaluation would need to consider at a minimum
the volume of material used as fill, the levels of toxic constituents
in the material (both total and leachable), the placement site and
proximity to receptors, and activity at the site that would promote
release, transport, and exposure. Indirect exposure pathways also could
be relevant, particularly for hazardous wastes containing
bioaccumulative hazardous constituents (including dioxins and
dibenzofurans).

IX. Capacity Determinations

A. Introduction

This section summarizes the results of the capacity analysis for
the wastes covered by this proposal. For background information on data
sources, methodology, and a summary of each analysis, see the
Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions, Phase III--Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and
Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners, found in the docket for
today's rule.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis methodologies focus on the
amount of waste to be restricted from land disposal that is currently
managed in land-based units and that will require alternative treatment
as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that are not managed in
land-based units (e.g., wastewaters managed only in RCRA exempt tanks,
with direct discharge to a POTW) is not included in the quantities
requiring alternative treatment as a result of the LDRs. Also, wastes
that do not require alternative treatment (e.g., those that are
currently treated using an appropriate treatment technology) are not
included in these quantity estimates.
EPA's decisions on whether to grant a national capacity variance
are based on the availability of alternative treatment or recovery
technologies. Consequently, the methodology focuses on deriving
estimates of the quantities of waste that will require either
commercial treatment or the construction of new on-site treatment
systems as a result of the LDRs--quantities of waste that will be
treated adequately either on site in existing systems or off site by
facilities owned by the same company as the generator (i.e., captive
facilities) are omitted from the required capacity estimates.^{19

\19\Traditionally, capacity analyses have focused on the demand
for alternative capacity once existing on-site capacity and captive
off-site capacity have been accounted for. However, for some of the
wastes at issue in this rule it may not be feasible to ship wastes
off site to a commercial facility. In particular, facilities with
large volumes of wastewaters may not readily be able to transport
their waste to treatment facilities. Alternative treatment for these
wastes may need to be constructed on site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary

For the decharacterized ICR and TC wastes managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, and Class I injection well systems, EPA estimates that
between 3.5 and 15 billion tons will be affected as a result of today's
proposal. EPA believes that some affected facilities need time to build
treatment capacity for these wastes, as wastewater volumes
[[Page 11734]] generally make off-site treatment impractical. EPA has
determined that sufficient alternative treatment capacity is not
available, and today is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity
variance for decharacterized wastewaters.
EPA estimates that approximately 90,000 tons of newly listed wastes
included in today's proposal will require alternative treatment. In
particular, approximately 4,500 tons of carbamate wastes (K156-K161,
P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-
U404, U407, U409-U411) will require alternative treatment. Less than
100 tons of organobromine wastes (K140, U408) are expected to require
alternative treatment capacity. In addition, 85,000 tons of spent
aluminum potliners (K088) will require alternative treatment capacity.
Sufficient commercial capacity exists to manage all of these wastes, so
EPA is not proposing to grant a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
The quantities of radioactive wastes mixed with wastes included in
today's proposal are generated primarily by the U.S. Department of
Energy. EPA estimates that 820 tons of high-level waste and 360 tons of
mixed low-level waste that may be affected by this proposal will be
generated annually by DOE. In addition, there are currently 7,000 tons
of high-level waste, 10 tons of mixed transuranic waste, and 2,700 tons
of mixed low-level waste in storage that may be affected by this
proposal. DOE currently faces treatment capacity shortfalls for high-
level wastes and mixed transuranic wastes. Although DOE does have some
available treatment capacity for mixed low-level wastes, 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. DOE has indicated that it will generally give treatment
priority to mixed wastes that are already restricted under previous LDR
rules. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant a two-year national
capacity variance to radioactive wastes mixed with the hazardous wastes
affected by today's proposal.
Table 1 lists each RCRA hazardous waste code for which EPA is today
proposing LDR standards. For each code, this table indicates whether
EPA is proposing to grant a national capacity variance for land-
disposed wastes.^{20 Also, EPA is proposing to grant a three month
national capacity variance for all wastes in this proposed rule to
handle logistical problems associated with complying with the new
standards. EPA is soliciting comment on these variance determinations.

Table 1.--Variances for Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
[``Yes'' Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface-disposed Deep well-injected
Waste description wastes wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignitable Wastes\1\(D001)......................................... YES.................. YES.
Corrosive Wastes\1\ (D002)........................................ YES.................. YES.
Reactive Wastes\1\ (D003)......................................... YES.................. YES.
Newly Identified Pesticide Wastes\2\ (D012-D017).................. YES.................. YES.
Newly Identified TC Organic Wastewaters (D018-D043)............... YES.................. YES.
Spent Aluminum Potliners (K088)................................... NO................... NO.
Carbamate Production Wastes (K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188- NO................... NO.
P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367,
U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404, U407,
U409-U411).
Organobromine Wastes (K140, U408)................................. NO................... NO.
Mixed Radioactive Wastes\3\....................................... YES.................. YES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The variance determinations listed here apply only to decharacterized wastewaters managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, and SDWA systems.
\2\The variance determinations listed here apply only to newly identified decharacterized D012-D017 wastewaters
managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems.
\3\The variance determinations given listed apply only to radioactive wastes mixed with decharacterized D001-
D003 or newly identified D012-D017 wastes managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems; to radioactive
wastes mixed with newly identified TC organic wastewaters; and to radioactive wastes mixed with spent aluminum
potliners, carbamate production wastes, or organobromine production wastes.

EPA is also proposing in this notice to prohibit placement of
hazardous waste as fill material. To the extent this can be viewed as a
new prohibition (which, given EPA's consistent interpretation that this
activity should be occurring in regulated units, is unclear), EPA would
not propose any type of capacity variance. Hazardous waste treatment
residues satisfying LDR standards can be land disposed in subtitle C
units, and there is no shortage of such disposal capacity. In addition,
there may be opportunities for recycling hazardous waste treatment
residues presently placed as fill (such as use in asphalt, cement, or
as light weight aggregate) which would provide adequate capacity.

\20\The term ``land-disposed wastes'' denotes wastes that are
managed in land-based units at any time during the waste's storage,
treatment, or disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Requests for Comment

EPA is soliciting general comment and data on sources, quantities,
and management practices of characteristic wastes, as well as presence
and quantities of underlying hazardous constituents, from facilities
managing their wastes using Subtitle D surface impoundments (CWA), or
subsequent land disposal of treated wastewaters (CWA-equivalent), or
Class I nonhazardous injection wells, or tanks. EPA requests specific
information from facilities managing de minimis ICRT wastes, including
information on waste sources, quantities, and management practices, as
well as underlying hazardous constituents.
EPA requests specific information on volumes of carbamate and
organobromine wastes that are recycled, mixed with, or co-managed with
other wastes, and the volumes and types of residuals that are generated
by the various management practices applicable to these wastes. EPA is
also soliciting information, including quantities, management
practices, and waste characteristics, for soil and debris contaminated
with carbamate and/or organobromine wastes. EPA also seeks comments
from the aluminum industry on volumes of K088 generated and future
management of this waste.
EPA is soliciting specific data on reactive wastes which are
deactivated [[Page 11735]] using processes that may cause explosions,
including quantities, management practices, and waste characteristics,
and is requesting data for mixed TC/radioactive wastes which are
deepwell injected.

X. 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 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
applies in authorized States in the interim.
Today's rule is being proposed pursuant to sections 3004 (d)
through (k), and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(d) through (k), and (m)).
It is proposed to 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 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.
EPA's proposal to prohibit hazardous waste as fill material is also
a HSWA regulation. It implements RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5),
and (m), which provisions require EPA to prohibit all land disposal of
hazardous waste that is not capable of being done in a manner that is
protective and that minimizes short-term and long-term threats to human
health and the environment from hazardous waste disposal. See also 59
FR 43499 (August 24, 1994), which is a HSWA rule prohibiting K061 as
anti-skid/de-icing material and implements these same LDR provisions.
Consequently, this provision, if enacted, would be effective
immediately in authorized states.

B. Effect on State Authorization

As noted above, EPA is today proposing a rule that, when final,
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 proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to receive 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 final authorization are described in 40 CFR 271.21.
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that States with final authorization
must modify their programs to reflect Federal program changes and to
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). This deadline can be
extended in certain cases (see section 271.21(e)(3)). 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 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.
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 being proposed today need not affect the State's
UIC primacy status. A State currently authorized to administer the UIC
program under the 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 LDRs 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 discussed in a July 15, 1985 final
rule (50 FR 28728).

XI. 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 proposed rule to
determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by
[[Page 11736]] the Executive Order. The analysis considers compliance
cost and economic impacts for both characteristic wastes and newly
listed wastes affected by this rule. For characteristic wastes, the
potential cost impacts of this rule depend on whether facilities'
current wastewater treatment systems will meet the UTS levels or if
additional treatment will be required. If current treatments are
adequate, facilities will only incur administrative costs to have their
permits revised. A rough estimate would be that there would be one-time
incremental costs of $0.9 to $2.9 million for all incrementally
impacted facilities. However, at the high end, if current wastewater
treatment systems need to be augmented with additional treatment steps,
the incremental compliance costs for today's rule could be as high as
$1 million per affected facility. If 20% of the firms comply by
installing additional treatment, treatment costs are estimated to be
$6.5-$18.1 million/year. The Agency does not have adequate data to
estimate how many, if any, facilities may require modification to their
treatment facilities. The Agency requests comment and data on how often
additional treatment may be required and what type of treatment may be
needed.
For newly listed wastes, the costs are substantially higher and
will be incurred each year. These costs range from approximately $11.9
million to $47.3 million and are attributable primarily to thermal
treatment of spent aluminum potliner wastes (K088). Therefore, today's
proposed rule may be considered an economically significant rule.
Because today's proposed rule is significant, the Agency analyzed the
costs, economic impacts, and benefits.
This section of the preamble for today's proposed rule provides a
discussion of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic
impacts and the benefits attributable to today's proposed rule,
followed by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit
results. More detailed discussions of the methodology and results may
be found in the background document, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of
the Proposed Rule for the LDR Phase III Newly Listed and Identified
Wastes,'' which has been placed in the docket for today's proposed
rule.
1. Methodology Section
In today's proposed rule, the Agency is establishing treatment
standards for the following wastes: end-of-pipe standards for ICR
wastewaters managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems, and Class I
nonhazardous UIC wells, TC pesticide (D012-17) and organic (D018-43)
wastewaters managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems, and Class I
nonhazardous UIC wells (all UIC managed volumes are covered under a
different section of the preamble for today's rule), and newly listed
wastes from three industries - organobromines, spent aluminum
potliners, and carbamates.
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 waste affected by today's rule. The
procedure for estimating the volumes of ICR waste and TC organic and
pesticide waste, and newly listed wastes affected by today's rule is
summarized below.
First, the Agency examined all industries which might be likely to
produce wastes covered under today's standards. Through reviewing
comments to the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability published by
the Agency in 1993, reviewing runs from the Biennial Reporting System
(BRS) of volumes generated from particular industry sectors, as well as
discussions with industry, and discussions with the Office of Water at
EPA HQ, the Agency narrowed it down to 16 industries which would
potentially have significant volumes of wastewater affected by today's
rule.
Using a host of databases and/or sources, the Agency collected data
on the quantities, constituents, and concentrations of the volumes
affected from each of the 16 industries. In addition, the Agency
gathered any data on current management practices, plant design, etc.
The following sources were used: Section 308 data from the Office of
Water, Industrial Studies Database (ISDB), 1991 Biennial Reporting
System (BRS), primary summary and development documents from effluent
guidelines, Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Impact Analysis
documents, data gathered in the capacity analysis performed for today's
rule, as well as comments from potentially affected industries.
The Agency obtained volume information for the newly listed
wastes--organobromines (K140), spent aluminum potliners (K088), and
carbamate wastes (K156-161)--from the listing documents prepared for
these wastes during the listing procedure.
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 cost methodology section includes three subsections: (i) ICR
and TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes Managed in CWA and CWA-Equivalent
Systems, (ii) Newly Listed Wastes, (iii) Testing and Recordkeeping
Costs. (The costs for wastes managed in Class I nonhazardous waste deep
wells are discussed in section B.)
(i) ICR and TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes Managed in CWA and CWA-
Equivalent Systems. The Agency employed the following approach to
estimate the incremental costs for the ICR and TC wastes. First, using
information available on the affected industries, the Agency created
average-sized model facilities for each industry. Second, for a given
model facility in an affected industry, the Agency used available unit
cost data to develop costs for the baseline management practices
(usually treatment in surface impoundments followed by discharge into
receiving waters through a NPDES permit). Third, the Agency used data
on the constituents and waste quantities for each industry, where
applicable, to determine the necessary treatment required to reduce to
UTS levels the constituents present. Fourth, the Agency used unit costs
to develop costs for the post-regulatory management practices for the
treatment requirements determined in the third step. Fifth, subtracting
the baseline from the post-regulatory costs for an average facility in
an industry sector and using the data available on the number of
facilities affected within each industry, the Agency was able calculate
the incremental cost for a given industry. Sixth, summing costs across
affected industries, the Agency determined the incremental cost for the
rule for the end-of-pipe treatment standards.
(ii) Newly Listed Wastes. The costs for treatment of organobromines
(K140), spent aluminum potliners (K088), and carbamate wastes (K156-
161) will be determined using data from the listings on baseline
management practices, judgment on the technology(s) required to meet
the UTS standards for these wastes, and available unit cost data.
(iii) Testing and Recordkeeping Costs. Testing and recordkeeping
costs, including costs that facilities will incur for ensuring that
hazardous constituents [[Page 11737]] in characteristic waste are
meeting new treatment standards and costs associated with permit
modifications will be based upon an average, one-time testing cost and
an Information Collection Request, respectively.
c. Economic Impact Methodology. The economic effects of today's
proposed 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).
The Agency used (1) historic average capital expenditures for each
industry, (2) historic average operating expenditures for each
industry, (3) historic revenues, and (4) historic average pollution
abatement and control expenditures (PACE) to determine the economic
impacts. However, the Agency was unable to examine the impacts on a
facility-specific basis due to lack of data. Therefore, the impacts are
assessed on an industry-specific basis.
d. Benefits Methodology. The approach for estimating benefits
associated with today's rule involves three components: (i) estimation
of pollutant loadings reductions, (ii) estimation of reductions in
exceedances of health-based levels, and, (iii) qualitative description
of the potential benefits. The benefits assessment is based upon the
waste quantity and concentration data collected for the cost analysis.
This incremental assessment focuses upon reductions in toxic
concentrations at the point of discharge and does not consider any
potential benefits resulting from reductions in air emissions or
impacts on impoundment leaks and sludges which may occur as part of
treating wastes to comply with the LDRs.
EPA has not conducted an assessment of the benefits related to the
effects of the proposed rule on newly listed wastes. These benefits
depend on the incremental risk reductions that may result from
treatment of the wastes prior to disposal at a subtitle C facility. EPA
data indicate that between 100,000 and 118,000 tons of spent aluminum
potliners are generated annually. Improper management of these wastes
has caused many serious past damage incidents. (See listing Background
Document for K088). However, data are limited with regard to current
management practices and risk levels for these wastes. Therefore, EPA
is not yet able to evaluate the benefits resulting under the proposed
rule for these wastes. Because the quantity of waste is very small,
benefits for newly listed organobromine and carbamate wastes are
expected to be minimal.
(i) Estimation of Pollutant Loadings Reductions. An incremental
approach was used to estimate reductions in pollutant loadings. For the
baseline scenario, contaminant concentrations were based upon data or
estimates of current effluent discharge concentration levels. For the
post-regulatory scenario, concentration levels were assumed to equal
UTS levels.
(ii) Estimation of Reductions in Exceedances of Health-Based
Levels. The methods used for evaluating the benefits associated with
cancer and noncancer risk reductions resulting from the proposed rule
entail comparing constituent concentration levels to health-based
standards to evaluate whether implementation of the proposed rule
reduces concentration levels below levels that pose risk to human
health.
To estimate benefits from cancer risk reductions resulting from the
proposed rule, a simple screening analysis was performed. This analysis
compared contaminant concentrations for the baseline and post-
regulatory scenario to health-based levels for carcinogens. Further
analysis may be undertaken to quantify benefits associated with
facility/ wastestream combinations identified in the contaminant
concentration comparisons.
Benefits associated with reductions in non-cancer exceedances are
estimated based upon comparisons of contaminant concentration levels in
effluent discharges of the affected wastestreams to the reference
health levels. These benefits are expressed in terms of the number of
exceedances of health-based levels under the baseline scenario compared
to the number of exceedances under the proposed rule.
(iii) Qualitative Description of the Potential Benefits. A
qualitative assessment of potential benefits likely to result from the
proposed rule is used where data are limited. The Agency acknowledges
limited data availability in developing waste volumes affected,
constituents, concentrations, cost estimates, economic impacts, and
benefits estimates for the proposed LDR Phase III rulemaking. The
Agency respectfully requests comment from industry regarding
constituents, concentrations, waste volumes, and current management
practices.
2. Results
a. Volume Results. The Agency has estimated the volumes of formerly
characteristic wastes potentially affected by today's rule to total in
the range of 33.5 to 500 million tons. The Agency requests comment on
waste volumes affected by the proposed LDR Phase III rule. For newly
listed wastes, the analyses supporting the listing determination showed
about 4,500 tons of carbamate wastes, less than 100 tons of
organobromine wastes, and 100,000 to 118,000 tons of spent aluminum
potliners are potentially affected by this rule.
b. Cost Results. For characteristic wastes, the potential cost
impacts of this rule depend on whether facilities' current wastewater
treatment systems will meet the UTS levels or if additional treatment
will be required. If current treatments are adequate, facilities will
only incur administrative costs to have their permits revised. A rough
estimate would be that there would be one-time incremental costs of
$0.9 to $2.9 million for all incrementally impacted facilities.
However, at the high end, if current wastewater treatment systems need
to be augmented with additional treatment steps, the incremental
compliance costs could be as high as $1 million per affected facility.
The Agency does not have adequate data to estimate how many, if any,
facilities may require modification to their treatment facilities. The
Agency requests comment and data on how often additional treatment may
be required.
For newly listed wastes, the costs are substantially higher and
will be incurred each year. These costs range from approximately $11.9
million to $47.3 million and are attributable primarily to thermal
treatment of spent aluminum potliner wastes (K088). The Agency requests
comment on these estimates.
c. Economic Impact Results. The Agency has estimated the economic
impacts of today's rule to represent less than one percent of historic
pollution control and operating costs for the organic chemical and
petroleum refining industries. However, for those facilities that may
need to treat to UTS to comply with today's rule, costs could be more
significant. The estimated compliance costs for treating newly listed
spent aluminum potliners represents 40 percent of pollution control
operating costs for aluminum reducers; however, treatment costs
represent only one percent of total historic operating costs. The
Agency requests comment on anticipated economic impacts resulting from
the proposed LDR Phase III rule.
d. Benefit Estimate Results. The Agency has estimated the benefits
associated with today's rule to be small. Assuming facilities comply
with the proposed rule by treating their affected wastestreams,
loadings reductions [[Page 11738]] estimates range between 36 and 407
tons per year for direct dischargers, and between 1,490 and 24,391 tons
per year for indirect dischargers. For direct dischargers, loadings
reductions represent between .03 to .30 percent of total Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) chemical loadings to surface waters. For indirect
dischargers, loadings reductions represent between .8 and 12.8 percent
of all TRI loadings transferred to POTWs. Based upon the results of
this screening, and more detailed risk assessments, the estimated
baseline risks associated with only four wastestreams exceed commonly
assumed threshold cancer and noncancer risk levels. EPA estimated that
three wastestreams containing aniline pose baseline cancer risks
ranging from 1 x 10^{-5 to 1 x 10^{-4 which potentially would be
reduced to between 8 x 10^{-8 and 3 x 10^{-6 under the Phase III
rule. A fourth wastestream containing acrylamide poses baseline cancer
risk at a level of 2 x 10^{-3. The proposed rule is estimated to
reduce this risk to between 2 x 10^{-4 and P4 x 10^{-3. All four
of these wastestreams are currently discharged to POTWs; if POTW
treatment removes these constituents from the wastewater prior to
discharge to surface water and/or if no drinking water intake is
located downstream from the POTW's outfall, baseline risks will be
lower than those estimated above. The Agency requests comment and any
available information related to these wastestreams.

B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Underground Injected Wastes

The Agency has completed a separate regulatory impact analysis for
underground injected wastes affected by the LDR Phase III proposed
rule. This analysis describes and evaluates the regulatory impacts only
to the Class I injection well universe. The new proposed Phase III LDRs
cover decharaterized ICR and TC organic wastes, and other newly-
identified hazardous wastes that are distinctly industrial wastes
injected by owners and operators of only Class I hazardous and non-
hazardous injection wells.
According to the available data outlined in the RIA, indications
are that of the 223 Class I injection facilities in the nation, up to
154 could be affected by the new Phase III LDRs. Of these facilities,
101 inject nonhazardous waste and 53 inject hazardous waste. Combined,
these facilities may inject up to 14 billion gallons of waste annually
into Class I wells. These Class I injection facilities will now be
required to either treat wastes, or file no migration petitions as
outlined in 40 CFR 148 (See 53 FR 28118 (July 26, 1988)) preamble for a
more thorough discussion of the no migration petition review process).
Additional options for compliance with the proposed Phase III LDRs,
including a de minimis exemption and a pollution prevention option are
discussed in more detail in the RIA.
Of these newly affected Class I facilities, 38 already have no
migration exemptions approved by EPA, but may face additional
requirements requiring some modifications of their petitions due to the
proposed LDR Phase III rule. For the facilities which do not have
approved no migration exemptions, today's proposed rule will add
compliance costs to those currently incurred as a result of previous
rulemakings. The Agency analyzed costs and benefits for today's rule by
using the same approach and methodology developed in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Underground Injection Control Program: Proposed
Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions used for the final rule
(53 FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking. An analysis was performed to
assess the economic effect of associated compliance costs for the
additional volumes of injected wastes attributable to this proposed
rule.
In general, Class I injection facilities affected by the LDR Phase
III rule will have several options. As previously mentioned, some
facilities will modify existing no migration petitions already approved
by the Agency, other facilities may submit entirely new petitions, and
still others may accept the prohibitions and either continue to inject
wastes after treatment or cease injection operations altogether, EPA
assessed compliance costs for Class I facilities submitting no-
migration petitions, employing alternative treatment, and/or
implementing pollution prevention measures. Although facilities using
pollution prevention/waste minimization to comply with the Phase III
LDRs will likely lower overall regulatory compliance costs, these
situations are site-specific and, therefore, EPA cannot estimate these
cost savings.
For Class I facilities opting to use alternative treatment, the
Agency derived costs for both treating wastes on-site, and/or shipping
wastes and treating them off-site at a commercial facility. However,
the Agency believes that transportation of large volumes of liquid
wastes off-site is not practical. This makes the off-site treatment
scenario, at best, a highly conservative analysis. EPA expects most
facilities that treat their wastes will do so on-site. Preliminary EPA
estimates show that the total annual compliance cost for petitions and
alternative on-site treatment to industry affected by the new LDR Phase
III prohibitions will range between $9.2 million to $13.2 million. The
noncommercial facilities choosing to segregate their wastes may incur
additional costs totaling $2.98 million. The average annual compliance
costs per affected facility employing on-site alternative treatment
ranges from $59,740 to $85,714. The overall annual regulatory
compliance cost to industry for petitions and alternatively treating
wastes off-site will range between $486.5 million to $805.3 million.
The range of costs for alternative treatment is the result of applying
a sensitivity analysis. Only the incremental treatment costs for the
new waste listings are calculated in this RIA. All of these costs will
be incurred by Class I injection well owners and operators. The
estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule were based on the
random assignment of injection facilities to petition and treatment
outcomes using a decision tree analysis method described in the RIA.
The Agency requests comment as to how frequently facilities with Class
I nonhazardous injection wells will be able to receive a no-migration
variance. The Agency also requests comment on how frequently owners
will choose to treat their waste and whether that treatment will occur
on-site.
The benefits to human health and the environment in the RIA are
generally defined as reduced human health risk resulting from fewer
instances of ground water contamination. In general, potential health
risks from Class I injection wells are extremely low. EPA conducted a
preliminary quantitative assessment of the potential human health risks
associated with two worst-case scenarios involving well malfunction.
EPA applied the approach taken in an earlier study to measure health
risks of two LDR Phase III contaminants: benzene and carbon
tetrachloride. The results of this preliminary analysis show that all
of the cancer and noncancer risks calculated are below regulatory
concern, with the exception of the cancer risk and hazard index
calculated for carbon tetrachloride, assuming an abandoned borehole is
near the injection well, drinking water pumping is occurring, and the
local geology is typical of the East Gulf Coast Region. The assumptions
used in deriving these results were based on conservative, upper-bound
estimates. The Agency intends to expand this analysis in the final rule
to include other constituents [[Page 11739]] and facilities. The Agency
is interested in comments on this methodology and any data on actual
injection volumes and constituents.
The economic analysis of LDR Phase III compliance costs suggests
that publicly traded companies affected by the rule will probably not
be significantly economically impacted. The limited data available for
the privately held companies suggests, however, that they may face
significant impacts due to the proportionally larger expenses they may
face as a result of the proposed rule.

C. 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 (May 4,
1992), the Agency committed to considering regulatory alternatives in
rulemakings when there were any economic impacts estimated on any small
entities. See RCRA sections 3004(d), (e), and (g)(5), which apply
uniformly to all hazardous wastes. 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 proposed 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 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. See also Sec. 268.1(c)(1), which states
that LDR rules do not apply to small quantity generators.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The new information collection requirements in this proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Four
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents has been prepared by
EPA, covering the three programs impacted (i.e., the LDR program, the
UIC program, and the CWA NPDES program: LDR ICR# 1442.08; UIC ICR#
1738.01; NPDES Application ICR# 0226.11; and NPDES Discharge Monitoring
Report ICR# 0229.10). The overall reporting and recordkeeping burden is
estimated to be approximately 632,500 hours (sum from the four ICRs).
The average burden per respondent is slightly more than 4,000 hours
(sum from the four ICRs.). Only incremental burdens are discussed in
the ICRs. These incremental burdens will eventually be merged with: the
UIC program ICR, the LDR program ICR, the NPDES permit program ICR, and
the Discharge Monitoring Report program ICR.
The public reporting burden for these collections is estimated to
average: for the LDR program, 75 hours per respondent; for the UIC
program, 3800 hours per respondent; for the NPDES application program,
37.5 hours per respondent; and for the NPDES discharge monitoring
report, 211.5 hours per respondent. This includes time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and compiling data, maintaining the data, and
preparing and submitting all data.
A copy of the ICRs for this rule may be obtained from the Sandy
Farmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Information Policy Branch, 401
M Street, S.W. (Mail Code 2136), Washington D.C. 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The public should send comments regarding the burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing burden to EPA; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, D.C. 20460, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 148

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

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: February 16, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

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

PART 148--HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION RESTRICTIONS

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

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

2. Section 148.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (d)
to read as follows:

Sec. 148.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
(a) This part identifies wastes that are restricted from disposal
into Class I wells and defines those circumstances under which a waste,
otherwise prohibited from injection, may be injected.
(b) The requirements of this part apply to owners or operators of
Class I hazardous waste injection wells used to inject hazardous waste;
and, owners or operators of Class I injection wells used to inject
wastes which once exhibited a prohibited characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in subpart C of part 261 of this chapter, at the point
of generation, and no longer exhibit the characteristic at the point of
injection.
* * * * *
(d) Wastes that are only characteristically hazardous and otherwise
prohibited are not prohibited if the wastes are disposed into a
nonhazardous injection well defined under 40 CFR 144.6(a) and do not
[[Page 11740]] exhibit any prohibited characteristic of hazardous waste
identified in subpart C of part 261 of this chapter, and do not contain
any hazardous constituents identified in 40 CFR 268.48 diluted below
the Universal Treatment Standard levels prior to injection.
3. Section 148.3 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 148.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute for treatment.

(a) The provisions of Sec. 268.3 of this chapter shall apply to
owners or operators of Class I wells used to inject a waste which is
hazardous at the point of generation whether or not the waste is
hazardous at the point of injection.
(b) Owners or operators of Class I nonhazardous waste injection
wells which inject waste formerly exhibiting a hazardous characteristic
which has been removed by dilution, may address underlying hazardous
constituents by treating the hazardous waste, obtaining an exemption
pursuant to a petition filed under Sec. 148.20, or complying with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 268.9 of this chapter.
4. Section 148.4 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 148.4 Procedures for case-by-case extensions to an effective
date.

The owner or operator of a Class I hazardous or nonhazardous waste
injection well may submit an application to the Administrator for an
extension of the effective date of any applicable prohibition
established under subpart B of this part according to the procedures of
Sec. 268.5 of this chapter.
5. Section 148.18 is added to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec. 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions--Newly Identified Wastes.

(a) On [Insert date 90 days from date of publication of final
rule], the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
waste numbers K088, K140, K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
U379, U381-387, U389-U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are prohibited from
underground injection.
(b) On [Insert date 2 years from effective date of the final rule],
the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA Hazardous waste numbers
D018-043, and Mixed TC/Radioactive wastes, are prohibited from
underground injection.
(c) On [Insert date 2 years from effective date of the final rule],
the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA Hazardous waste numbers
D001-D003 are prohibited from underground injection.
6. Section 148.20 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:

Sec. 148.20 Petitions to allow injection of a waste prohibited under
Subpart B.

(a) Any person seeking an exemption from a prohibition under
subpart B of this part for the injection of a restricted hazardous
waste, including a hazardous waste exhibiting a characteristic and
containing underlying hazardous constituents at the point of
generation, but no longer exhibiting a characteristic when injected
into a Class I injection well or wells, shall submit a petition to the
Director demonstrating that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there
will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone
for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This demonstration requires
a showing that:
* * * * *

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

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

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

8. In Subpart C, Sec. 266.20, paragraph (b) is amended by adding
one sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

Sec. 266.20 Applicability.

* * * * *
(b) * * * This provision does not apply to hazardous waste used as
a fill material (i.e., a substitute for sand, dirt or comparable
material) to fill in holes, occupy space, raise land levels, or be used
for other similar purposes.
* * * * *

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

9. 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

10. Section 268.1 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4) and by
removing paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) De minimis losses of characteristic wastes to wastewaters are
defined as:
(i) 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; rinsate from
empty containers or from containers that are rendered empty by that
rinsing; and laboratory wastes not exceeding one per cent of the flow
of wastewater into the facility's headworks on an annual basis; or
(ii) Characteristic wastes which are injected into Class I
nonhazardous wells whose combined volume is less than one per cent of
the total flow at the wellhead on an annualized basis, and which any
underlying hazardous constituents in the characteristic wastes are
present at the point of generation at levels less than ten times the
treatment standards found at Sec. 268.48.
11. Section 268.2 is amended by revising the introductory text to
paragraph (f), by removing paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3), and
by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 268.2 Definitions applicable in this part.

* * * * *
(f) Wastewaters are wastes that contain less than 1% by weight
total organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1% by weight total suspended
solids (TSS).
* * * * *
(j) Inorganic metal-bearing waste is one for which EPA has
established treatment standards for metal hazardous constituents, and
which does not otherwise contain significant organic or cyanide content
as described in Sec. 268.3(b)(1), and is specifically listed in
appendix XI of this part.
12. Section 268.3 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute for treatment.

(a) No generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall in any way dilute a
restricted waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste
as a substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with
subpart D of this part, to circumvent the effective date of a
prohibition in subpart C of this part, to otherwise avoid a prohibition
in subpart C of this part, or to circumvent a land disposal
[[Page 11741]] prohibition imposed by RCRA section 3004.
(b) Combustion of hazardous waste is prohibited, unless the waste,
at the point of generation, or after any bona fide treatment such as
cyanide destruction prior to combustion, can be demonstrated to comply
with one or more of the following criteria (unless otherwise
specifically prohibited from combustion):
(1) The waste contains hazardous organic constituents or cyanide at
levels exceeding the constituent-specific treatment standard found in
Sec. 268.48;
(2) The waste consists of organic, debris-like materials (e.g.,
wood, paper, plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an inorganic metal-
bearing hazardous waste;
(3) The waste, at point of generation, has reasonable heating value
such as greater than or equal to 5000 BTU per pound;
(4) The waste is co-generated with wastes for which combustion is a
required method of treatment;
(5) The waste is subject to Federal and/or State requirements
necessitating reduction of organics (including biological agents); or
(6) The waste contains greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
13. Section 268.7 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5)(v) to read
as follows:

Sec. 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(v) For characteristic wastes D001, D002, D003 and D012-D043 that
contain underlying hazardous constituents as defined in Sec. 268.2(i)
that are treated on-site to remove the hazardous characteristic and to
treat underlying hazardous constituents to levels in Sec. 268.48
Universal Treatment Standards, 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 contained
underlying hazardous constituents that have been treated on-site to
meet Sec. 268.48 Universal Treatment Standards. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
* * * * *

Sec. 268.8 [Removed and Reserved]

14. Section 268.8 is removed and reserved.
15. Section 268.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2) introductory text; and by adding
paragraphs (d)(3), (e) and (f) 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 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 a
hazardous characteristic (and the waste is not a D004--D011 waste, a
High TOC D001, or is not treated by CMBST, or RORGS of Sec. 268.42,
Table 1), the generator must determine what underlying hazardous
constituents (as defined in Sec. 268.2 of this Part), are reasonably
expected to be present above the universal treatment standards found in
Sec. 268.48 of this part.
(b) Where a prohibited waste is both listed under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart D and exhibits a characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart
C, the treatment standard for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part 261,
subpart D will operate in lieu of the standard for the waste code under
40 CFR part 261, subpart C, provided that the treatment standard for
the listed waste includes a treatment standard for the constituent that
causes the waste to exhibit the characteristic and for any underlying
hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present in the waste.
Otherwise, the waste must meet the treatment standards for all
applicable listed and characteristic waste codes.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For characteristic wastes other than those managed on-site in a
wastewater treatment system subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), zero-
dischargers engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment, or Class I
nonhazardous injection wells, the name and address of the Subtitle D
facility receiving the waste shipment;
(ii) For all characteristic wastes, a description of the waste as
initially generated, including the applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s), treatability group(s), and underlying hazardous
constituents;
(2) The certification must be signed by an authorized
representative and must state the language found in Sec. 268.7(b)(5).
* * * * *
(3) For characteristic wastes whose ultimate disposal will be into
a Class I nonhazardous injection well, and compliance with the
treatment standards found in Sec. 268.48 for underlying hazardous
constituents is achieved through pollution prevention, the following
information must also be included:
(i) A description of the pollution prevention mechanism;
(ii) The mass of each underlying hazardous constituent before
pollution prevention;
(iii) The mass of each underlying hazardous constituent that must
be removed, normalized for production; and,
(iv) The mass reduction of each underlying hazardous constituent
that is achieved.
(e) For decharacterized wastes managed on-site in a wastewater
treatment system subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers
engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment, or Class I nonhazardous injection
wells, compliance with the treatment standards found at Sec. 268.48
must be monitored quarterly. Monitoring results must be kept in on-site
files for 5 years.
(f) For characteristic wastes whose ultimate disposal will be into
a Class I nonhazardous injection well which qualifies for the de
minimis exclusion described in Sec. 268.1, information supporting that
qualification must be kept in on-site files.

Sec. 268.10--Sec. 268.12 [Removed and Reserved]

16. Sections 268.10 through 268.12 are removed and reserved.
17. In subpart C, Sec. 268.39 is added to read as follows:
* * * * *

Sec. 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions--spent aluminum potliners,
carbamates and organobromine wastes.

(a) On [Insert date 90 days from date of publication of the final
rule], the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
numbers K088, K140, K156-K161; and in 40 CFR 261.33 as EPA Hazardous
Waste numbers P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205,
U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-
U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated [[Page 11742]] with these wastes
are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) On [Insert date two years from date of publication of the final
rule], characteristic wastes that are managed in systems whose
discharge is regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or that are
zero dischargers that engage in CWA-equivalent treatment before
ultimate land disposal, are prohibited from land disposal. Radioactive
wastes mixed with K088, K140, K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-P192,
P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373,
U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are also
prohibited from land disposal. In addition, soil and debris
contaminated with these radioactive mixed wastes are prohibited from
land disposal.
(c) Between [Insert date 90 days from date of publication of the
final rule] and [Insert date two years from date of publication of the
final rule], the wastes included in paragraph (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).
(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.
18. The table in Sec. 268.40 is amended as follows:
a. By revising the entries for D001 through F012, F037 through
F039, K006, K018, K019, K028, K030, K035, K048 through K052, K061,
K083, K086, K101, K102, P003, P013, P056, U038, U042, U093, U134, and
U168.
b. By adding in alpha-numerical order entries for K088, K140, K156
through K161, P127, P128, P185, P188 through P192, P194, P196 through
P199, P201 through P205, U271, U277 through U280, U364 through U367,
U372, U373, U375 through U379, U381 through U387, U389 through U396,
U400 through U404, and U407 through U411.

Sec. 268.40 Applicability of treatment standards.

* * * * *

Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste description and Concentration in
Waste code treatment/regulatory Concentration in mg/kg\5\ unless
subcategory\1\ Common name CAS\2\ No. mg/l\3\; or noted as ``mg/l
technology TCLP''; or
code\4\ technology code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D001............ Ignitable NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
Characteristic Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
Wastes, except for standards; or standards; or
the Sec. 261.21(a)(1) RORGS; or CMBST. RORGS; or
High TOC Subcategory. CMBST.
High TOC Ignitable NA............... NA NA............... RORGS; or CMBST.
Characteristic
Liquids Subcategory
based on 40 CFR
261.21(a)(1)--Greater
than or equal to 10%
total organic carbon.
(Note: This
subcategory consists
of nonwastewaters
only.).
D002............ Corrosive NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
Characteristic Wastes. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
standards. standards.
D002, D004, Radioactive high level Corrosivity (pH). NA NA............... HLVIT.
D005, D006, wastes generated Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 NA............... HLVIT.
D007, D008, during the Barium........... 7440-39-3 NA............... HLVIT.
D009, D010, reprocessing of fuel Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 NA............... HLVIT.
D011. rods. (Note: This Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 NA............... HLVIT.
subcategory consists
of nonwastewaters
only.).
Lead............. 7439-92-1 NA............... HLVIT.
Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... HLVIT.
Selenium......... 7782-49-2 NA............... HLVIT.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 NA............... HLVIT.
D003............ Reactive Sulfides NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
Subcategory based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
Sec. 261.23(a)(5). standards. standards.
Explosives Subcategory NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
based on Sec. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
261.23(a)(6), (7), standards. standards.
and (8).
[[Page 11743]]

Other Reactives NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
Subcategory based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
Sec. 261.23(a)(1). standards. standards.
Water Reactive NA............... NA NA............... DEACT and meet
Subcategory based on Sec. 268.48
Sec. 261.23(a)(2), standards.
(3), and (4). (Note:
This subcategory
consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Reactive Cyanides Cyanides 57-12-5 Reserved......... 590.
Subcategory based on (Total)\7\. 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
Sec. 261.23(a)(5). Cyanides
(Amenable)\7\.
D004............ Wastes that exhibit, Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l EP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for arsenic
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
Arsenic; 7440-38-2 NA............... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
altermate\6\
standard for
nonwastewaters
only.
D005............ Wastes that exhibit, Barium........... 7440-39-3 100.............. 100 mg/l TCLP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for barium
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
D006............ Wastes that exhibit, Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 NA............... 1.0 mg/l TCLP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for cadmium
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
Cadmium Containing Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 NA............... RTHRM.
Batteries
Subcategory. (Note:
This subcategory
consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
D007............ Wastes that exhibit, Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for chromium
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
D008............ Wastes that exhibit, Lead............. 7439-92-1 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l EP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for lead
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
Lead; 7439-92-1 NA............... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
altermate\6\
standard for
nonwastewaters
only.
Lead Acid Batteries Lead............. 7439-92-1 NA............... RLEAD.
Subcategory (Note:
This standard only
applies to lead acid
batteries that are
identified as RCRA
hazardous wastes and
that are not excluded
elsewhere from
regulation under the
land disposal
restrictions of 40
CFR 268 or exempted
under other EPA
regulations (see 40
CFR 266.80). This
subcategory consists
of nonwastewaters
only.).
[[Page 11744]]

Radioactive Lead Lead............. 7439-92-1 NA............... MACRO.
Solids Subcategory
(Note: these lead
solids include, but
are not limited to,
all forms of lead
shielding and other
elemental forms of
lead. These lead
solids do not include
treatment residuals
such as hydroxide
sludges, other
wastewater treatment
residuals, or
incinerator ashes
that can undergo
conventional
pozzolanic
stabilization, nor do
they include organo-
lead materials that
can be incinerated
and stabilized as
ash. This subcategory
consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
D009............ Nonwastewaters that Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... IMERC; or RMERC.
exhibit, or are
expected to exhibit,
the characteristic of
toxicity for mercury
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310; and contain
greater than or equal
to 260 mg/kg total
mercury that also
contain organics and
are not incinerator
residues. (High
Mercury-Organic
Subcategory).
Nonwastewaters that Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... RMERC.
exhibit, or are
expected to exhibit,
the characteristic of
toxicity for mercury
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310; and contain
greater than or equal
to 260 mg/kg total
mercury that are
inorganic, including
incinerator residues
and residues from
RMERC. (High Mercury-
Inorganic
Subcategory).
Nonwastewaters that Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... 0.20 mg/l TCLP.
exhibit, or are
expected to exhibit,
the characterisitc of
toxicity for mercury
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310; and contain
less than 260 mg/kg
total mercury. (Low
Mercury Subcategory).
All D009 wastewaters.. Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.20............. NA.
Elemental mercury Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... AMLGM.
contaminated with
radioactive
materials. (Note:
This subcategory
consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Hydraulic oil Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... IMERC.
contaminated with
Mercury Radioactive
Materials
Subcategory. (Note:
This subcategory
consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
D010............ Wastes that exhibit, Selenium......... 7782-49-2 1.0.............. 5.7 mg/l TCLP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for selenium
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
D011............ Wastes that exhibit, Silver........... 7440-22-4 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
or are expected to
exhibit, the
characteristic of
toxicity for silver
based on the
extraction procedure
(EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
[[Page 11745]]

D012............ Wastes that are TC for Endrin........... 72-20-8 BIODG; or INCIN.. 0.13 and meet
Endrin based on the Endrin aldehyde.. 7421-93-4 BIODG; or INCIN.. Sec. 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method standards.
1311. 0.13 and meet
Sec. 268.48
standards.
D013............ Wastes that are TC for alpha-BHC........ 319-84-6 CARBN; or INCIN.. 0.066 and meet
Lindane based on the beta-BHC......... 319-85-7 CARBN; or INCIN.. Sec. 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method standards.
1311. 0.066 and meet
Sec. 268.48
standards.
delta-BHC........ 319-86-8 CARBN; or INCIN.. 0.066 and meet
Sec. 268.48
standards.
gamma-BHC 58-89-9 CARBN; or INCIN.. 0.066 and meet
(Lindane). Sec. 268.48
standards.
D014............ Wastes that are TC for Methoxychlor..... 72-43-5 WETOX or INCIN... 0.18 and meet
Methoxychlor based on Sec. 268.48
the TCLP in SW846 standards.
Method 1311.
D015............ Wastes that are TC for Toxaphene........ 8001-35-2 BIODG or INCIN... 2.6 and meet
Toxaphene based on Sec. 268.48
the TCLP in SW846 standards.
Method 1311.
D016............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4-D (2,4- 94-75-7 CHOXD, BIODG, or 10 and meet Sec.
2,4-D (2,4- Dichlorophenoxy- INCIN. 268.48
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acetic acid). standards.
acid) based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method
1311.
D017............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 93-72-1 CHOXD or INCIN... 7.9 and meet
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D018............ Wastes that are TC for Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14 and meet 10 and meet Sec.
Benzene based on the Sec. 268.48 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method standards. standards.
1311.
D019............ Wastes that are TC for Carbon 56-23-5 0.057 and meet 6.0 and meet
Carbon tetrachloride tetrachloride. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D020............ Wastes that are TC for Chlordane (alpha 57-74-9 0.0033 and meet 0.26 and meet
Chlordane based on and gamma Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
the TCLP in SW846 isomers). standards. standards.
Method 1311.
D021............ Wastes that are TC for Chlorobenzene.... 108-90-7 0.057 and meet 6.0 and meet
Chlorobenzene based Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
on the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
Method 1311.
D022............ Wastes that are TC for Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046 and meet 6.0 and meet
Chloroform based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
Method 1311.
D023............ Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11 and meet 5.6 and meet
o-Cresol based on the Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method standards. standards.
1311.
D024............ Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77 and meet 5.6 and meet
m-Cresol based on the (difficult to Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method distinguish from standards. standards.
1311. p-cresol).
D025............ Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77 and meet 5.6 and meet
p-Cresol based on the (difficult to Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method distinguish from standards. standards.
1311. m-cresol).
D026............ Wastes that are TC for Cresol-mixed 1319-77-3 0.88 and meet 11.2 and meet
Cresols (Total) based isomers Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
on the TCLP in SW846 (Cresylic acid) standards. standards.
Method 1311. (sum of o-, m-,
and p-cresol
concentrations).
D027............ Wastes that are TC for p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090 and meet 6.0 and meet
p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4- Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in Dichlorobenzene). standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D028............ Wastes that are TC for 1,2- 107-06-2 0.21 and meet 6.0 and meet
1,2-Dichloroethane Dichloroethane. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
[[Page 11746]]

D029............ Wastes that are TC for 1,1- 75-35-4 0.025 and meet 6.0 and meet
1,1-Dichloroethylene Dichloroethylene. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D030............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4- 121-14-2 0.32 and meet 140 and meet
2,4-Dinitrotoluene Dinitrotoluene. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D031............ Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor....... 76-44-8 0.0012 and meet 0.066 and meet
Heptachlor based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
Method 1311.
Heptachlor 1024-57-3 0.016 and meet 0.066 and meet
epoxide. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
standards. standards.
D032............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.055 and meet 10 and meet Sec.
Hexachlorobenzene Sec. 268.48 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D033............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055 and meet 5.6 and meet
Hexachlorobutadiene ne. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D034............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055 and meet 30 and meet Sec.
Hexachloroethane Sec. 268.48 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D035............ Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28 and meet 36 and meet Sec.
Methyl ethyl ketone ketone. Sec. 268.48 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D036............ Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068 and meet 14 and meet Sec.
Nitrobenzene based on Sec. 268.48 268.48
the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
Method 1311.
D037............ Wastes that are TC for Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.089 and meet 7.4 and meet
Pentachlorophenol Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D038............ Wastes that are TC for Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014 and meet 16 and meet Sec.
Pyridine based on the Sec. 268.48 268.48
TCLP in SW846 Method standards. standards.
1311.
D039............ Wastes that are TC for Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056 and meet 6.0 and meet
Tetrachloroethylene ne. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D040............ Wastes that are TC for Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054 and meet 6.0 and meet
Trichloroethylene Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D041............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5- 95-95-4 0.18 and meet 7.4 and meet
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol Trichlorophenol. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D042............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6- 88-06-2 0.035 and meet 7.4 and meet
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Trichlorophenol. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
SW846 Method 1311.
D043............ Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride... 75-01-4 0.27 and meet 6.0 and meet
Vinyl chloride based Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
on the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
Method 1311.
[[Page 11747]]

F001, F002, F001, F002, F003, F004 Acetone.......... 67-64-1 0.28............. 160.
F003, F004 & and/or F005 solvent Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
F005. wastes that contain n-Butyl alcohol.. 71-36-3 5.6.............. 2.6.
any combination of Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
one or more of the Carbon 56-23-5 0.057............ 6.0.
following spent tetrachloride. 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
solvents: acetone, Chlorobenzene.... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
benzene, n-butyl o-Cresol......... 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
alcohol, carbon m-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6.
disulfide, carbon (difficult to
tetrachloride, distinguish from
chlorinated p-cresol).
fluorocarbons,
chlorobenzene, o-
cresol, m-cresol, p-
cresol,
cyclohexanone, o-
dichlorobenzene, 2-
ethoxyethanol, ethyl
acetate, ethyl
benzene, ethyl ether,
isobutyl alcohol,
methanol, methylene
chloride, methyl
ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone,
nitrobenzene, 2-
nitropropane,
pyridine,
tetrachloroethylene,
toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane,
1,1,2-
trichloroethane,
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluorethane,
trichloroethylene,
trichloromonofluorome
thane, and/or xylenes
[except as
specifically noted in
other subcategories].
See further details
of these listings in
Sec. 261.31.
p-Cresol 1319-77-3 0.88............. 11.2.
(difficult to
distinguish from
m-cresol).
Cresol-mixed
isomers
(Cresylic acid)
(sum of o-, m-,
and p-cresol
concentrations).
Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
Ethyl acetate.... 141-78-6 0.34............. 33.
Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
Ethyl ether...... 60-29-7 0.12............. 160.
Isobutyl alcohol. 78-83-1 5.6.............. 170.
Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
Methylene 75-9-2 0.089............ 30.
chloride.
Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
ketone.
Methyl isobutyl 108-10-1 0.14............. 33.
ketone.
Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
ne.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
1,1,2- 79-00-5 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
1,1,2-Trichloro- 76-13-1 0.057............ 30.
1,2,2-
trifluoroethane.
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloromonofluo 75-69-4 0.020............ 30.
romethane.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sum of
o-, m-, and p-
xylene
concentrations).
F003 and/or F005 Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
solvent wastes that Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
contain any Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
combination of one or
more of the following
three solvents as the
only listed F001-5
solvents: carbon
disulfide,
cyclohexanone, and/or
methanol. (formerly
Sec. 268.41(c)).
F005 solvent waste 2-Nitropropane... 79-46-9 (WETOX or CHOXD) INCIN.
containing 2- fb CARBN; or
Nitropropane as the INCIN.
only listed F001-5
solvent.
[[Page 11748]]

F005 solvent waste 2-Ethoxyethanol.. 110-80-5 BIODG: or INCIN.. INCIN.
containing 2-
Ethoxyethanol as the
only listed F001-5
solvent.
F006............ Wastewater treatment Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
sludges from Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
electroplating Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
operations except (Total)\7\. 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
from the following Cyanides 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
processes: (1) (Amenable)\7\. 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Sulfuric acid Lead............. 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
anodizing or Nickel...........
aluminum; (2) tin Silver...........
plating on carbon
steel; (3) zinc
plating (segregated
basis) on carbon
steel; (4) aluminum
or zinc-aluminum
plating on carbon
steel; (5) cleaning/
stripping associated
with tin, zinc and
aluminum plating on
carbon steel; and (6)
chemical etching and
milling of aluminum.
F007............ Spent cyanide plating Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
bath solutions from Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
electroplating
operations.
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
F008............ Plating bath residues Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
from the bottom of Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
plating baths from Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
electroplating (Total)\7\.
operations where
cyanides are used in
the process.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
F009............ Spent stripping and Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
cleaning bath Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
solutions from Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
electroplating (Total)\7\.
operations where
cyanides are used in
the process.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
F010............ Quenching bath Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
residues from oil (Total)\7\. 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
baths from metal heat Cyanides
treating operations (Amenable)\7\.
where cyanides are
used in the process.
F011............ Spent cyanide Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
solutions from salt Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
bath pot cleaning Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
from metal heat (Total)\7\.
treating operations.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
F012............ Quenching wastewater Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
treatment sludges Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
from metal heat Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
treating operations (Total)\7\.
where cyanides are
used in the process.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

[[Page 11749]]

* * * * * *
*
F037............ Petroleum refinery Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
primary oil/water/ Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
solids separation Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
sludge-Any sludge Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
generated from the Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
gravitational bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
separation of oil/ phthalate. 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
water/solids during Chrysene......... 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
the storage or Di-n-butyl 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
treatment of process phthalate. 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
wastewaters and oily Ethylbenzene..... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
cooling wastewaters Fluorene......... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
from petroleum Naphthalene...... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
refineries. Such Phenanthrene..... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
sludges include, but Phenol........... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
are not limited to, Pyrene........... 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
those generated in: Toluene.......... 7440-47-3
oil/water/solids Xylenes-mixed 57-12-5
separators; tanks and isomers. 7439-92-1 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
impoundments; ditches (sum of o-, m-, p- 7440-02-0 1.2.............. 590.
and other xylene 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
conveyances; sumps; concentrations). 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
and stormwater units Chromium (Total).
receiving dry weather Cyanides
flow. Sludge (Total)\7\.
generated in Lead.............
stormwater units that Nickel...........
do not receive dry
weather flow, sludges
generated from non-
contact once-through
cooling waters
segregated from
treatment form other
process or oily
cooling waters,
sludges generated in
aggressive biological
treatment units as
defined in Sec.
261.31(b)(2)
(including sludges
generated in one or
more additional units
after wastewaters
have been treated in
aggressive biological
treatment units) and
K051 wastes are not
included in this
listing.
F038............ Petroleum refinery Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
secondary Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
(emulsified) oil/ bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
water/solids phthalate. 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
separation sludge and/ Chrysene......... 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
or float generated Di-n-butyl 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
from the physical and/ phthalate. 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
or chemical Ethylbenzene..... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
separation of oil/ Fluorene......... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
water/solids in Naphthalene...... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
process wastewaters Phenanthrene..... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
and oil cooling Phenol........... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
wastewaters from Pyrene........... 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
petroleum refineries. Toluene.......... 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Such wastes include, Xylenes-mixed 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
but are not limited isomers (sum of 7439-92-1 0.069............ 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
to, all sludges and o-, m-, and p- 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
floats generated in: xylene
induced air concentrations)..
floatation (IAF) Chromium (Total).
units, tanks and Cyanides (Total)7
impoundments, and all Lead.............
sludges generated in Nickel...........
DAF units. Sludges
generated in
stormwater units that
do not receive dry
weather flow, sludges
generated from non-
contact once-through
cooling waters
segregated for
treatment from other
process or oily
cooling waters,
sludges and floats
generated in
aggressive biological
treatment units as
defined in Sec.
261.31(b)(2)
(including sludges
and floats generated
in one or more
additional units
after wastewaters
have been treated in
aggressive biological
units) and F037,
K048, and K051 are
not included in this
listing.
[[Page 11750]]

F039............ Leachate (liquids that Acenaphthylene... 208-96-8 0.059............ 3.4.
have percolated Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
through land disposed Acetone.......... 67-64-1 0.28............. 160.
wastes) resulting Acetonitrile..... 75-05-8 5.6.............. 38.
from the disposal of Acetophenone..... 96-86-2 0.010............ 9.7.
more than one 2- 53-96-3 0.059............ 140
restricted waste Acetylaminofluor 107-02-8 0.29............. 2.9.
classified as ene. 107-13-1 0.24............. 84.
hazardous under Acrolein......... 309-00-2 0.021............ 0.066.
subpart D of this Acrylonitrile.... 92-67-1 0.13............. 13.
part. (Leachate Aldrin........... 62-53-3 0.81............. 14.
resulting from the 4-Aminobiphenyl..
disposal of one or Aniline..........
more of the following
EPA Hazardous Wastes
and no other
Hazardous Wastes
retains its EPA
Hazardous Waste
Number(s): F020,
F021, F022, F026,
F027, and/or F028.).
Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
Aramite.......... 140-57-8 0.36............. 2.5.
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.
Benzo (b) 207-08-9 0.11............. 6.8.
fluoranthene
(difficult to
distinguiah from
benzo (k)
fluoranthene).
Benzo(g,h,i)peryl 191-24-2 0.0055........... 1.8.
ene.
Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
Bromodichlorometh 75-27-4 0.35............. 15.
ane.
Methyl bromide 74-83-9 0.11............. 15.
(Bromomethane).
4-Bromophenyl 101-55-3 0.055............ 15.
phenyl ether.
n-Butyl alcohol.. 71-36-3 5.6.............. 2.6.
Butyl benzyl 85-68-7 0.017............ 28.
ohthalate.
2-sec-Butyl-4, 6- 88-85-7 0.066............ 2.5.
dinitrophenol
(Dinoseb).
Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
Carbon 56-23-5 0.057............ 6.0.
tetrachloride.
Chlordane (alpha 57-74-9 0.0033........... 0.26.
and gamma
isomers).
p-Chloroaniline.. 106-47-8 0.46............. 16.
Chlorobenzene.... 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
Chlorobenzilate.. 510-15-6 0.10............. 6.6.
2-Chloro-1, 3- 126-99-8 0.057............ 0.28.
butadiene.
Chlorodibromometh 124-48-1 0.057............ 15.
ane.
Chloroethane..... 75-00-3 0.27............. 6.0.
bis(2- 111-91-1 0.036............ 7.2.
Chloroethoxy)met
hane.
bis(2- 111-44-4 0.033............ 6.0.
Chloroethyl)ethe
r.
Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
bis(2- 39638-32-9 0.055............ 7.2.
Chloroisopropyl)
ether.
p-Chloro-m-cresol 59-50-7 0.018............ 14.
Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.19............. 30.
(Methyl
chloride).
2- 91-58-7 0.055............ 5.6.
Chloronaphthalen
e.
2-Chlorophenol... 95-57-8 0.044............ 5.7.
3- 107-05-1 0.036............ 30.
Chloroprophylene.
Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
(difficult to
distinguish from
p-cresol).
p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6
(difficult to
distinguish from
m-cresol.
Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
1,2-Dibromo-3- 96-12-8 0.11............. 15.
chloropropane.
Ethylene 106-93-4 0.028............ 15.
dibromide (1,2-
Dibromoethane).
Dibromomethane... 74-95-3 0.11............. 15.
[[Page 11751]]

2,4-D (2,4- 94-75-7 0.72............. 10.
Dichlorophenoxya
cetic acid).
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) 53-70-3 0.055............ 8.2.
anthracene.
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene 192-65-4 0.061............ 22.
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.
Dichlorodifluorom 75-71-8 0.23............. 7.2.
ethane.
1,1- 75-34-3 0.059............ 6.0.
Dichloroethane.
1,2- 107-06-2 0.21............. 6.0.
Dichloroethane.
1,1- 75-35-4 0.025............ 6.0.
Dichloroethylene.
trans-1,2- 156-60-5 0.054............ 30.
Dichloroethylene.
2,4- 120-83-2 0.044............ 14.
Dichlorophenol.
2,6- 87-65-0 0.044............ 14.
Dichlorophenol.
1,2- 78-87-5 0.85............. 18.
Dichloropropane.
cis-1,3- 10061-01-5 0.036............ 18.
Dichloropropylen
e.
trans-1,3- 10061-02-6 0.036............ 18.
Dichloropropylen
e.
Dieldrin......... 60-57-1 0.017............ 0.13.
Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 0.20............. 28.
2,4-Dimethyl 105-67-9 0.036............ 14.
phenol.
Dimethyl 131-11-3 0.047............ 28.
phthalate.
Di-n-butyl 64-74-2 0.057............ 28.
phthalate.
1,4- 100-25-4 0.32............. 2.3.
Dinitrobenzene.
4,6-Dinitro-o- 534-52-1 0.28............. 160.
cresol.
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 0.12............. 160.
2,4- 121-14-2 0.32............. 140.
Dinitrotoluene.
2,6- 606-20-2 0.55............. 28.
Dinitrotoluene.
Di-n-octyl 117-84-0 0.017............ 28.
phthalate.
Di-n- 621-64-7 0.40............. 14.
propylnitrosamin
e.
1,4-Dioxane...... 123-91-1 8.67............. 170.
Diphenylamine 122-39-4 0.92............. 13.
(difficult to
distinguish from
diphenylnitrosam
ine).
Diphenylnitrosami 86-30-6 0.92............. 13.
ne (diffult to
distinguish from
diphenylamine).
1,2- 122-66-7 0.087............ 1.5.
Diphenylhydrazin
e.
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 1-31-07-8 0.029............ 0.13.
sulfate.
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 107-12-0 0.24............. 360.
(Propanenitrile).
Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
Ethyl ether...... 60-29-7 0.12............. 160.
bis(2- 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
Ethylhexyl)phtha
late.
Ethyl 97-63-2 0.14............. 160.
methacrylate.
Ethylene oxide... 75-21-8 0.12............. 0.75.
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 1024-57-3 0.016............ 0.066.
epoxide.
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.055............ 10.
Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
ne.
Hexachlorocyclope 77-47-4 0.057............ 2.4.
ntadiene.
[[Page 11752]]

HxCDDs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
Hexachlorodibenz
o-p-dioxins).
HxCDFs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
Hexachlorodibenz
ofurans).
Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
Hexachloropropyle 1888-71-7 0.035............ 30.
ne.
Indeno (1,2,3- 193-39-5 0.0055........... 3.4.
c,d) pyrene.
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- 56-49-5 0.0055........... 15.
Methylcholanthre
ne.
4,4-Methylene 101-14-4 0.50............. 30.
bis(2-
chloroaniline).
Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
chloride.
Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
ketone.
Methyl isobutyl 108-10-1 0.14............. 33.
ketone.
Methyl 80-62-6 0.14............. 160.
methacrylate.
Methyl 66-27-3 0.018............ 4.6.
methansulfonate.
Methyl parathion. 298-00-0 0.014............ 4.6.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
2-Naphthylamine.. 91-59-8 0.52............. 15.
p-Nitroaniline... 100-01-6 0.028............ 28.
Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
5-Nitro-o- 99-55-8 0.32............. 28.
toluidine.
p-Nitrophenol.... 100-02-7 0.12............. 29.
N- 55-18-5 0.40............. 28.
Nitrosodiethylam
ine.
N- 62-75-9 0.40............. 2.3.
Nitrosodimethyla
mine.
N-Nitroso-di-n- 924-16-3 0.40............. 17.
butylamine.
N- 10595-95-6 0.40............. 2.3.
Nitrosomethyleth
ylamine.
N- 59-89-2 0.40............. 2.3.
Nitrosomorpholin
e.
N- 100-75-4 0.013............ 35.
Nitrosopiperidin
e.
N- 930-55-2 0.013............ 35.
Nitrosopyrrolidi
ne.
Parathion........ 56-38-2 0.014............ 4.6.
Total PCBs (sum 1336-36-3 0.10............. 10.
of all PCB
isomers, or all
Aroclors).
Pentachlorobenzen 608-93-5 0.055............ 10.
e.
PeCDDs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
Pentachlorodiben
zo-p-dioxins).
PeCDFs (All NA 0.000035......... 0.001.
Pentachlorodiben
zofurans).
Pentachloronitrob 82-68-8 0.055............ 4.8.
enzene.
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 85-44-9 0.055............ 28.
anhydride.
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.......... 93-76-5 0.72............. 7.9.
1,2,4,5- 95-94-3 0.055............ 14.
Tetrachlorobenze
ne.
TCDDs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
Tetrachlorodiben
zo-p-dioxins).
[[Page 11753]]

TCDFs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
Tetrachlorodiben
zofurans).
1,1,2,2- 630-20-6 0.057............ 6.0.
Tetrachloroethan
e.
1,1,2,2- 79-34-6 0.057............ 6.0.
Tetrachloroethan
e.
Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
ne.
2,3,4,6- 58-90-2 0.030............ 7.4.
Tetrachloropheno
l.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
Toxaphene........ 8001-35-2 0.0095........... 2.6.
Bromoform 75-25-2 0.63............. 15.
(Tribromomethane
).
1,2,4- 120-82-1 0.055............ 19.
Trichlorobenzene.
1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
1,1,2- 79-00-5 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloromonofluo 75-69-4 0.020............ 30.
romethane.
2,4,5- 95-95-4 0.18............. 7.4.
Trichlorophenol.
2,4,6- 88-06-2 0.035............ 7.4.
Trichlorophenol.
1,2,3- 96-18-4 0.85............. 30.
Trichloropropane.
1,1,2-Trichloro- 76-13-1 0.057............ 30.
1,2,2-
trifluoroethane.
tris(2,3- 126-72-7 0.11............. 0.10.
Dibromopropyl)
phosphate.
Vinyl chloride... 75-01-4 0.27............. 6.0.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sum of
o-, m-, and p-
xylene
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 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.
Fluoride......... 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Mercury.......... 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.............. .023.

* * * * * *
*
K006............ Wastewater treatment Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
sludge from the Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37mg/l TCLP.
production of chrome
oxide green pigments
(anhydrous).
Wastewater treatment Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
sludge from the Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37mg/l TCLP.
production of chrome
oxide green pigments
(hydrated).

* * * * * *
*
K018............ Heavy ends from the Chloroethane..... 75-00-3 0.27............. 6.0.
fractionation column Chloromethane.... 74-87-3 0.19............. 30.
in ethyl chloride 1,1- 75-34-3 0.059............ 6.0.
production.. Dichloroethane.
1,2- 107-06-2 0.21............. 6.0.
Dichloroethane.
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.055............ 10.
Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
ne.
Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 0.055............ 6.0.
1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
K019............ Heavy ends from the bis(2- 111-44-4 0.033............ 6.0.
distillation of Chloroethyl)ethe 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
ethylene dichloride r. 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
in ethylene Chlorobenzene....
dichloride production. Chloroform.......
p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090............ 6.0.
1,2- 107-06-2 0.21............. 6.0.
Dichloroethane.
[[Page 11754]]

Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4
Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
1,2,4,5- 95-94-3 0.055............ 14.
Tetrachlorobenze
ne.
Tetrachlorothylen 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
e.
1,2,4- 120-82-1 0.055............ 19.
Tetrachlorobenze
ne.
1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0
Trichloroethane.

* * * * * *
*
K028............ Spent catalyst from 1,1- 75-34-3 0.059............ 6.0.
the hydrochlorinator Dichloroethane.
reactor in the
production of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane.
trans-1,2- 156-60-5 0.054............ 30.
Dichloroethylene.
Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
ne.
Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 0.055............ 6.0.
1,1,1,2- 630-20-6 0.057............ 6.0.
Tetrachloroethan
e.
1,1,2,2- 79-34-6 0.057............ 6.0.
Tetrachloroethan
e.
Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
ne.
1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
1,1,2- 79-00-5 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * *
*
K030............ Column bodies or heavy o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
ends from the p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090............ 6.0.
combined production Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
of trichloroethylene ne.
and perchloroethylene.
Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
Hexachloropropyle 1888-71-7 0.035............ 30.
ne.
Pentachlorobenzen 608-93-5 0.055............ 10.
e.
Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 0.055............ 6.0.
1,2,4,5- 95-94-3 0.055............ 14.
Tetrachlorobenze
ne.
Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
ne.
1,2,4- 120-82-1 0.055............ 19.
Trichlorobenzene.

* * * * * *
*
K035............ Wastewater treatment Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
sludges generated in
the production of
creosote.
Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
Benz (a) 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
anthracene.
Benzo (a) pyrene. 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
(difficult to
distinguish from
p-cresol).
p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6.
(difficult to
distinguish from
m-cresol).
Dibenz(a,h)- 53-70-3 0.055............ 8.2.
anthracene.
Fluoranthene..... 206-44-0 0.068............ 3.4.
Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.068............ 3.4.
Indeno(1,2,3- 193-39-5 0.0055........... 3.4.
cd)pyrene.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.

* * * * * *
*
K048............ Dissolved air Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
flotation (DAF) float
from the petroleum
refining industry.
Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
phthalate.
Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
[[Page 11755]]

Di-n-butyl 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
phthalate.
Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
Toluene.......... 108-88-33 0.080............ 10.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sum of
o-, m-, and p-
xylene
concentrations).
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
K049............ Slop oil emulsion Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
solids from the
petroleum refining
industry.
Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
phthalate.
Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
Chrysene......... 2218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
2,4- 105-67-9 0.036............ 14.
Dimethylphenol.
Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sum of
o-, m-, and p-
xylene
concentrations).
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.96............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
K050............ Heat exchanger bundle Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4
cleaning sludge from
the petroleum
refining industry.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
K051............ API separator sludge Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
from the petroleum
refining industry.
Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
phthalate.
Chrysene......... 2218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
Di-n-butyl 105-67-9 0.057............ 28.
phthalate.
Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.08............. 10.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sum of
0-, m-, and p-
xylene
concentrations).
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
[[Page 11756]]

K052............ Tank bottoms (leaded) Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
from the petroleum Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
refining industry.
o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
(difficult to
distinguish from
p-cresol).
p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6.
(difficult to
distinguish from
m-cresol).
2,4- 105-67-9 0.036............ 14.
Dimethylphenol.
Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.08............. 10.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sum of
o-, m-, and p-
xylene
concentrations).
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * *
*
K061............ Emission control dust/ Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1 mg/l TCLP.
sludge from the Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
primary production of Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6 mg/l TCLP.
steel in electric
furnaces.
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.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Mercury.......... 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.
Thallium......... 7440-28-0 1.4.............. 0.078 mg/l TCLP.
Zinc............. 7440-66-6 2.61............. 5.3 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * *
*
K083............ Distillation bottoms Aniline.......... 62-53-3 0.81............. 14.
from aniline Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
production.
Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
Diphenylamine 122-39-4 0.92............. 13.
(difficult to
distinguish from
diphenylnitrosam
ine).
Diphenylnitrosami 86-30-6 0.92............. 13.
ne (difficult to
distinguish from
diphenylamine).
Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * *
*
K086............ Solvent wastes and Acetone.......... 67-64-1 0.28............. 160.
sludges, caustic Acetophenone..... 96-86-2 0.010............ 9.7.
washes and sludges, bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
or water washes and phthalate. 71-36-3 5.6..............
sludges from cleaning n-Butyl alcohol.. 2.6.
tubs and equipment
used in the
formulation of ink
from pigments,
driers, soaps, and
stabilizers
containing chromium
and lead.
Butylbenzyl 85-68-7 0.017............ 28.
phthalate.
Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ .6.0
Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 0.20............. 28.
Dimethyl 131-11-3 0.047............ 28.
phthalate.
Di-n-butyl 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
phthalate.
Di-n-octyl 117-84-0 0.017............ 28.
phthalate.
Ethyl acetate.... 141-78-6 0.34............. 33.
Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
[[Page 11757]]

Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
ketone.
Methyl isobutyl 108-10-1 0.14............. 33.
ketone.
Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
chloride.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Trichloroethane.
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054............ 6.0.
Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
isomers (sun of
o-, m-, and p-
xylene
concentrations).
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * *
*
K088............ Spent potliners from Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
primary aluminum Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
reduction.
Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
Benzo(b)fluoranth 205-99-2 0.11............. 6.8.
ene.
Benzo(k)fluoranth 207-08-9 0.11............. 6.8.
ene.
Benzo(g,h,i)peryl 191-24-2 0.0055........... 1.8.
ene.
Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
Dibenz(a,h)anthra 53-70-3 0.055............ 8.2.
cene.
Fluoranthene..... 206-44-0 0.068............ 3.4.
Indeno(1,2,3,- 193-39-5 0.0055........... 3.4.
c,d)pyrene.
Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1.
Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0.
Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6.
Beryllium........ 7440-41-7 0.82............. 0.014.
Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19.
Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37.
Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025.
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0.
Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16.
Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30.
Cyanide (Total).. 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
Cyanide 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable).
Fluoride......... 16964-48-8 35............... 48.

* * * * * *
*
K101............ Distillation tar o-Nitroaniline... 88-74-4 0.27............. 14.
residues from the Arsenic.......... 7440-38--2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
distillation of Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
aniline-based Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
compounds in the
production of
veterinary
pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds.
Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
K102............ Residue from the use o-Nitrophenol.... 88-75-5 0.028............ 13.
of activated carbon Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
for decolorization in Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
the production of
veterinary
pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * *
*
K-140........... Waste solids and 2,4,6- 118-79-6 0.035............ 7.4
filter cartridges Tribromophenol. 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
from the production Tolurene.........
of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol.

[[Page 11758]]

* * * * * *
*
K156............ Organic waste Acetonitrile..... 75-05-8 5.6.............. 1.8.
(including heavy Acetophenone..... 96-86-2 0.010............ 9.7.
ends, still bottoms, Aniline.......... 62-53-3 0.81............. 14.
light ends, spent Benomyl.......... 17804-35-2 0.056............ 1.4.
solvents, filtrates,
and decantates) from
the production of
carbamates and
carbamoyl oximes.
Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
Carbaryl......... 63-25-2 0.006............ 0.14.
Carbenzadim...... 10605-21-7 0.056............ 1.4.
Carbofuran....... 1563-66-2 0.006............ 0.14.
Carbosulfan...... 55285-14-8 0.028............ 1.4.
Chlorobenzene.... 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
Methomyl......... 16752-77-5 0.028............ 0.14.
Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
chloride.
Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
ketone.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
Triethylamine.... 121-44-8 0.081............ 1.5.
K157............ Wastewaters (including Carbon 56-23-5 0.057............ 6.0.
scrubber waters, tetrachloride. 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
condenser waters, Chloroform....... 74-87-3 0.19............. 30.
washwaters, and Chloromethane.... 16752-77-5 0.028............ 0.14.
separation waters) Methomyl.........
from the production
of carbamates and
carbamoly oximes.
Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
chloride.
Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
ketone.
o- 95-54-5 0.056............ 5.6.
Phenylenediamine.
Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
Triethylamine.... 121-44-8 0.081............ 1.5.
K158............ Bag house dusts and Benomyl.......... 17804-35-2 0.056............ 1.4.
filter/separation Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
solids from the Carbenzadim...... 10605-21-7 0.056............ 1.4.
production of
carbamates and
carbamoly oximes.
Carbofuran....... 1563-66-2 0.006............ 0.14.
Carbosulfan...... 55285-14-8 0.028............ 1.4.
Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
chloride.
Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
K159............ Organics from the Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
treatment of Butylate......... 2008-41-5 0.003............ 1.5.
thiocarbamate wastes.
EPTC (Eptam)..... 759-94-4 0.003............ 1.4.
Molinate......... 2212-67-1 0.003............ 1.4.
Pebulate......... 1114-71-2 0.003............ 1.4.
Vemolate......... 1929-77-7 0.003............ 1.4.
K160............ Solids (including Butylate......... 2008-41-5 0.003............ 1.5.
filter wastes, EPTC (Eptam)..... 759-94-4 0.003............ 1.4.
separation solids, Molinate......... 2212-67-1 0.003............ 1.4.
and spent catalysts) Pebulate......... t1114-71-2 0.003............ 1.4.
from the production
of thiocarabamates
and solids from the
treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
Vemolate......... 1929-77-7 0.003............ 1.4.
K161............ Purification solids Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1 mg/l TCLP.
(including Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
filtration, Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
evaporation, and Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
centrifugation (total).
solids), baghouse
dust and floor
sweepings from the
production of
dithiocarbamate acids
and their salts.
Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 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.

* * * * * *
*
P003............ Acrolein.............. Acrolein......... 107-02-8 0.29............. 2.8.

[[Page 11759]]* * * * * *
*
P013............ Barium cyanide........ Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6 mg/l TCLP.
Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
(Total)\7\.
Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
(Amenable)\7\.

* * * * * *
*
P056............ Fluorine.............. Fluoride 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
(measured in
wastewaters
only).

* * * * * *
*
P127............ Carbofuran............ Carbofuran....... 1563-66-2 0.006............ 0.14.
P128............ Mexacarbate........... Mexacarbate...... 315-18-4 0.056............ 1.4.
P185............ Tirpate............... Tirpate.......... 26419-73-8 0.056............ 0.28.
P188............ Physostigmine Physostigmine 57-64-7 0.056............ 1.4.
salicylate. salicylate.
P189............ Carbosulfan........... Carbosulfan...... 55285-14-8 0.028............ 1.4.
P190............ Metolcarb............. Metolcarb........ 1129-41-5 0.056............ 1.4.
P191............ Dimetilan............. Dimetilan........ 644-64-4 0.056............ 1.4.
P192............ Isolan................ Isolan........... 119-38-0 0.056............ 1.4.
P194............ Oxamyl................ Oxamyl........... 23135-22-0 0.056............ 0.28.
P196............ Manganese Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
dimethyldithiocarbama (total).
te.
P197............ Formparanate.......... Formparanate..... 17702-57-7 0.056............ 1.4.
P198............ Formetanate Formetanate 23422-53-9 0.056............ 1.4.
hydrochloride. hydrochloride.
P199............ Methiocarb............ Methiocarb....... 2032-65-7 0.056............ 1.4.
P201............ Promecarb............. Promecarb........ 2631-37-0 0.056............ 1.4.
P202............ m-Cumenyl m-Cumenyl 64-00-6 0.056............ 1.4.
methylcarbamate. methylcarbamate.
P203............ Aldicarb sulfone...... Aldicarb sulfone. 1646-88-4 0.056............ 0.28.
P204............ Physostigmine......... Physostigmine.... 57-47-6 0.056............ 1.4.
P205............ Ziram................. Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).

* * * * * *
*
U038............ Chlorobenzilate....... Chlorobenzilate.. 510-15-6 0.10............. 6.6.

* * * * * *
*
U042............ 2-Chloroethyl vinyl 2-Chloroethyl 110-75-8 0.062............ 5.6.
ether. vinyl ether.

U093............ p- p- 60-11-7 0.13............. 29.
Dimethylaminoazobenze Dimethylaminoazo
ne. benzene.

* * * * * *
*
U134............ Hydrogen fluoride..... Fluoride 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
(measured in
wastewaters
only).
* * * * * *
*
U168............ 2-Naphthylamine....... 2-Naphthylamine.. 91-59-8 0.52............. 15.
* * * * * *
*
U271............ Benomyl............... Benomyl.......... 17804-35-2 0.056............ 1.4.
U277............ Sulfallate............ Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).
U278............ Bendiocarb............ Bendiocarb....... 22781-23-3 0.056............ 1.4.
U279............ Carbaryl.............. Carbaryl......... 63-25-2 0.006............ 0.14.
U280............ Barban................ Barban........... 101-27-9 0.056............ 1.4.
* * * * * *
*
U364............ Bendiocarb phenol..... Bendiocarb phenol 22961-82-6 0.056............ 1.4.
U365............ Molinate.............. Molinate......... 2212-67-1 0.003............ 1.4.
U366............ Dazomet............... Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).
U367............ Carbofuran phenol..... Carbofuran phenol 1563-38-8 0.056............ 1.4.
U372............ Carbendazim........... Carbendazim...... 10605-21-7 0.056............ 1.4.
U373............ Propham............... Propham.......... 122-42-9 0.056............ 1.4.
U375............ 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n- 3-Iodo-2-propynyl 55406-53-6 0.056............ 1.4.
butylcarbamate. n-butylcarbamate.
U376............ Selenium, tetrakis Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(dimethyldithiocarbam (total).
ate).
Selenium.............. Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
U377............ Potassium n- Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
methyldithiocarbamate. (total).
U378............ Potassium n- Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
hydroxymethyl-n- (total).
methyldithiocarbamate.
U379............ Sodium Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
dibutyldithiocarbamat (total).
e.
[[Page 11760]]

U381............ Sodium Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
diethyldithiocarbamat (total).
e.
U382............ Sodium Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
dimethyldithiocarbama (total).
te.
U383............ Potassium dimethyl Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
dithiocarbamate. (total).
U384............ Metam Sodium.......... Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).
U385............ Vemolate.............. Vemolate......... 1929-77-7 0.003............ 1.4.
U386............ Cycloate.............. Cycloate......... 1134-23-2 0.003............ 1.4.
U387............ Prosulfocarb.......... Prosulfocarb..... 52888-80-9 0.003............ 1.4.
U389............ Triallate............. Triallate........ 2303-17-5 0.003............ 1.4.
U390............ EPTC.................. EPTC............. 759-94-4 0.003............ 1.4.
U391............ Pebulate.............. Pebulate......... 1114-71-2 0.003............ 1.4.
U392............ Butylate.............. Butylate......... 2008-41-5 0.003............ 1.4.
U393............ Copper Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
dimethyldithiocarbama (total).
te.
U394............ A2213................. A2213............ 30558-43-1 0.003............ 1.4.
U395............ Diethylene glycol, Diethylene 5952-26-1 0.056............ 1.4.
dicarbamate. glycol,
dicarbamate.
U396............ Ferbam................ Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).
U400............ Bis(pentamethylene)thi Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
uram tetrasulfide. (total).
U401............ Tetramethyl thiuram Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
monosulfide. (total).
U402............ Tetrabutylthiuram Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
disulfide. (total).
U403............ Disulfiram............ Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).
U404............ Triethylamine......... Triethylamine.... 101-44-8 0.081............ 1.5.
U407............ Ethyl Ziram........... Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
(total).
U408............ 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.. 2,4,6- 118-79-6 0.035............ 7.4.
Tribromophenol.
U409............ Thiophanate-methyl.... Thiophanate- 23564-05-8 0.056............ 1.4.
methyl.
U410............ Thiodicarb............ Thiodicarb....... 59669-26-0 0.019............ 1.4.
U411............ Propoxur.............. Propoxur......... 114-26-1 0.056............ 1.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261.
Descriptions of treatment/regulatory subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between
applicability of different standards.
\2\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.
\3\Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.
\4\All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in
detail in 40 CFR 268.42, Table 1--Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.
\5\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 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.
\6\Where an alternate treatment standard or set of alternate standards has been indicated, a facility may comply
with this alternate standard, but only for the Treatment/Regulatory Subcategory or physical form (i.e.,
wastewater and/or nonwastewater) specified for that alternate standard.
\7\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 1
hour and 15 minutes.

Note: NA means not applicable.

19. Section 268.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.

(a) Where the treatment standard is expressed as a concentration in
a waste or waste extract and a waste cannot be treated to the specified
level, or where the treatment technology is not appropriate to the
waste, the generator or treatment facility may petition the
Administrator for a variance from the treatment standard. The
petitioner must demonstrate 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. The petitioner may also
demonstrate that it is treating underlying hazardous constituents in
characteristically hazardous wastewaters by sending the waste to a
properly designed and operated BAT/PSES system, which may not be
achieving the treatment standards found in Sec. 268.48.
* * * * *
20. In subpart D, Sec. 268.48, the table in paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *

Sec. 268.48 Universal Treatment Standards.

[[Page 11761]]
Sec. 268.48 Table UTS--Universal Treatment Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater Nonwastewater
standard standard
---------------------------------------
Regulated constituent/common name CAS\1\ No. Concentration in mg/
Concentration kg\3\ unless noted as
in mg/l\2\ ``mg/l TCLP''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2213................................................... 30558-43-1 0.003 1.4
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
Aldicarb sulfone........................................ 1646-88-4 0.056 0.28
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
Barban.................................................. 101-27-9 0.056 1.4
Bendiocarb.............................................. 22781-23-3 0.056 1.4
Bendiocarb phenol....................................... 22961-82-6 0.056 1.4
Benomyl................................................. 17804-35-2 0.056 1.4
Benzene................................................. 71-43-2 0.14 10
Benz(a)thracene......................................... 56-55-3 0.059 3.4
Benzal choride.......................................... 98-87-3 0.055 6.0
Benzo(b)florathene (difficult to distingush from 205-99-2 0.11 6.8
benzo(k)fluoranthene).
Benzo(k)fluorathene (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
Bromomethane/Methyl bromide............................. 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
Butylate................................................ 2008-41-5 0.003 1.4
Butyle benzyl phthalate................................. 85-68-7 0.017 28
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol/Dinoseb................... 88-85-7 0.066 2.5
Carbaryl................................................ 63-25-2 0.006 0.14
Carbenzadim............................................. 10605-21-7 0.056 1.4
Carbofuran.............................................. 1563-66-2 0.006 0.14
Carbofuran phenol....................................... 1563-38-8 0.056 1.4
Carbon disulfide........................................ 75-15-0 3.8 4.8 mg/l TCLP
Carbon tetrachloride.................................... 56-23-5 0.057 6.0
Carbosulfan............................................. 55285-14-8 0.028 1.4
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
Choroethane............................................. 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............................. 39638-32-9 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
m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate............................... 64-00-6 0.056 1.4
[[Page 11762]]

Cycloate................................................ 1134-23-2 0.003 1.4
Cyclohexanone........................................... 108-94-1 0.36 0.75 mg/l TCLP
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
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane............................. 96-12-8 0.11 15
1,2-Dibromoethane/Ethylene dibromide.................... 106-93-4 0.028 15
Dibromomethane.......................................... 74-95-3 0.11 15
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
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4-D.................... 94-75-7 0.72 10
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
Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate.......................... 5952-26-1 0.056 1.4
Diethyl phthalate....................................... 84-66-2 0.20 28
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene............................... 60-11-7 0.13 NA
2-4-Dimethyl phenol..................................... 105-67-9 0.036 14
Dimethyl phthalate...................................... 131-11-3 0.047 28
Dimetilan............................................... 644-64-4 0.056 1.4
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
Di-n-propylnitrosamine.................................. 621-64-7 0.40 14
1,4-Dioxane............................................. 123-91-1 0.22 170
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-Dephenylhydrazine................................... 122-66-7 0.087 NA
Disulfoton.............................................. 298-04-4 0.017 6.2
Dithiocarbamates (total)................................ 137-30-4 0.028 28
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
EPTC.................................................... 759-94-4 0.003 1.4
Ethyl acetate........................................... 141-78-6 0.34 33
Ethyl benzene........................................... 100-41-4 0.057 10
Ethyl cyanide/Propanenitrile............................ 107-12-0 0.24 360
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
Formetanate hydrochloride............................... 23422-53-9 0.056 1.4
Formparanate............................................ 17702-57-7 0.056 1.4
Heptachlor.............................................. 76-44-8 0.0012 0.066
[[Page 11763]]

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 0.00063 0.001
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans).................... NA 0.00063 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
3-lodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate...................... 55406-53-6 0.056 1.4
Isobutyl alcohol........................................ 78-83-1 5.6 170
Isodrin................................................. 456-73-6 0.021 0.066
Isolan.................................................. 119-38-0 0.056 1.4
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
Methiocarb.............................................. 2032-65-7 0.056 1.4
Methomyl................................................ 16752-77-5 0.028 0.14
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
Metolcarb............................................... 1129-41-5 0.056 1.4
Mexacarbate............................................. 315-18-4 0.056 1.4
Molinate................................................ 2212-67-1 0.003 1.4
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-Nitrosophyrrolidine................................... 930-55-2 0.013 35
Oxamyl.................................................. 23135-22-0 0.056 0.28
Parathion............................................... 56-38-2 0.014 4.6
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Aroclors).... 1336-36-3 0.10 10
Pebulate................................................ 1114-71-2 0.003 1.4
Pentachlorobenzene...................................... 608-93-5 0.055 10
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)............... NA 0.000063 0.001
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenyofurans)................... 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
o-Phenylenediamine...................................... 95-54-5 0.056 5.6
Phorate................................................. 298-02-2 0.021 4.6
Phthalic acid........................................... 100-21-0 0.055 28
Phthalic anhydribe...................................... 85-44-9 0.055 28
Physostigmine........................................... 57-47-6 0.056 1.4
Physostigmine salicylate................................ 57-64-7 0.056 1.4
[[Page 11764]]

Promecarb............................................... 2631-37-0 0.056 1.4
Pronamide............................................... 23950-58-5 0.093 1.5
Propham................................................. 122-42-9 0.056 1.4
Propoxur................................................ 114-26-1 0.056 1.4
Prosulfocarb............................................ 52888-80-9 0.003 1.4
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
1,2,4,-5-Tetrachlorobenzene............................. 95-94-3 0.055 14
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorobidenzo-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
Thiodicarb.............................................. 59669-26-0 0.019 1.4
Thiophanate-methyl...................................... 23564-05-8 0.056 1.4
Tirpate................................................. 26419-73-8 0.056 0.28
Toluene................................................. 108-88-3 0.080 10
Toxaphene............................................... 8001-35-2 0.0095 2.6
Triallate............................................... 2303-17-5 0.003 1.4
Tribromomethane/Bromoform............................... 75-25-2 0.63 15
2,4,6-Tribromophenol.................................... 118-79-6 0.035 7.4
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-Tricholorphenol................................... 88-06-2 0.035 7.4
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4,5-T............... 93-76-5 0.72 7.9
1,2,3-Trichloropropane.................................. 96-18-4 0.85 30
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane................... 76-13-1 0.057 30
Triethylamine........................................... 101-44-8 0.081 1.5
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate...................... 126-72-7 0.11 0.10
Vemolate................................................ 1929-77-7 0.003 1.4
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\5\............................................. 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\5\............................................. 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 it's 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.
[[Page 11765]]

\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\These constituents are not ``underlying hazardous constituents'' in characteristic wastes, according to the
definition at Sec. 268.2(i).

Note: NA means not applicable.

21. Appendix XI is added to part 268 to read as follows:

Appendix XI to Part 268.--Metal Bearing Wastes Prohibited From Dilution
in a Combustion Unit According to 40 CFR 268.3(b)\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste code Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D004............ Toxicity Characteristic for Arsenic.
D005............ Toxicity Characteristic for Barium.
D006............ Toxicity Characteristic for Cadmium.
D007............ Toxicity Characteristic for Chromium.
D008............ Toxicity Characteristic for Lead.
D009............ Toxicity Characteristic for Mercury.
D010............ Toxicity Characteristic for Selenium
D011............ Toxicity Characteristic for Silver.
F006............ Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations except from the following processes: (1)
sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating
carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-plating on carbon
steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin,
zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6)
chemical etching and milling of aluminum.
F007............ Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from
electroplating operations.
F008............ Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths
from electroplating operations where cyanides are
used in the process.
F009............ Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from
electroplating operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
F010............ Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal
treating operations where cyanides are used in the
process.
F011............ Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning
from metal heat treating operations.
F012............ Quenching waste water treatment sludges from metal
heat treating operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
F019............ Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum car washing when such
phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating
process.
K002............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
chrome yellow and orange pigments.
K003............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
molybdate orange pigments.
K004............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
zinc yellow pigments.
K005............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
chrome green pigments.
K006............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
chrome oxide green pigments (anhydrous and hydrated).
K007............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
iron blue pigments.
K008............ Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green
pigments.
K061............ Emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces.
K069............ Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting.
K071............ Brine purification muds from the mercury cell
processes in chlorine production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used.
K100............ Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emission
control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
K106............ Sludges from the mercury cell processes for making
chlorine.
P010............ Arsenic acid H3AsO4.
P011............ Arsenic oxide As2O5.
P012............ Arsenic trioxide.
P013............ Barium cyanide.
P015............ Beryllium.
P029............ Copper cyanide Cu(CN).
P074............ Nickel cyanide Ni(CN)2.
P087............ Osmium tetroxide.
P099............ Potassium silver cyanide.
P104............ Silver cyanide.
P113............ Thallic oxide.
P114............ Thallium (l) selenite.
P115............ Thallium (l) sulfate.
P119............ Ammonium vanadate.
P120............ Vanadium oxide V2O5.
P121............ Zinc cyanide.
U032............ Calcium chromate.
U145............ Lead phosphate.
U151............ Mercury.
U204............ Selenious acid.
U205............ Selenium disulfide.
U216............ Thallium (I) chloride.
U217............ Thallium (I) nitrate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A combustion unit is defined as any thermal technology subject to 40
CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; and/or part 266, subpart
H.

[[Page 11766]]

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

22. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as
follows:

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

23. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Promulgation Title of regulation Register Effective date
date reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * *
[Insert date of Land Disposal [Insert FR page [Insert date of
publication of Restrictions Phase numbers of 90 days from
final rule in III--Decharacterize final rule]. date of
the Federal d Waste- waters, publication of
Register (FR)]. Carbamate and final rule].
Organobromine
Wastes, and Spent
Aluminum Potliners
in Sec. 268.39.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Table 2.--Self-Implementing Provisions of the Solid Waste Amendments of
1984
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Effective date Self-implementing RCRA citation Register
provision reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * *
[Insert date 90 Prohibition on land 3004(g)(4) (C) [Insert date of
days from date disposal of newly and 3004(m). publication of
of publication listed and final rule] FR
of final rule]. identified wastes.. [Insert FR
page numbers].
[Insert date 2 Prohibition on land
years from date disposal of
of publication radioactive waste
of final rule]. mixed with the
newly listed or
identified wastes,
including soil and
debris.
Ditto.
3004(g)(4) (C) Ditto.
and 3004 (m).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-4746 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}