[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35924-35928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12768]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL-7214-4]


Land Disposal Restrictions: Granting of Two Site-Specific 
Treatment Variances to U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated in Grandview, 
Idaho and CWM Chemical Services, LLC in Model City, New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is 
promulgating two site-specific treatment variances from the Land 
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) standards for wastes generated at U.S. 
Ecology Idaho, Incorporated (USEII) in Grandview, Idaho, and CWM 
Chemical Services, LLC (CWM) in Model City, New York. These waste 
streams are derived from the treatment of multiple listed and 
characteristic hazardous wastes, including K088 (spent potliners from 
primary aluminum reduction), and differ significantly from the waste 
used to establish the LDR treatment standard for arsenic in K088 non-
wastewaters. Accordingly, we are finalizing an alternate treatment 
standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, measured using the Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), for the K088 derived emission 
control dust from the USEII facility. We are also, for the CWM 
facility, finalizing an alternate treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l for 
arsenic, measured using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, 
for the K088 derived baghouse dust, incinerator ash, and filtercake.
    This treatment variance requires USEII and CWM to dispose of their 
respective waste in RCRA Subtitle C landfills provided the waste 
complies with the specified alternate treatment standard for arsenic in 
K088 non-wastewaters and meets all other applicable LDR treatment 
standards.

DATES: This rule is effective May 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The official record for this rulemaking is identified as 
Docket Number F-2002-TV3F-FFFFF and is located in the RCRA Docket 
Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. The RIC is open from 9 am to 
4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review 
docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 
703-603-9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document 
at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. (The index is 
available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
information on accessing them.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA 
Call Center at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). 
The RCRA Call Center operates Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern 
Standard Time. For more detailed information on specific aspects of 
this rule, contact Laurie Solomon on 703-308-8443, 
[email protected], or write her at the Office of Solid Waste, 
5302W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rule on Internet

    Please follow these instructions to access the rule: From the World 
Wide Web (WWW), type http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr.
    The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, EPA has transferred any comments received electronically 
into paper form and placed them in the official record which also 
includes comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is 
the paper record maintained at the RIC listed in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Why and How Are Treatment Variances Granted?
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Comment Summary and Final Rule
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Why and How Are Treatment Variances Granted?

    Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

[[Page 35925]]

Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984, EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if any, 
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.'' We have interpreted this language to 
authorize treatment standards based on the performance of best 
demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was 
sustained by the court in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council vs. EPA, 
886 F. 2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1989).
    We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to 
levels specified in the regulation (see 40 CFR 268.40) (51 FR 40576, 
November 7, 1986). For such wastes, a treatment variance exists (40 CFR 
268.44) that, if granted, becomes the treatment standard for the waste 
at issue.
    Treatment variances may be national or site-specific. A national 
generic variance can result in the establishment of a new treatability 
group and a corresponding treatment standard that applies to all wastes 
that meet the criteria of the new waste treatability group (55 FR 
22526, June 1, 1990). A site-specific variance applies only to a 
specific waste from a specific facility. See 62 FR at 64505 (December 
5, 1997). Under 40 CFR 268.44(h), a generator or treatment facility may 
apply to the Administrator, or EPA's delegated representative, for a 
site-specific variance in cases where a waste that is generated under 
conditions specific to one site cannot or should not be treated to the 
specified level(s). Under 40 CFR 268.44(h)(1), the applicant for a 
site-specific variance must demonstrate that because the physical or 
chemical properties of the waste differ significantly from the waste 
analyzed in development of the treatment standard, the waste cannot be 
treated to the specified levels or by the specified method(s). Although 
there are other grounds for obtaining treatment variances, we will not 
discuss those in this notice because this is the only provision 
relevant to the present petitions. U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated 
(USEII) (Grandview, ID) submitted their request for a treatment 
variance in September 2000. CWM Chemical Services LLC (CWM) (Model 
City, NY) submitted their request in December 2000. All information and 
data used in the development of this proposal can be found in the RCRA 
docket supporting this rule.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    On July 24, 2001 (66 FR 38405), we proposed to grant two site-
specific treatment variances from the K088 (spent potliners from 
primary aluminum reduction) treatment standard for arsenic. The first 
proposed variance is for arsenic in the K088-derived emission control 
dust from an air pollution control system from a stabilization and 
containment building at the USEII facility. The second proposed 
variance is for arsenic in roll-off boxes of K088-derived baghouse dust 
and incinerator ash at the CWM Model City facility. This variance also 
covers wastewater treatment filtercake from the CWM facility (66 FR 
38405, July 24, 2001). To date, no K088 filtercake has been generated. 
At both facilities, these waste streams are derived from the treatment 
of multiple listed and characteristic hazardous wastes, including K088. 
Under the RCRA regulations, when different hazardous wastes are 
combined for treatment and there are different treatment standards for 
a particular hazardous constituent, the treatment residue must meet the 
most stringent of the applicable treatment standards. Section 268.40 
(c). With the advent of the Universal Treatment Standards, this 
situation does not arise often because most of the treatment standards 
are identical. However, K088 has a ``non-universal'' treatment standard 
for arsenic, which arguably might be considered more stringent than the 
universal treatment standard. (63 FR 51257, September 24, 1998.) The 
treatment standard for arsenic in K088 waste is to achieve a total 
concentration of arsenic of less than 26.1 mg/kg. The wastes which are 
the subject of these petitions would likely not achieve this treatment 
standard. The treatment residues, however, feasibly can be treated to 
meet the arsenic Universal Treatment Standard of 5 ppm measured using 
the TCLP.
    In the proposal, we concluded that an alternative treatment 
standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, measured using the TCLP, is warranted 
for the following reasons. First, the chemical properties of the 
derived-from waste at both facilities differ significantly from the 
waste used to establish the LDR treatment standard for arsenic in K088 
non-wastewaters. Second, the alternative standard of 5.0 mg/l TCLP is 
currently the standard applicable to arsenic in all other hazardous 
wastes, except K088 non-wastewaters. Third, arsenic concentrations in 
USEII's K088-derived emission control dust and in CWM's K088-derived 
baghouse dust, incinerator ash and filtercake cannot be treated to a 
lower treatment standard based on a total analysis. This is because 
arsenic, as an element, cannot be destroyed and must be immobilized. In 
the proposal, we concluded that these reasons meet the criteria for 
granting a site-specific variance under 40 CFR 268.44(h)(1). (66 FR 
38407, July 24, 2001.)

III. Comment Summary and Final Rule

    We received three comments on the proposed rule. One commenter 
supports EPA's decision to grant these variances based on its 
experiences in meeting the relevant Land Disposal Restrictions. Another 
commenter requests clarification regarding whether the alternate 
treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l, measured using the TCLP, is limited to 
CWM's wastes that are currently managed on-site. Our answer is that the 
treatment standard granted under today's variance applies to existing 
and future incinerator residue treated at the facility. It also applies 
to existing and future baghouse dust generated at the facility, as well 
as to any K088 derived-from filtercake generated in the future at the 
facility (since the reasons for granting the treatment variance apply 
in all of these situations).
    A commenter also requested clarification regarding which 
incinerator residue at CWM's Model City facility is covered by this 
final regulation. The commenter sought clarification as to whether the 
variance applies to just those wastes that are received from off-site 
and treated on-site or to these wastes plus any K088 derived baghouse 
dust and incinerator ash received from off-site and directly disposed 
in CWM's Model City Subtitle C landfill without treatment. The variance 
granted to CWM's Model City facility under this rulemaking is limited 
to wastes generated or treated at the Model City facility. Facilities 
other than CWM's Model City facility who believe their wastes meet the 
criteria for a variance from the KO88 standard can submit their own 
variance petition to the Agency for consideration.
    Two commenters believe that the 26.1 mg/kg arsenic standard should 
apply only to newly-generated K088 and that all other mixture, derived-
from and contained-in K088 should use the 5.0 arsenic TCLP universal 
treatment standard (UTS). These commenters believe that the cost and 
time spent by industry and EPA in preparing and responding to petitions 
for variances would be more than offset by a revised treatment 
standard. One commenter suggests that the rationale that EPA has used 
in previous final and proposed variances--that the treatment residues 
are physically and chemically different

[[Page 35926]]

from the waste analyzed in establishing the treatment standard--is 
applicable in all cases where K088 is treated with other hazardous 
waste and a K088-derived residue is generated. This commenter believes 
that, as a result, the most effective course of action is to revise the 
regulations and adopt a treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, 
measured using the TCLP, in K088 derived-from waste. Under this 
suggested approach, the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard would continue 
to apply to newly-generated K088 at the primary aluminum facility. EPA 
would finalize a new standard for all other mixture, derived-from and 
contained-in K088 wastes; this new standard would use the existing UTS 
standard of 5.0 ppm arsenic.
    Based on the limited number of variance requests we have received, 
we believe that the existing regulation is sufficient. We disagree with 
the commenter's cost estimate of revising the regulation versus 
continuing to use variances. In cases where site-specific variances 
from this standard are appropriate, EPA's regulations set forth a means 
by which generators or treaters of hazardous waste can file petitions 
for variances from the K088 treatment standard. To date, EPA has 
responded to only four petitions regarding the treatment standard for 
arsenic in K088. (66 FR 33887, June 26, 2001 and 65 FR 45978, July 26, 
2000, plus the two granted today.) There are no outstanding treatment 
variance petitions.
    In conclusion, for USEII, EPA is granting an alternate treatment 
standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, measured using the TCLP, in existing 
and future K088 derived-from emission control dust from its air 
pollution control system. Likewise, at CWM's Model City facility, EPA 
is granting an alternate treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, 
measured using the TCLP, for existing and future K088 derived baghouse 
dust, incinerator ash and filtercake.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Because this final rule does not create any new regulatory 
requirements, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. These 
treatment variances do not create any new regulatory requirements. 
Rather, they establish an alternative treatment standard for a 
regulated constituent at two specific facilities. This action, 
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. If a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator publishes 
with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not 
adopted. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law.
    EPA has determined that this final rule does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more in 
the aggregate to either State, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector in one year. The final rule would not impose any federal 
intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon 
State, tribal or local governments. States, tribes, and local 
governments would have no compliance costs under this rule. EPA has 
also determined that this final rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not 
expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the 
requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Thus, 
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 
204 and 205 of UMRA.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small 
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially 
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small 
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of 
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. This final rule will not impose any 
requirements on small

[[Page 35927]]

entities. These treatment variances do not create any new regulatory 
requirements. Rather, they establish an alternative treatment standard 
for a regulated constituent at two specific facilities. Today's final 
rule is not, therefore, subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA.

D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. The subject wastes will comply with 
all other treatment standards and be disposed of in RCRA Subtitle C 
landfills. Therefore, we have identified no risks that may 
disproportionately affect children.

E. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898

    EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and 
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to 
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. 
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, 
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and 
that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response 
to Executive Order 12898 and to the concerns voiced by many groups 
outside the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 
formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of 
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop 
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER 
Directive No. 9200.3-17).
    Today's final rule applies to wastes that will be treated and 
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, ensuring a 
high degree of protection to human health and the environment. 
Therefore, the Agency does not believe that today's action will result 
in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income 
communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule only changes the treatment standards applicable to a sub-
category of K088 wastes at two facilities. It does not change in any 
way the paperwork requirements already applicable to these wastes. 
Therefore, this rule is not affected by the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards based on new 
methodologies. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
These treatment variances do not create any new regulatory 
requirements. Rather, they establish an alternative treatment standard 
for a regulated constituent at two specific facilities. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of governments.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These treatment variances do not 
create any new regulatory requirements. Rather, they establish an 
alternative treatment standard for a regulated constituent at two 
specific facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule.

J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
effects.

[[Page 35928]]

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective May 22, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 7, 2002.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

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

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

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

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

    2. In  268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by 
adding in alphabetical order two new entries for ``CWM Chemical 
Services LLC, Model City, New York'; and ``U.S. Ecology Idaho, 
Incorporated, Grandview, Idaho'' and Footnotes 9 and 10 to read as 
follows:


 268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *

                                          Table--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec. 268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Wastewaters                    Nonwastewaters
                                                                           Regulated     ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Facility name\1\ and address      Waste code         See also            hazardous        Concentration                Concentration (mg/
                                                                          constituent          (mg/L)          Notes             kg)            Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
CWM Chemical Services, LLC,       K088\9\         Standards under  268.40.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
U.S. Ecology Idaho,               K088\10\        Standards under  268.40.                                                                             * * *
 
                                                                     * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ * * *
* * * * *
\9\ This treatment standard applies only to K088-derived bag house dust, incinerator ash, and filtercake at this facility.
\10\ This treatment standard applies only to K088-derived air emission control dust generated by this facility.


    Note: NA means Not Applicable.

[FR Doc. 02-12768 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P