[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17234-17250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8154]



[[Page 17233]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 261



Revision of Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous Waste 
Mixtures (``Headworks Exemptions''); Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 17234]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-7475-5]
RIN 2050-AE84


Revision of Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous Waste 
Mixtures (``Headworks Exemptions'')

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing in today's 
action to add benzene and 2-ethoxyethanol to the list of solvents whose 
mixtures with wastewater are exempted from the definition of hazardous 
waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The 
Agency studied two other solvents, 1,1,2-trichloroethane and 2-
nitropropane, and is not proposing at this time to add them to the 
current exemption.
    Besides adding the two solvents to the exemption, the Agency is 
proposing to provide flexibility in the way compliance with the rule is 
determined by adding the option of directly measuring solvent chemical 
levels at the headworks of the wastewater treatment system to the 
current requirements. Finally, the Agency also is proposing to make 
additional listed hazardous wastes (beyond discarded commercial 
chemical products) eligible for the de minimis exemption, as well as 
adding non-manufacturing facilities to those that qualify for this 
exemption if certain conditions are met.
    The Agency is requesting comments on these and other potential 
exemptions involving wastes managed in a wastewater system regulated 
under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
    The Agency is not proposing any changes or seeking comment on any 
other provisions of the so-called ``headworks rule,'' not specifically 
identified in this notice as subject to possible amendment. Nor will 
the Agency respond to any comments addressing any provisions of the 
headworks rule not specifically identified in this notice as subject to 
possible amendment.

DATES: To make sure we consider your comments on revisions to the 
wastewater treatment exemptions to hazardous waste mixtures, they must 
be postmarked by June 9, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, or through hand 
delivery/courier or by mail. Send an original and two copies of your 
comments to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305W, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-
0028. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Call Center at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 (hearing 
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810 
or TDD 703-412-3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects 
of this rulemaking, contact Ron Josephson, phone 703-308-0442; e-mail: 
[email protected], or Laura Burrell, phone 703-308-0005, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Entities potentially affected by this action are generators of 
industrial hazardous waste, and entities that treat, store, transport 
and/or dispose of these wastes. This table is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 
likely to be affected by this action.

          List of Potentially Affected U.S. Industrial Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Economic Subsector or
                           Industry Identity
        Item         ----------------------------       Description
                        SIC code     NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................           02           112   Agricultural
                                                   production--livestock
2...................           20           311   Food & kindred
                                                   products
3...................           22           313   Textile mill products
4...................           24           321   Lumber & wood products
5...................           25           337   Furniture & fixtures
6...................           26           322   Paper & allied
                                                   products
7...................           28           325   Chemicals & allied
                                                   products
8...................           29           324   Petroleum & coal
                                                   products
9...................           30           326   Rubber & miscellaneous
                                                   plastics products
10..................           31           316   Leather & leather
                                                   products
11..................           32           327   Stove, clay, glass &
                                                   concrete products
12..................           33           331   Primary metal
                                                   industries
13..................           34           332   Fabricated metal
                                                   products
14..................           35           333   Industrial machinery &
                                                   equipment
15..................           36      334, 335   Electrical &
                                                   electronic equipment
16..................           37           336   Transportation
                                                   equipment
17..................           38    3333, 3345   Instruments & related
                                                   products
18..................           42           493   Motor freight
                                                   transportation &
                                                   warehousing
19..................         4581   48819, 56172  Airports, flying
                                                   fields, & airport
                                                   terminal services
20..................         4789        488999   Transportation
                                                   services nec
21..................           49           221   Electric, gas, &
                                                   sanitary services
22..................           50           421   Wholesale trade--
                                                   durable goods
23..................           51           422   Wholesale trade--
                                                   nondurable goods
24..................         5999        453998   Miscellaneous retail
25..................          721          8123   Dry-cleaning &
                                                   industrial laundry
                                                   services
26..................           73     514, 532,   Business services
                                       541, 561
27..................           80     621, 622,   Health services
                                            623
28..................           87           712   Engineering &
                                                   management services

[[Page 17235]]

 
29..................         8999         54162   Miscellaneous services
30..................           91           921   Executive, legislative
                                                   & general government
31..................           95      924, 925   Environmental quality
                                                   & housing
32..................           97           928   National security &
                                                   international affairs
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Notes:
(a) This list is based upon industry codes reported to the USEPA RCRA
  hazardous waste 1997 ``Biennial Reporting System'' database by F002/
  F005 aqueous spent solvent generators which manage such wastes in
  wastewater treatment systems, supplemented by industry codes which
  have USEPA Clean Water Act ``Categorical Pretreatment Standards'' for
  indirect discharge of industrial wastewaters to POTWs (as of July
  2002).
(b) The USEPA Office of Solid Waste matched 1987 2-digit level SIC codes
  to 1997 NAICS codes using the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics/nsic2ndx.htm#S0.
(c) SIC = 1987 Standard Industrial Classification system (U.S.
  Department of Commerce's traditional code system last updated in
  1987).
(d) NAICS = 1997 North American Industrial Classification System (U.S.
  Department of Commerce's new code system as of 1997).
(e) Refer to the Internet website http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naicstab.htm for additional information and a crosswalk table for the
  SIC and NAICS codes systems.

    This table lists the types of entities that EPA believes could be 
affected by this action, based on industrial sectors identified in the 
economic analysis in support of this proposal. A total of about 3,300 
to 10,400 entities are expected to benefit from the proposed revisions 
to 40 CFR 261.3 in the 32 industrial sectors listed above, but 
primarily in the chemicals and allied products sector (i.e., SIC code 
28, or NAICS code 325). Other entities not listed in the table also 
could be affected. To determine whether your facility is covered by 
this action, you should examine 40 CFR part 261 carefully in concert 
with the proposed rules found at the end of this Federal Register 
document. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

Docket

    EPA has established an official docket for this action under Docket 
ID No. RCRA-2002-0028. The official docket consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the 
official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. The public docket is the collection of materials 
that is available for public viewing at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone 
number is (202) 566-0270. You may copy up to 100 pages from any 
regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies are $0.15 per page.

Electronic Access

    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public 
docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are 
available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then 
key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all 
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access 
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket 
facility. EPA intends to work toward providing electronic access to all 
of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic 
public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments.

[[Page 17236]]

Electronically

    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA 
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also 
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM 
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment 
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance 
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, 
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a 
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic 
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information 
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select 
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0028. The system is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0028. In 
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not 
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly 
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, 
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in the following paragraph. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

By Mail

    Send an original and two copies of your comments to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mailcode: 5305W, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0028.

By Hand Delivery or Courier

    Deliver your comments to: RCRA Docket Information Center, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
RCRA-2002-0028. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's 
normal hours of operation as identified in the ``How Can I Get Copies 
of This Document and Other Related Information?'' section.

How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be confidential 
business information (CBI) electronically through EPA's electronic 
public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as 
CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0028. You may 
claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or 
all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index and many of the supporting 
materials are available on the Internet. You can find these materials 
at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/headworks/index.htm.

                            List of Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Acronym                              Meaning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1-DCE...................................  1,1-dichloroethylene
1,1,2-TCA.................................  1,1,2-trichloroethane
2-EE......................................  2-ethoxyethanol
2-NP......................................  2-nitropropane
ACC.......................................  American Chemistry Council
ANPRM.....................................  Advanced Notice for Proposed
                                             Rule Making
BRS.......................................  Biennial Reporting System
CBI.......................................  Confidential Business
                                             Information
CERCLA....................................  Comprehensive Environmental
                                             Response, Compensation, and
                                             Liability Act
CFR.......................................  Code of Federal Regulations
CWA.......................................  Clean Water Act
DAF.......................................  Dilution and Attenuation
                                             Factor
EPA.......................................  Environmental Protection
                                             Agency
EPACMTP...................................  EPA Composite Model for
                                             Leachate Migration with
                                             Transformation Products
FR........................................  Federal Register
HSWA......................................  Hazardous and Solid Waste
                                             Amendments
HWIR......................................  Hazardous Waste
                                             Identification Rule

[[Page 17237]]

 
IWEM......................................  Industrial Waste Management
                                             Evaluation Model
LDR.......................................  Land Disposal Restrictions
MACT......................................  Maximum Achievable Control
                                             Technology
MCL.......................................  Maximum Contamination Limit
NAICS.....................................  North American Industrial
                                             Classification System
NPDES.....................................  National Pollutant Discharge
                                             Elimination System
NRMRL.....................................  National Risk Management
                                             Research Laboratory
NSPS......................................  New Source Performance
                                             Standard
NTTAA.....................................  National Technology Transfer
                                             and Advancement Act
OMB.......................................  Office of Management and
                                             Budget
OSWER.....................................  Office of Solid Waste and
                                             Emergency Response
POTW......................................  Publicly Owned Treatment
                                             Works
ppm.......................................  parts per million
RCRA......................................  Resource Conservation and
                                             Recovery Act
RFA.......................................  Regulatory Flexibility Act
RQ........................................  Reportable Quantity
SIC.......................................  Standard Industrial
                                             Classification
TC........................................  Toxicity Characteristic
TRI.......................................  Toxics Release Inventory
UMRA......................................  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WWT.......................................  Wastewater treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outline

I. Background
    A. History of Headworks Rule
    B. History of Solvents Listings
II. Potential Changes to the Headworks Rule
    A. Adding Solvents to the Headworks Exemption
    1. General Approach to Risk Analysis
    2. Issues presented by each solvent
    a. Benzene
    b. 2-ethoxyethanol
    c. 2-nitropropane
    d. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
    B. Revising Headworks Compliance Monitoring Method
    C. Exempting Scrubber Water Derived from Solvent Combustion
    D. Exempting Leachate Derived from Solvent Wastes
    E. Exempting Other Types of Leachate
    F. Expanding the De minimis Exemption
    G. State Authority
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

I. Background

A. History of Headworks Rule

    On May 19, 1980, the Agency listed several wastes as hazardous 
under RCRA. The current list as amended is found in 40 CFR part 261, 
subpart D. Among the listings are the F001-F005 listings under 40 CFR 
261.31, which cover spent solvents as well as residuals from the 
recovery of spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures. In the same 
notice, EPA promulgated the ``mixture rule'' whereby a solid waste 
becomes regulated as a hazardous waste if it is mixed with one or more 
listed hazardous wastes.
    After these provisions were promulgated, several industry groups 
became concerned that large volumes of wastewaters (and their resulting 
treatment sludges) would become listed hazardous wastes. After 
investigating the submitted data, the Agency, on November 17, 1981, (46 
FR 56582-56589) promulgated a rule giving several exemptions to the 
mixture rule under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A)-(E). These exemptions are 
commonly called the ``headworks rule.''
    The original headworks rule exemptions are divided into four 
categories: paragraphs (A) and (B) are concerned with solvents that may 
be contained in wastewaters when going to treatment, paragraph (C) is 
concerned with certain petroleum wastes, paragraph (D) with de minimis 
quantities of commercial chemical products that are lost to the 
wastewater treatment system during normal handling operations, and 
paragraph (E) with laboratory wastes and/or wastewaters discharged to 
wastewater treatment. The reasoning behind each of these exemptions is 
that the wastewater treatment system receives many different kinds of 
wastes, and the solvents, commercial chemical products, lab wastes, 
etc. are a minuscule and treatable part of the mix of wastewaters. The 
relatively small volumes of these organic constituents should be easily 
and effectively handled by the wastewater treatment system, so the risk 
to the environment would be negligible.
    Under the solvents portion of the headworks rule, if the maximum 
total weekly usage of listed solvents divided by the average weekly 
flow of wastewater through the headworks of the facility's wastewater 
treatment system does not exceed the levels specified in paragraphs (A) 
and/or (B) of 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv), and the discharge of the 
wastewaters is subject to regulation under sections 402 or 307(b) of 
the Clean Water Act, the wastewater is exempt from the mixture rule, 
(and therefore any subsequent treatment sludge generation also would be 
exempt). Facilities which have eliminated the discharge of wastewaters 
also are eligible for this exemption. Those facilities that discharge 
or transport their wastewaters to privately-owned treatment works are 
not eligible for this exemption; however, the receiving facilities are 
eligible to receive the exemption if they comply with the provisions of 
the headworks rule.
    The specified level in paragraph (A) is 1 ppm; the level in 
paragraph (B) is 25 ppm. See 46 FR 56582 (November 17, 1981) for more 
details. Carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, and 
trichloroethylene were specified in paragraph (A). The remaining 
solvents listed under EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F001, F002, F004, and 
F005 were put into paragraph (B). Since the solvents listed under EPA 
Hazardous Waste Number F003 are listed only for ignitability, and 
wastewater mixtures containing F003 solvents are not likely to be 
ignitable hazardous wastes, the headworks rule is not relevant for 
these wastes.
    On February 9, 1995, the Agency listed wastes from the production 
of carbamate pesticides (60 FR 7824-7859). Included in the listing are 
further amendments to the headworks rule for wastes from this industry, 
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(F) and (G). In addition, on August 6, 1998, the 
Agency revised Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C) as a part of the petroleum 
listing determination to include headworks provisions for these newly 
listed wastes (63 FR 42184).
    In August 1999, EPA received a request from the American Chemistry 
Council (ACC, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association) to add 
the four solvents (1,1,2-trichloroethane, benzene, 2-nitropropane, and 
2-ethoxyethanol) listed as hazardous wastes in 1986 to the headworks 
exemption. ACC also asked the Agency to allow direct monitoring as an 
alternative method by which compliance with the headworks rule may be 
determined. Other ACC-requested headworks rule changes include allowing 
those wastes listed in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 to be added to the de 
minimis exemption, and expanding the headworks rule to include certain 
landfill leachates. EPA

[[Page 17238]]

included a request for comment on these and other ACC-suggested 
exemptions to the mixture and derived-from rules in the November 19, 
1999 proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (64 FR 63382). 
Many of today's proposed changes are an outgrowth of ACC's suggested 
revisions and the public comments that EPA received in response to the 
discussion of these suggested revisions in the 1999 HWIR proposal.

B. History of Solvent Listings

    On May 19, 1980, the Agency listed 23 chemicals or classes of 
chemicals as hazardous wastes when used as solvents and subsequently 
spent. The listings can be found at 40 CFR 261.31, EPA Hazardous Waste 
Numbers F001-F005. As previously stated, in 1981 the Agency determined 
that small volumes of these spent solvents could be lost to wastewater 
treatment systems with negligible risk and therefore these spent 
solvents were exempted under the headworks rule (46 FR 56582-56589, 
November 17, 1981).
    The Agency's spent solvent listings cover only those solvents that 
are used for their ``solvent'' properties--that is, to solubilize 
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents used 
in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, 
reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses are covered under the 
listing (when spent). A solvent is considered ``spent'' when it has 
been used and is no longer fit for use without being regenerated, 
reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed.
    On the other hand, process wastes in which solvents were used as 
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical 
products are not covered by the listing. The products themselves also 
are not covered. (See 50 FR 53316, December 31, 1985.)
    On February 25, 1986 (51 FR 6537-6542), the Agency listed four 
other solvents in the F002 and F005 categories. These solvents are 
1,1,2-trichloroethane, benzene, 2-nitropropane, and 2-ethoxyethanol (or 
ethylene glycol monoethyl ether). These listings were in response to a 
Congressional mandate in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984 (HSWA). At the time, the Agency did not determine whether or not 
to add these solvents to the headworks rule exemptions.
    The Agency followed up the 1986 solvent listings with another 
listing determination concerning solvents as part of a court-ordered 
mandate. On November 19, 1998 (63 FR 64372-64402), the Agency finalized 
a decision not to list any of 14 selected chemicals as spent solvents 
under the current listings. The Agency concluded that many of these 
chemicals had little to no solvent use or very specialized solvent 
uses, and those that were used as solvents were managed in such a way 
that additional regulation was not warranted. As a part of the same 
court-ordered mandate, the Agency also published a ``Solvents Study'' 
(August 22, 1996) on seven additional chemicals. Most of these 
chemicals were found to have no solvent use at all.

II. Potential Changes to the Headworks Rule

    The Agency intends to make a technical correction to Sec.  
261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A). The term ``spent'' was inadvertently omitted from 
this paragraph when promulgated. The term ``spent'' should have 
appeared immediately before the word ``solvent'' in the first clause of 
the sub-paragraph as it does in sub-paragraph (B) of Sec.  
261.3(a)(2)(iv). The Agency proposes to correct this inadvertent 
oversight by inserting the word ``spent'' in the appropriate place in 
sub-paragraph (A).

A. Adding Solvents to the Headworks Exemption

    The American Chemistry Council requested that the Agency consider 
adding the four solvents listed in 1986 to the headworks exemption 
under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) and (B). After evaluating these 
chemicals, the Agency is proposing to add two of the solvents (benzene 
and 2-ethoxyethanol) to the exemption. That is, the Agency is proposing 
to add benzene to the solvents with a total 1 ppm headworks limit under 
Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) and is proposing to add 2-ethoxyethanol (2-EE) 
to the 25 ppm total limit under Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iv)(B). The exemption 
for benzene is conditioned on the use of aerated biological treatment 
units and the requirement that any surface impoundments used prior to 
secondary clarification be lined. The Agency is not proposing any 
action regarding 1,1,2-trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) and 2-nitropropane 
(2-NP) at this time. The Agency considered each solvent's risks 
individually and solicits comments on the appropriateness of the 
exemptions and the levels set.
    Under today's proposed changes, if the total headworks 
concentration of methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 
chlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, cresols, cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, 
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 
spent chlorofluorocarbon solvents, and 2-ethoxyethanol (added by 
today's proposal) do not exceed 25 parts per million (ppm), and the 
other conditions are met relating to Clean Water Act discharge and 
monitoring or measurement of constituents in the headworks of the 
wastewater treatment system (see below), the wastewater mixtures would 
no longer be considered hazardous waste. For mixtures of carbon 
tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and benzene 
(added by today's proposal under certain conditions), the total 
headworks concentration cannot exceed 1 ppm, and also must meet the 
other conditions for it to no longer be considered a hazardous waste; 
in addition, mixtures containing benzene must be managed in an aerated 
biological wastewater treatment system without the use of unlined 
surface impoundments prior to secondary clarification.
    The Agency is taking comment only on the evaluation and decisions 
made concerning benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, or 2-
nitropropane to the mixture rule exemption at 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) 
and (B). The Agency is not soliciting comments on solvents currently 
exempted. The Agency also is not taking comment on any spent solvent 
listing or any other hazardous waste listing. Nor will the Agency 
respond to any comments submitted addressing any currently exempted 
solvent, any spent solvent listing or any other hazardous waste 
listing.
1. General Approach to Risk Analysis
    The Agency took a phased approach to the risk analysis for the four 
solvents under consideration. In the first phase, EPA conducted a 
protective screening analysis by comparing the regulatory levels in the 
current solvents headworks exemption (i.e., 1 ppm and 25 ppm) with 
protective waste concentration limits (based on ingestion of ground 
water contaminated by surface impoundment leachate and inhalation of 
chemicals volatilized from an aerated tank) that EPA already had 
generated under previous efforts. These efforts calculated protective 
levels based on a more stringent 10-6 risk threshold. In 
addition, EPA evaluated data from EPA's National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory (NRMRL, part of the Agency's Office of Research and 
Development) treatability database to determine the probable effect of 
treatment in reducing chemical concentrations using existing treatment 
technologies. In the second phase, EPA performed a more detailed 
analysis for the chemicals (where possible). This more detailed human 
health risk assessment evaluated both the direct groundwater pathway 
and indirect

[[Page 17239]]

exposure pathways for chemicals released from either the wastewater or 
the resulting treatment sludge. This Phase II analysis used a 
10-5 risk threshold that the Agency considers sufficiently 
protective of human health and the environment, and therefore uses for 
a variety of regulatory determinations.
Comparison to Existing Waste Concentration Limits
    The screening analysis compared waste concentration estimates taken 
from previous modeling efforts for each of the four chemicals with 
applicable headworks exemption levels.

           Table 1.--Preliminary Comparative Solvent Risk Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Groundwater         Direct
             Chemical name               ingestion (mg/   inhalation \2\
                                             L)\1\            (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
benzene (c)...........................          0.0027                3
2-ethoxyethanol (nc)..................              13          100,000
2-nitropropane (c)....................             N/A             0.04
1,1,2-trichloroethane (c).............          0.0028               2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Footnotes:
(c) is a carcinogen, (nc) is a non-carcinogen
\1\ Adult risk, surface impoundment, 10-6 risk, HQ = 1 (ground water
  modeling screening levels from IWEM)
\2\ Adult risk, Aerated tanks, 90% sites, 90% receptors protected, 150
  m, 10-6 risk, HQ = 0.25 (1999 Air Characteristic Study)

    The Agency identified waste concentration screening estimates that 
would be protective of groundwater ingestion for three of the solvents 
(benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane) from previous 
groundwater modeling efforts.\1\ This comparison was conservative 
because it did not take into account any reductions in concentration 
due to treatment. For all three chemicals, the protective screening 
levels are lower than the existing standards for wastewaters entering 
treatment (i.e., 1 ppm for benzene and 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and 25 
ppm for 2-ethoxyethanol), indicating a need for further analysis. The 
Agency currently does not have sufficient information to generate an 
estimate of the toxicity of 2-nitropropane through ingestion, so no 
comparison could be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA. 2002. Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model 
(IWEM) Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste, 
Washington, DC. EPA530-R-02-012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency also has identified waste concentration estimates that 
would be protective of inhalation exposures to each of the four 
chemicals during volatilization from aerated tanks, also based on 
previous modeling efforts.\2\ The numbers shown in Table 1 represent 
the maximum constituent concentration meeting the noted adult risk 
thresholds at specified receptor distances. The table shows that for 
three of the solvents (benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane), the maximum modeled constituent level is above the 
exemption level proposed for these chemicals (i.e., the existing 
standard of 1 ppm or 25 ppm was protective of this risk scenario) and 
thus, is considered protective. One of the constituents, 2-NP, is still 
of concern for the inhalation pathway (i.e., the potential standard of 
1 ppm would not meet the Agency inhalation risk thresholds). Additional 
discussion of 2-nitropropane follows below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Volume III: Revised Risk Analysis for the Air Characteristic 
Study: Results, EPA 530-R-99-019c, U.S. EPA, November 1999. (on CD-
ROM)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Treatability Data
    The NRMRL treatability database provides valuable information on 
effluent concentrations for specific chemicals at set input levels. For 
the purposes of today's proposal, Agency staff searched the database 
for aqueous treatment technology data on full-scale industrial 
facilities in the chemical or petroleum refining industries that have 
measured levels of any one of the four solvents entering the wastewater 
treatment system. Data generally are summarized from government 
references, such as effluent guidelines development documents. Aqueous 
treatment technology data are available for benzene and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane. Only one non-industrial aqueous treatment technology 
data point exists for 2-ethoxyethanol, and no data are available for 2-
nitropropane. The data show that for two of the solvents (benzene and 
2-ethoxyethanol), wastewater treatment generally is effective in 
reducing concentrations below the levels of concern. Information on how 
to obtain the NRMRL data can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/treat.htm. Further analysis of NRMRL data as applied to industrial 
users of the chemicals under consideration is available in Proposed 
Rule to Expand the RCRA Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous 
Waste Mixtures (Headworks Exemption) in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) 
Technical Background Document located in the public docket to today's 
rule.
Additional Human Health Risk Assessment
    In the second phase, the Agency used the Chem 9/Water 9 model as an 
emissions source model (i.e., to estimate the wastewater and sludge 
concentrations after each step in the wastewater treatment system) and 
the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) to perform a 
groundwater pathway risk assessment, using data from the 1997 Biennial 
Reporting System as input parameters.\3\ EPA modeled wastewaters 
managed in both a non-aerated tank and unlined surface impoundment, and 
an aerated biological treatment system (which included both primary and 
secondary clarifier wastewater units). EPA also modeled sludges 
generated by wastewater treatment as managed in monofills and land 
farms. EPA modeled direct and indirect pathways, using chemical 
specific dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs) from EPA's Composite 
Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP), to 
predict the constituent concentration at the point of human contact. 
Direct routes included exposure via ingestion of contaminated ground 
water and inhalation of vapors from showering with contaminated ground 
water. Indirect routes of exposure

[[Page 17240]]

included the consumption of contaminated vegetables and meats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 1997 BRS data were used because that was the last year 
to include wastewater data. EPA queried the BRS for data on F002 
(for 1, 1,2-trichloroethane) and F005 (for benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 
and 2-nitropropane) at facilities which generated wastewaters or 
managed treatment sludges. The data from the BRS do not state which 
solvent is linked to a specific waste code. To screen for a ``high 
end'' exposure analysis, EPA based the input parameters on the 
facility that is the 90th percentile in size for the given waste 
code (i.e., that only ten percent of the facilities are larger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each scenario, multiple iterations were conducted to determine 
both central tendency risk and ``high-end'' risk. In all cases, 
however, the influent concentrations for benzene and 1,1,2-TCA at the 
headworks were assumed to be the maximum exemption level allowable 
assigned to carcinogens (1 ppm), and for 2-ethoxyethanol the influent 
concentration was assumed to be the maximum allowable limit for non-
carcinogens (25 ppm). The risk level was set at 10-5 (one 
chance in 100,000) for carcinogens and at a hazard quotient of 1 for 
non-carcinogens. Finally, for the indirect pathways, the medium used to 
grow plants was assumed to consist of 100% sludge (at the concentration 
generated by Chem 9/Water 9). Because none of the chemicals assessed 
were found to be of concern for the indirect pathways, EPA did not 
further refine this assumption. A full description of the data 
screening methodology can be found in the modeling background document 
to today's proposal.
2. Issues presented by each solvent
    a. Benzene. Benzene is the most ubiquitous of the four solvents 
under consideration. It has uses in many industries, particularly in 
organic synthesis and catalyst formation. Benzene is used as a reactant 
as well as a medium for reactions to take place. Due to increased 
restrictions on benzene emissions (such as MACT standards, etc.), 
chemical industries have been encouraged to find alternatives to 
benzene. It is also one of the more toxic, being classified by EPA as a 
Class A carcinogen.
    As presented in Table 1 of this notice, existing modeled waste 
concentration limits show that the 1 ppm standard would be protective 
for the direct air inhalation pathway, even with the more stringent 
10-6 risk threshold. Moreover, data from the NRMRL 
treatability database demonstrate that, after the specified treatment, 
effluent concentrations for benzene generally are below the groundwater 
modeled level of 0.0177 mg/L (17.7[mu]g/L), even when the influent 
benzene level approaches 1 mg/L (1,000[mu]g/L). Note that treatability 
numbers are measured at the effluent of a wastewater treatment system, 
not in the treatment unit itself. However, we believe this comparison 
is helpful because it illustrates that levels of benzene below concern 
are achievable in industrial wastewater treatment systems, even when 
the input level approaches 1 ppm.
    Data from the groundwater pathway human health risk analysis also 
support the addition of benzene to the headworks exemption, with 
certain conditions. For wastewaters, non-aerated treatment scenarios 
resulted in exposures above the level of concern for all components, 
but aerated biological treatment scenarios resulted in unacceptable 
risk levels only when the primary clarifier wastewaters were managed in 
an unlined surface impoundment. For sludges, non-aerated treatment 
sludges and aerated biological treatment primary sludges managed in 
landfills resulted in risk levels above the level of concern, but 
aerated biological treatment secondary sludges managed in landfills 
were below the levels of concern. Indirect exposures to benzene from 
management of sludges in land farms were not of concern, regardless of 
treatment type. Benzene exceeded the risk of 10-5 for each 
of the non-aerated scenarios and two components from the aerated 
biological treatment system (primary clarifier wastewaters being 
managed in an unlined surface impoundment and primary clarifier sludge 
being managed in a monofill).
    Based on the above results, the Agency is proposing to add benzene 
to the headworks exemption at the level of 1 ppm with the condition of 
certain management practices. Specifically, the proposed conditions are 
that wastewaters containing benzene be managed in aerated biological 
waste management units and that any surface impoundments used prior to 
secondary clarification be lined. Aerated biological treatment 
facilitates biodegradation, reducing the concentration of benzene in 
the sludge. (See Risk Assessment to Support the Wastewater Treatment 
Exemptions (Headworks Exemptions) Proposed Rule, U.S. EPA 2002, for 
further information on assumptions used for biodegradation in aerated 
biological treatment systems). Although the modeled risk for managing 
primary clarifier sludge (that is generated prior to aerated biological 
treatment) in a monofill exceeded 10-5, EPA does not believe 
that additional conditions are needed to be protective of this 
scenario, primarily because these sludges still would be considered 
hazardous wastes if they exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic for 
benzene of 0.5 mg/L.
    The Agency seeks comment on the proposal to add benzene to the 
headworks exemption at the level of 1 ppm with the conditional 
management requirements, on the necessity of the contingent management 
requirements, the level of biodegradation achieved through aerated 
biological treatment systems, industrial solvent use levels of benzene, 
and current industrial treatment systems and management practices.
    b. 2-ethoxyethanol. 2-ethoxyethanol is the least toxic of the four 
chemicals under consideration, and is the only non-carcinogen. Due to 
concerns about workplace exposure and the availability of substitute 
chemicals, use of 2-ethoxyethanol has been declining in the United 
States.
    As presented in Table 1 of this document, existing modeled waste 
concentration limits show that the 25 ppm standard would be protective 
for the direct air inhalation pathway, even without additional 
treatment. In addition, the limited treatment information on 2-
ethoxyethanol available in the treatability database show that 
treatment can be effective in further reducing the concentration of 2-
ethoxyethanol in wastewaters. However, groundwater screening pathway 
data for 2-ethoxyethanol, also in Table 1, show protective screening 
levels slightly below the 25 ppm standard (i.e., 13 ppm), indicating a 
need for further analysis.
    The more detailed groundwater pathway human health analysis does 
support, however, the addition of 2-ethoxyethanol at 25 ppm to the 
headworks exemption. Both direct and indirect analyses showed 2-
ethoxyethanol at 25 ppm in the headworks poses no significant human 
health risk. (See Risk Assessment to Support the Wastewater Treatment 
Exemptions (Headworks Exemptions) Proposed Rule, U.S. EPA 2002).
    The Agency seeks comment on the proposal to add 2-ethoxyethanol to 
the headworks exemption at 25 ppm.
    c. 2-nitropropane. The Agency has very little production, release 
and toxicity data on 2-nitropropane. The 1999 Toxics Release Inventory 
(TRI) only listed three facilities nationwide reporting the chemical 
present in wastewaters. The treatability database from NRMRL has no 
aqueous technology data on 2-nitropropane. The Agency has only 
inhalation toxicity information to use for risk modeling purposes. We 
believe that the available risk information is not adequate to develop 
an oral benchmark for 2-nitropropane. 2-Nitropropane failed to pass the 
Phase I air risk screen by a factor of 25 (in contrast to the other 
three solvents passing, as indicated in Table 1). Because of the large 
margin of failure for 2-nitropropane, we considered it unlikely that 2-
nitropropane would pass a more robust Phase II type of analysis. Based 
on the large margin of failure in the Phase I screen and the extremely 
low reported

[[Page 17241]]

usage that the Agency found for 2-nitropropane, we determined that 
continued analysis of 2-nitropropane was not likely to affect the 
regulatory status of these wastes significantly.
    Accordingly, the Agency is not proposing any action at this time on 
2-nitropropane under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) or (B). The Agency seeks 
comment on the availability of toxicity information on 2-nitropropane 
and the current level of use as a solvent.
    d. 1,1,2-trichloroethane. According to the Agency's listing 
background document of 1985 \4\, most 1,1,2-trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 
was used as a vinylidene chloride feedstock. The rest had some solvent 
use, such as a solvent for waxes, resins, fats, rubbers, and coating 
cleaner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ `Listing Background document for Four Spent Solvents and 
Still Bottoms From Recovery of These Solvents, USEPA, January 22, 
1985, Docekt No. F-85-LSSP-FFFFF, document no. F005.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As presented in Table 1 of this notice, existing modeled waste 
concentration limits show that the 1 ppm standard would be protective 
for the direct air inhalation pathway. However, the groundwater modeled 
level of 0.0028 mg/L indicates potential risk at the 1 ppm standard 
from the groundwater pathway, and data from the NRMRL treatability 
database do not appear to demonstrate a significant reduction in 
chemical concentration of 1,1,2-TCA during treatment, especially when 
the input level approaches 1 ppm.
    Data from the more detailed groundwater pathway human health 
analysis also do not support the addition of 1,1,2-TCA at 1 ppm to the 
headworks exemption. While 1,1,2-TCA was found to be below the level of 
concern for indirect exposures, wastewater concentrations resulted in 
risks greater than 10-5 for sludges and wastewaters from both aerated 
biological treatment and non-aerated treatment units (both for 
groundwater ingestion and inhalation of shower vapors). In addition, 
1,1,2-TCA undergoes transformation to 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 
due to hydrolysis while being transported in the subsurface 
environments. The parent compound, 1,1,2-TCA, and the transformation 
product, 1,1-DCE, have similar fate characteristics. The transformation 
product is more toxic than the parent compound by approximately an 
order of magnitude. However, the modeling results are based on the 
parent compound only. Therefore, risk from 1,1,2-TCA will likely be 
even greater than shown in the headworks exemption risk background 
document (US EPA, 2002).
    Due to the indication that significant risks occurred in the 
majority of waste management scenarios as modeled, the Agency is not 
proposing any action on 1,1,2-TCA at this time under Sec.  
261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A). The Agency seeks comment on the results of this 
risk analysis and current solvent use.

B. Revising Headworks Compliance Monitoring Method

    The Agency is proposing to expand the ways in which compliance with 
the headworks rule may be determined by adding the option of directly 
measuring solvent chemical levels at the headworks of the wastewater 
treatment system. This change would affect 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A), 
(B), (F), and (G). Under the current solvent exemptions, a facility 
must use a ``mass balance'' approach to calculate the theoretical 
headworks concentration (via solvent usage) to be in compliance with 
the rule. That is, a facility must look at inventory records of the 
amount of solvent purchased weekly and divide that amount by the 
average weekly flow of wastewater through the headworks of the 
wastewater treatment system. The amount known not to go into the 
wastewater treatment system (e.g., lost to product, removed as still 
bottoms) may be subtracted from the calculation. However, the amount 
volatilized may not be subtracted to ensure that the solvent wastes 
were properly treated and to minimize losses of these chemicals through 
volatilization.
    The Agency received a request from ACC to allow another compliance 
methodology. Under this method, facilities would be allowed to perform 
a direct measurement of the concentration of solvent chemicals in the 
wastewater treatment system. According to ACC, use of direct 
measurement is more accurate than calculating a mass balance over the 
system. In addition, they point out that with the advent of MACT 
standards and NSPS requirements under the Clean Air Act and its 
amendments over the 21 years since the headworks rule was first 
promulgated, these standards should prevent the intentional 
volatilization about which the Agency was initially concerned.
    When the original headworks rule was promulgated, the Agency was 
concerned that the exemption might encourage facilities to volatilize 
solvents before a defined measurement point, thus allowing facilities 
to claim compliance with the exemption, but in reality transferring the 
waste management problem to another medium. As a result, the Agency 
structured the exemption to require facilities to use the ``mass 
balance'' approach to calculate whether or not they met the 
concentration thresholds set forth in the rule. As noted earlier, 
facilities are allowed to subtract the amount of solvents known not to 
go into the wastewater treatment system (e.g., from losses to product, 
still bottoms, etc.), but not losses due to volatilization (See 46 FR 
56585, footnote 24, November 17, 1981). Use of the mass balance 
approach did not require facilities to define a specific point to 
measure levels of solvents entering the wastewater treatment system.
    Since the 1981 rule was published, the Agency has promulgated 
numerous air emissions regulations for new and existing sources under 
the Clean Air Act (e.g., MACT and NSPS programs). The background 
document to today's proposal Proposed Rule to Expand the RCRA 
Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous Waste Mixtures (Headworks 
Exemption) in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) Technical Background Document) 
lists the industries affected by these Clean Air Act programs. Because 
of the coverage of these regulations, the Agency believes that concerns 
about volatilization have been addressed, and that allowing facilities 
a greater choice of compliance methodologies is appropriate.
    Use of this method also means that the measured level(s) of the 
chemical(s) at the headworks may not exceed the total regulatory level, 
regardless of its (or their) origin in the process, as long as some of 
it (or them) has been used as a ``solvent.'' Therefore, direct 
measurement could overstate the amount of solvent(s) if the chemical(s) 
were used at the facility in other applications (e.g., impurity in 
other feedstocks, product component, reaction byproduct, etc.) 
Facilities that wish to take advantage of the direct monitoring 
approach must report the entire concentration of the chemical in 
question if any of it was used as a solvent.
    The Agency is proposing to give facilities a choice of using direct 
measurement or mass balance to determine compliance with the headworks 
rule. Facilities that choose to use direct monitoring must be subject 
to Clean Air Act regulations that minimize fugitive process or 
wastewater emissions (e.g., MACT standards under 40 CFR part 61 or 63 
or NSPS requirements under 40 CFR part 60). We are not proposing any 
changes to, nor are we seeking comment on the regulatory standard set 
in the 1981 rule, that a facility may not exceed the total solvent 
level set forth in Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) in order to comply 
with the rule. The Agency will

[[Page 17242]]

not respond to comments addressing this standard.
    One of the main implementation issues in utilizing the direct 
monitoring method of compliance is understanding the point in the 
process at which a facility determines whether it meets the limits in 
Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) or (B). In response to this issue, the Agency 
is setting an informal definition of ``headworks'' so facilities and 
implementing agencies can understand how the monitoring point is 
described. The guidance the Agency is providing is intended to mirror 
the language in the 1981 preamble; namely, that the headworks is the 
location at which final combination of raw process wastewater streams 
typically takes place (46 FR 56582, November 17, 1981).
    The Agency is not proposing to set a regulatory definition of the 
term headworks. Instead, the Agency prefers to describe the term for 
both maximum flexibility and understanding. For the purposes of this 
rule, headworks can include a central catch basin for industrial 
wastewaters, a pump station outfall, equalization tank, or some other 
main wastewater collection area that exists in which transport of 
process wastewaters stops and chemical or biological treatment begins.
    The Agency seeks comment as to whether the description for 
headworks given above is adequate, or if a more detailed description is 
needed. Commenters may wish to provide examples to illustrate working 
definitions of headworks or where confusion about a headworks 
definition might exist.
    The Agency proposes that facilities that want to take advantage of 
using direct monitoring develop a site-specific sampling and analysis 
plan that demonstrates compliance with the weekly average standards set 
for the appropriate solvent(s). The sampling and analysis plan must 
include the monitoring point location (headworks), the sampling 
frequency and methodology, and a list of appropriate constituents to be 
monitored. In addition, facilities would be required to file a copy of 
the sampling and analysis plan with the Regional Administrator or State 
Director, as the context requires, or an authorized representative 
(i.e., the ``Director,'' as defined in 40 CFR 270.2), and would need to 
confirm that such sampling and analysis plan had been received prior to 
the commencement of direct monitoring at the facility. Examples of 
confirmation include certified mail return receipt, or written 
confirmation of delivery from a commercial delivery service. Upon 
confirmation that the sampling and analysis plan has been delivered 
successfully to the overseeing agency, the facility would be allowed to 
commence direct monitoring to demonstrate compliance. The filing of the 
sampling plan would suffice for initial notification. EPA does not 
propose to require any other formal notification to the regulator, 
unless a change in the facility's operations mandates a change in 
monitoring. Confirmation that the overseeing agency has received the 
sampling and analysis plan would not imply, however, that the package 
has been reviewed or approved. EPA does not propose to require that the 
overseeing agency issue a formal approval of the sampling and analysis 
plan. However, the Director may reject the sampling and analysis plan 
if he/she finds that (1) the sampling and analysis plan fails to 
include the above information, or (2) the plan parameters would not 
enable the facility to calculate the weekly average concentration of 
these chemicals accurately. If the sampling and analysis plan is 
rejected or if the Director finds that the facility is not following 
the sampling and analysis plan, the facility must no longer use the 
direct monitoring option until such time as the bases for rejection are 
corrected.
    The Agency seeks comments from the public as to the benefits of the 
changes and if they are sufficiently protective of the environment. The 
Agency would like comments as to whether the best approach is (1) to 
leave the current system ``as is,'' or (2) to give facilities a choice 
of mass balance or direct monitoring techniques. The Agency also seeks 
comment as to whether the overseeing agency should either approve a 
sampling and analysis plan, or require facilities to wait a certain 
period of time (if the state or EPA has not responded) before embarking 
on a direct monitoring program, and how a facility suspected of 
violating the exemption limits may be made to demonstrate compliance 
with the weekly standard.
    Under the existing headworks exemption rule (46 FR 56585, November 
17, 1981), facilities must be prepared to demonstrate (for the purposes 
of an inspection or audit) that they meet the mass balance criteria of 
the rule. Facilities opting to use direct monitoring could comply with 
this requirement by keeping monitoring records on site to show an 
inspector that the new criteria are being met. Under 40 CFR 
268.7(a)(7), a facility is required to place a one-time notice 
concerning waste generation, subsequent exclusion from the definition 
of hazardous waste or solid waste or exemption from RCRA Subtitle C 
regulation, and the disposition of the waste, in the facility's on-site 
files. Generally, such notification, as well as certifications, waste 
analysis data, and other documentation must be kept for a period of 
three years unless an enforcement action by the Agency extends the 
record retention period (Sec.  268.7(a)(8)). EPA has estimated the 
burden associated with the proposed reporting requirements when a 
facility chooses the direct monitoring option. Those estimates are 
presented in section IV.D of today's proposal.
    The Agency is soliciting comment on how to minimize overlapping 
reporting requirements. Under EPA's Water program, (e.g, 40 CFR 122.48 
and 403.12), facilities may be required under their permits to monitor 
these same constituents at the point of discharge (i.e., effluent 
monitoring). The Agency recognizes that current requirements under the 
Clean Water Act do not require monitoring of the wastewater treatment 
system influent (or headworks). However, EPA notes some facilities may 
collect and may report such information. EPA seeks comment on whether 
or not facilities are currently performing influent monitoring for 
other media programs. If so, the Agency solicits comments on the 
frequency of the influent monitoring and reporting and if this 
information can be used to determine compliance with the headworks 
rule.
    The Agency also seeks comment on the proposed use of other 
environmental regulatory program requirements to integrate the 
information needed for this exemption. Specifically, the Agency is 
interested in how much of the information is contained in air or water 
permit monitoring/reporting requirements, how easy modifying another 
regulatory program's requirements to contain these data would be, and 
what steps facilities are taking to conduct this kind of monitoring 
already.

C. Exempting Scrubber Water Derived From Solvent Combustion

    The issue of whether to exempt incinerator scrubber water first was 
raised by commenters to the 1999 HWIR proposal. Under the current 
headworks rule, the exemptions under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) 
are from ``normal losses'' from manufacturing operations and not from 
wastes that are already separated from the wastewaters or that had been 
removed from the process previously. Many spent solvents are sent to 
hazardous waste combustors. The combustors have scrubbers, used for air 
pollution control, and these

[[Page 17243]]

scrubbers usually generate an aqueous stream that is easily treatable 
in the wastewater treatment system. The scrubber waters, however, are 
considered ``derived from'' residuals of the spent solvents, and since 
they are not incidental losses to the wastewater treatment system, they 
are not currently eligible for the headworks exemptions.
    In the carbamates final rule (60 FR 7824-7859, February 9, 1995), 
the Agency decided that scrubber waters from the incineration of 
carbamate production wastes are eligible for the headworks exemptions 
that were promulgated under that listing determination. The 
justification for this decision was that these scrubber waters would be 
comparable in expected constituents and concentration levels with the 
already-exempted carbamate wastewaters.
    Based on the rationale in the carbamates rule, the Agency is 
proposing that scrubber waters derived from the combustion of spent 
solvents and sent to a facility's wastewater treatment system qualify 
for the exemption under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A) and (B). Similar to 
the carbamates decision, we believe that the scrubber waters derived 
from combustion of spent solvent wastes will be comparable in expected 
constituents with spent solvent wastewaters. In addition, the solvent 
constituents receive at least 99.99% destruction and removal during 
incineration, the incinerator scrubber water is typically a small 
percentage of the flow into a wastewater treatment system, and the 
wastewater treatment system further reduces remaining constituent 
concentrations. The Agency requests comment on this proposed revision.

D. Exempting Leachate Derived From Solvent Wastes

    Another suggested revision to the headworks rule is to exempt 
leachate from landfills that accepted only F001-F005 spent solvent 
wastes. Under current rules, leachate resulting from the disposal of 
more than one listed waste under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D is 
classified as EPA Hazardous Waste Number F039. Since no exemption 
currently exists under the headworks rule for F039 liquids, these 
leachates (even if derived solely from spent solvents) cannot be 
inserted into a facility's wastewater treatment system and receive an 
exemption from the mixture rule.
    BRS data from 1997 show the presence of 12 hazardous waste 
landfills that accept only F001-F005 spent solvent hazardous wastes and 
no other listed wastes. These landfills are both on-site at 
manufacturing facilities and commercial hazardous waste landfills. In 
addition, three other landfills list characteristic waste codes, 
commercial chemical products, and lab packs with the spent solvent 
wastes. The waste codes in question may be associated with the solvents 
themselves. For example, D001 wastes are ignitable, and may be from the 
same solvents. The U226 waste code corresponds to 1,1,1-trichloroethane 
as a commercial chemical product. The chemical, when used as a solvent 
and subsequently spent, would carry an F001 or F002 waste code.
    The Agency does not have sufficient data concerning the variability 
of these leachates to propose adding them to the exemption at this 
time. The Agency seeks comment as to whether such an exemption would be 
advisable, the relative volumes of leachate to other wastewaters going 
for treatment, and the relative concentrations of other contaminants in 
leachate versus those present in the other wastewaters at these 
facilities. The Agency also seeks comment as to whether landfills that 
accept characteristic wastes, lab packs, or commercial chemical 
products that correspond to the chemicals that are also listed spent 
solvents should be eligible to have leachate sent to a facility 
wastewater treatment system and be exempted.
    At this point, the Agency is not proposing an exemption for 
solvent-only leachate. Therefore, in the final rule to today's 
proposal, the Agency does not expect to include any regulatory language 
exempting any of these leachates. Rather, the Agency is considering the 
leachate exemption discussion being advanced in today's proposal as an 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

E. Exempting Other Types of Leachate

    The ACC also has requested that the Agency consider establishing an 
exemption to allow facilities with unlined surface impoundments 
attached to wastewater treatment systems to accept hazardous waste 
landfill leachate into the wastewater treatment system without the need 
for the unlined surface impoundment to obtain a hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal permit.
    At this time, EPA still is considering the suggested regulatory 
exemption for leachate derived-from landfilled hazardous waste as well 
as other specific exemption options, but we first need to evaluate 
several important issues. Most hazardous waste leachate is regulated 
under a separate waste code, F039. To date, we have received no 
information that would cause us to reconsider that listing, although we 
would welcome any data that might be helpful in such a re-evaluation. 
However, in the most recent EPA study of landfill leachate 
characteristics (65 FR 3007, January 19, 2000), we found considerable 
differences between the leachate samples from hazardous and non-
hazardous landfills in both numbers of constituents of concern and 
their concentrations. Specifically, hazardous waste landfill leachate 
contained a greater number of constituents than non-hazardous waste 
landfill leachate, and the constituents found in both hazardous and 
non-hazardous waste landfill leachate generally were present in 
hazardous waste landfill leachate at concentrations an order of 
magnitude higher than those found in non-hazardous waste landfill 
leachate \5\. These pollutants can include many organic hazardous 
constituents not covered by the Toxicity Characteristic. Absent a risk 
assessment, it is not possible to determine whether the levels of these 
constituents pose unacceptable risk. However, the presence of these 
constituents is a strong indication that more study would be needed 
before developing an exemption for hazardous waste leachate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, 
EPA-821-R-99-019, U.S. EPA, January 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One option would be to limit a possible future exemption to 
leachates from captive, on-site hazardous waste landfills. The Agency 
would be inclined to propose this limitation because landfills that 
accept off-site wastes will likely have a different constituent mix 
from those constituents in the facility wastewater treatment system. 
The Agency again seeks comment as to whether such an exemption would be 
advisable, the relative volumes of leachate to other wastewaters going 
for treatment, and the relative concentrations of other contaminants in 
leachate versus those present in the other wastewaters at these 
facilities.
    At this point, the Agency is not proposing an exemption for non-
solvent leachate. Therefore, the Agency does not expect to include any 
regulatory language in the final rule to this proposal without first 
seeking comment on a more fully-developed proposal.

F. Expanding the De Minimis Exemption

    The current mixture rule exemption under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(D) 
is a provision to remove from regulation small amounts of commercial 
chemical products (P- and U-listed wastes under

[[Page 17244]]

40 CFR 261.33) lost to a wastewater treatment system from manufacturing 
operations. Small amounts of Sec.  261.33 materials which are being 
produced by, or used as raw product in, a manufacturing process are 
often unavoidably lost in normal material handling operations. For 
example, small amounts of raw material are lost in various unloading or 
material transfer operations (e.g., small drippage when transfer hose 
lines are disconnected, and fugitive dust when certain materials are 
emptied from bags or transferred from bins). Additionally, small 
amounts of manufactured products or intermediates are lost in material 
handling, or storage activities (e.g., losses from packing of pumps 
used to transfer product, unanticipated spills, relief valve 
discharges, rinsates from drained or otherwise emptied containers, and 
purgings associated with pressure relief or sample collection). 46 FR 
56582 at 56586 (November 17, 1981).
    Thus, the de minimis exemption is intended to apply to minor, 
inadvertent releases of waste to a wastewater treatment system as a 
result of normal operations at a well-maintained facility. The de 
minimis exemption currently does not apply to the discarding of these 
materials during abnormal manufacturing operations (e.g., operation 
malfunctions resulting in substantial spills), or the discarding of 
these materials where they are not being used as raw materials or are 
not being manufactured as intermediates or final products. Id.
    The Agency is proposing to broaden the scope of the de minimis 
exemption in two ways. First, we propose to expand the eligibility for 
the exemption beyond manufacturing operations. Second, we propose to 
expand the types of waste that are eligible for the exemption. This 
revised de minimis exemption only applies to those wastes not 
specifically addressed under some other provision of the headworks 
rule.
    The original headworks exemption applies only to manufacturing 
operations; such facilities are likely to have wastewater treatment 
systems with Clean Water Act (CWA) permits that provide a means to 
assess and limit discharges of the specific chemicals manufactured 
there. However, the Agency realizes that many raw material storage 
terminals, hazardous waste facilities, etc. also may have effective 
wastewater treatment systems that prevent the release of small amounts 
of spilled wastes from posing a threat to human health or the 
environment. The Agency also realizes that under the CWA, many of these 
facilities have NPDES permits or permits under local CWA pretreatment 
programs that limit discharges and require monitoring for specific 
constituents (40 CFR part 122, 40 CFR part 403). Limitations on 
discharges of specific constituents implement CWA requirements to 
ensure that direct dischargers achieve effluent limitations based on 
best available technology and that indirect dischargers to POTWs comply 
with pretreatment standards. These limitations and standards act as 
another protective mechanism to prevent releases of toxic constituents 
from a facility's wastewater discharges and are an important 
consideration in the decision to propose this expansion of the de 
minimis exemption.
    The Agency is therefore proposing that the de minimis eligibility 
be expanded to non-manufacturing sites that either (1) have a permit 
subject to the CWA that contains limits for (a) the constituents for 
which each waste was listed (in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII) and (b) 
the constituents in the table ``Treatment Standards for Hazardous 
Wastes'' in 40 CFR 268.40 for which each waste has a treatment standard 
(i.e., Land Disposal Restriction constituents), or (2) have eliminated 
the discharge of wastewaters altogether. By conditioning the expanded 
exemption on having a CWA permit that addresses the specific chemicals 
associated with the listed waste, EPA will help ensure that the 
wastewater treatment systems at non-manufacturing facilities will 
effectively treat such chemicals. However, this proposed condition 
would also mean that some raw material storage terminals or other non-
manufacturing facilities that do not meet this condition would not be 
eligible to claim the de minimis exemption. This is because, while some 
non-manufacturing facilities' discharges are covered by general permits 
(e.g., storm water discharge permits), they do not specifically address 
hazardous constituents likely to be present in the listed waste. (In 
contrast, the manufacturing facilities that are eligible for the 
current exemption are likely to have wastewater treatment systems with 
CWA permits that provide a means to assess and limit discharges of the 
specific chemicals.)
    The Agency also is proposing to expand the de minimis exemption to 
wastes other than listed commercial chemical products for sites that 
either (1) have a permit subject to the CWA that contains limits for 
(a) the constituents for which each waste was listed (in 40 CFR part 
261, appendix VII) and (b) the constituents in the table ``Treatment 
Standards for Hazardous Wastes'' in 40 CFR 268.40 for which each waste 
has a treatment standard (i.e., Land Disposal Restriction 
constituents), or (2) have eliminated the discharge of wastewaters 
altogether.
    The original headworks exemption only applies to commercial 
chemical products; CWA permitting requirements at manufacturing 
facilities generally provide a means to assess and limit discharges of 
these products, which because of their intrinsic value are not likely 
to be discharged in large volumes. In its correspondence with the 
Agency, ACC requested that this portion of the headworks rule be 
expanded to include de minimis amounts of industrial wastes listed in 
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 (F- and K-listed wastes). De minimis releases 
of these F- and K-listed wastes, similar to those from P- and U-listed 
wastes, arise from losses during materials handling operations in which 
these wastes are being generated or being segregated for treatment and 
disposal. ACC's position is that facility wastewater treatment systems 
are capable of handling small amounts of F-or K-wastes spilled to the 
system.
    The Agency agrees that very small releases of industrial waste to a 
facility's wastewater treatment system are not likely to have a 
significant effect upon that system, the quality of facility effluent 
discharges, solid wastes generated, occupational safety and health, and 
human health and the environment. Moreover, the Agency believes that 
the constituent-specific CWA permitting requirements under section 402 
or under section 307(b) local pretreatment program for eligible 
facilities provides assurance that releases of these wastes to a 
facility's wastewater treatment system will be kept to a minimum. CWA 
permitting requirements at manufacturing facilities generally provide a 
means to assess and limit discharges of commercial chemical products, 
but may not specifically address constituents in F- and K-listed 
wastes. Therefore, to ensure that release of de minimis levels of these 
constituents will not put human health and the environment at risk, and 
to provide facilities an incentive to minimize the loss of F- and K-
listed wastes, the Agency is proposing that facilities which discharge 
wastewaters have CWA permits that limit appendix VII and Land Disposal 
Restriction constituents associated with the specific wastes.
    The Agency further notes that the headworks exemption does not 
negate the applicability of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) (40 CFR 
261.24) to the wastewater treatment sludge. Therefore, facilities have 
an additional

[[Page 17245]]

incentive to reduce loadings of certain toxic constituents into the 
wastewater treatment system to prevent the sludge from exhibiting the 
TC.
    The Agency considers hazardous substance release reporting under 
section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9603 as an 
additional regulatory backstop to both of the proposed expansions to 
the headworks exemption. A release of a hazardous substance in a 
quantity equal to or greater than the Reportable Quantity (RQs) 
established for that hazardous substance triggers a requirement to 
notify the National Response Center of that release. See CERCLA section 
103 (42 U.S.C. 9603(a)). Congress established an initial RQ for all 
hazardous substances of one pound (unless a higher RQ already had been 
established under CWA section 311(b)(4)) until EPA establishes an RQ 
for the substance by regulation. CERCLA section 102(b) (42 U.S.C. 
9602(b)).
    In setting RQ's, EPA takes into account the potential hazards posed 
by the chemicals of concern. The methodology for setting RQs is 
discussed in the May 25, 1983, Federal Register (48 FR 23552). RQs for 
hazardous substances are found in 40 CFR 302.4.
    Similar to the CWA permits, the RQ acts as a protective mechanism 
discouraging releases of hazardous wastes to the environment by 
requiring facilities to report chemical releases above a certain 
threshold. In general, facilities must report releases of hazardous 
substances immediately to the National Response Center and State or 
Local Emergency Planning Center, depending on the type of release. 
While this reporting does not prevent releases, it requires facilities 
to be accountable for excess releases of hazardous substances when they 
occur. Because all hazardous wastes also are listed as hazardous 
substances, discharge of hazardous wastes in a facility's wastewater 
treatment system that cause a release to the environment above 
reporting thresholds must be reported to the appropriate authorities. 
While excess releases of hazardous wastes, such as in an upset or pass-
through situation, do not qualify for the de minimis exemption, the RQ 
program, by its reporting requirements, provides an additional tool for 
minimizing hazardous waste discharges through a wastewater treatment 
system.
    It is important to note that the Agency is not increasing the 
amount of waste that can be described as a de minimis release in this 
proposal. Moreover, these proposed expansions to the types of waste and 
facilities eligible for the de minimis exemption should not be 
construed as reducing the scope or application of any hazardous waste 
listing under 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. For example, the F006 listing 
covers wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations. For 
facilities that normally generate F006 wastes, a release of 
electroplating wastewaters to the treatment system would still result 
in the generation of F006 wastes. A facility could not use the de 
minimis exemption to claim that it is not generating F006 listed 
hazardous wastes. Finally, as stated previously, this revised de 
minimis exemption only applies to those wastes not specifically 
addressed under some other provision of the headworks rule.
    As with any exemption from the definition of solid or hazardous 
waste under Sec. Sec.  261.2-261.6 (including this de minimis 
exemption), 40 CFR 268.7(a)(7) requires a facility to place a one-time 
notice concerning waste generation, subsequent exclusion from the 
definition of hazardous waste or solid waste or exemption from RCRA 
Subtitle C regulation, and the disposition of the waste, in the 
facility's on-site files. Generally, such notification, as well as 
certifications, waste analysis data, and other documentation must be 
kept for a period of three years unless an enforcement action by the 
Agency extends the record retention period (Sec.  268.7(a)(8)).
    In light of the limiting conditions and protective regulatory 
mechanisms we have discussed above, the Agency is proposing to expand 
the de minimis exemption (1) to non-manufacturing facilities, and (2) 
to wastes listed in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 (F- and K-listed wastes) 
released in de minimis quantities when they meet certain conditions. 
Specifically, facilities discharging wastewaters (whether manufacturing 
or non-manufacturing) that are attempting to qualify for this expanded 
eligibility must have CWA permits under sections 307(b) or 402 that 
contain limits for the specific chemicals for which each waste was 
listed (in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII) as well as hazardous 
constituents in 40 CFR 268.40 for which each listed waste has a 
treatment standard under Land Disposal Restrictions or must have 
eliminated the discharge of wastewaters altogether. The two proposed 
expansions will be considered independently; the Agency seeks comment 
as to the adequacy of the limiting conditions in ensuring protection of 
human health and the environment, the prevalence of facilities meeting 
the conditions (e.g., having CWA permits that limit the constituents 
associated with the listed waste), and on the advisability of expanding 
each part of the exemption.

G. State Authority

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State to 
administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in 
lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the 
State. Following authorization, the state requirements authorized by 
EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become 
Federally-enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains 
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized states also have independent 
authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.
    A state may receive authorization by following the approval process 
described in 40 CFR part 271. Part 271 of 40 CFR also describes the 
overall standards and requirements for authorization. After a state 
receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory requirements 
promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute which existed prior 
to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in 
that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for 
equivalent state requirements. The state must adopt such requirements 
to maintain authorization. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g), (42 
U.S.C. 6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed 
pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the 
same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Although 
authorized states still are required to update their hazardous waste 
programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out 
HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the 
issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA 
authorizes the state to do so. Authorized states are required to modify 
their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are 
more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements.
    RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more 
stringent than those in the Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). 
Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal 
regulations, either HSWA or non-HSWA, that are considered less 
stringent.

[[Page 17246]]

    Today's rule is proposed pursuant to non-HSWA authority. The 
proposed changes in the conditional exemptions from the definition of 
hazardous waste under the headworks rule are less stringent than the 
current Federal requirements. Therefore, States will not be required to 
adopt and seek authorization for the proposed changes. EPA will 
implement the changes to the exemptions only in those States which are 
not authorized for the RCRA program. Nevertheless, EPA believes that 
this proposed rulemaking has considerable merit, and we thus strongly 
encourage States to amend their programs and become Federally-
authorized to implement these rules once they become final.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which 
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the 
proposed regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary 
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has 
determined that today's proposed rule is a significant regulatory 
action because this proposed rule contains novel policy issues. As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the 
docket to today's proposal. EPA's economic analysis suggests that this 
rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866, 
because EPA estimates that the overall national economic effect of the 
rule is $11.4 million to $48.6 million in average annual potential cost 
savings for RCRA regulatory compliance. The following table presents an 
itemization of EPA's estimated count of affected facilities, affected 
annual RCRA waste quantities, and estimated annual cost savings for 
each of the five main features of this proposed rule.

     Summary of Estimated Potential National Economic Impact From the Proposed Revisions to the ``Headworks
            Exemption'' of the RCRA Hazardous Waste Mixture Rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (A) to (E))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Count of
                                                          potentially     Annual quantity
                                 Proposed regulatory       affected       of potentially    Estimate of average
             Item                    revision to           entities          affected         annual economic
                                     ``Headworks           (eligible      (eligible) RCRA    impact *  ($/year)
                                     Exemption''          industrial      hazardous waste
                                                          facilities)       (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Add two F005 spent     115 to 1,800....  0.036 to 0.594    $0.32 to $5.65
                                 solvents (benzene &                      million tons/     million/year in
                                 2-ethoxyethanol) to                      year spent        spent solvent waste
                                 the ``headworks                          solvent           management cost
                                 exemption'' for the                      (aqueous & non-   savings (netting-out
                                 RCRA hazardous waste                     aqueous & non-    implementation
                                 mixture rule * *.                        aqueous forms).   paperwork costs).
2.............................  Provide ``headworks    3 to 9..........  0.20 to 0.61      $0.53 to $1.58
                                 exemption'' for F001                     million tons/     million/year in
                                 to F005 spent                            year scrubber     scrubber wastewater
                                 solvent hazardous                        wastewater.       management cost
                                 waste combustion                                           savings.
                                 ``scrubber waters''.
3.............................  Allow ``direct         1,800 to 7,300..  1.13 to 4.58      $10.09 to $40.88
                                 monitoring'' of F001                     million tons/     million/year in
                                 to F005 spent                            year spent        spent solvent waste
                                 solvent waste                            solvent wastes    management cost
                                 concentrations in                        (aqueous & non-   savings.
                                 headworks influent                       aqueous forms).
                                 wastewaters, in lieu
                                 of ``mass balance''
                                 computations.
4.............................  Revise RCRA hazardous  70..............  30 tons/year      $0.03 million/year in
                                 waste ``de minimis''                     spill incidents.  spill response cost
                                 exemption to include                                       savings.
                                 RCRA F- & K-listed
                                 wastes.
5.............................  Revise RCRA hazardous  1,270...........  570 tons/year     0.48 million/year in
                                 waste ``de minimis''                     spill incidents.  spill response cost
                                 exemption to include                                       savings.
                                 non-manufacting
                                 facilities.
                                                      -------------------
                                Column totals........  3,300 to 10,400.  1.37 to 5.78      $11.4 to 48.6 million/
                                                                          million tons/     year cost savings.
                                                                          year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Economic impact based on year 2000 price levels for waste management systems.
** Hypothetical expansion of the RCRA ``headworks exemption'' to include all four chemical solvents examined in
  the proposed rule, would only result in addition of one wastestream, at an additional annual cost savings of
  about $19,000 (consisting of 17,000 tons/year aqueous spent solvent).

    A detailed presentation of EPA's methodology, data sources, and 
computations applied for estimating the number of affected entities 
(industrial facilities) and economic impacts attributable to today's 
proposal is provided in the ``Economic Background Document'' to this 
proposal.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1189.12). A copy of this ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby 
by mail at Collection Strategies Division;

[[Page 17247]]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566-1672, and by e-mail 
at [email protected]. A copy also may be downloaded off the 
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    EPA proposes the following conditions for reporting and 
recordkeeping by generators: The rule requires generators wanting to 
demonstrate compliance with the headworks rule through direct 
monitoring to submit a one-time copy of their sampling plan to the EPA 
Regional Administrator (or the state Director in an authorized state) 
and to maintain all records concerning such direct monitoring for a 
minimum of three years. The sampling plan requirements for the direct 
monitoring will be site specific. As with all other exemptions and 
exclusions from the definition of hazardous waste, a facility is 
required under 40 CFR 268.7(a)(7) to place a one-time notice concerning 
waste generation, subsequent exclusion from the definition of hazardous 
waste or solid waste or exemption from RCRA Subtitle C regulation, and 
the disposition of the waste, in the facility's on-site files. 
Generally, such notification, as well as certifications, waste analysis 
data, and other documentation must be kept for a period of three years, 
unless an enforcement action by the Agency extends the record retention 
period (Sec.  268.7(a)(8)).
    EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for the new 
paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately 16,564 hours per 
year and the annual respondent cost for the new paperwork requirements 
in the rule is approximately $15 million. However, in addition to the 
new paperwork requirements in the rule, EPA also estimated the burden 
and cost that generators could expect as a result of complying with the 
existing RCRA hazardous waste information collection requirements for 
the excluded materials. Because the addition of benzene and 2-
ethoxyethanol would increase the number of facilities that participate 
in the existing headworks exemptions (and the greater possibility of 
using directly monitoring), EPA expects there would be both a reduction 
in some paperwork requirements (i.e., preparation of hazardous waste 
manifests and Biennial Reports) and an increase in other paperwork 
requirements (i.e., demonstrating compliance by using mass balance and 
submitting a one-time LDR notification under 40 CFR 268.7(a)(7)). 
Taking both proposed and existing RCRA requirements into account, EPA 
expects the proposed expansions would result in a bottom line total 
annual aggregate burden of approximately 19,315 hours and $15.1 
million. This cost is expected to be offset by costs savings from 
reduced waste management costs (see section IV.B) with a net cost 
savings of $11.4-48.6 million. The net cost to EPA of administering the 
rule was estimated at approximately 942 hours and $39,250 per year. 
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any 
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a 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 that has 
fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code 
the firm primarily is classified; (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 proposed rule on 
small entities, I hereby certify that this proposal will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on small entities subject to the rule. For more 
information regarding the economic impact of this proposed rule, please 
refer to the economic background document to this proposal.
    We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for small entities. We continue to be interested in 
the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. 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 
must prepare a written analysis, 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. 
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA requires EPA to identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the

[[Page 17248]]

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    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 the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals, 
and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance 
with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. This is because this proposed rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments. EPA also 
has determined that this 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. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject 
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. 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'' is 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 government.''
    This proposal 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. This rule directly affects 
primarily generators of hazardous wastewaters containing spent 
solvents, generators of scrubber waters derived from the incineration 
of spent solvents, and generators releasing de minimis amounts of 
listed wastes under certain conditions. There are no State and local 
government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this 
rulemaking. State and local government implementation expenditures are 
expected to be less than $500,000 in any one year. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposal.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

F. 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 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

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

    The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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.
    This proposal is not subject to the Executive Order 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 proposed rule present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed 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. This proposed 
rule reduces regulatory burden. It thus should not adversely affect 
energy supply, distribution or use.

I. 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 
proposed rule would allow facilities to demonstrate compliance using 
available and applicable sampling methods sufficient to establish 
compliance with the appropriate weekly standard.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Waste 
treatment and disposal.

    Dated: March 26, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
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 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 
6938.

    2. Section 261.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(A), 
(B), (D), (F) and (G) to read as follows:


Sec.  261.3  Definition of hazardous waste.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 17249]]

    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) One or more of the following spent solvents listed in Sec.  
261.31--benzene, carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, 
trichloroethylene--Provided, That the maximum total weekly usage of 
these solvents (other than the amounts that can be demonstrated not to 
be discharged to wastewater) divided by the average weekly flow of 
wastewater into the headworks of the facility's wastewater treatment or 
pretreatment system does not exceed 1 part per million, or the total 
measured concentration of these solvents entering the wastewater 
treatment system (at facilities subject to regulation under the Clean 
Air Act, as amended, at 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63), does not exceed 1 
part per million on an average weekly basis. Any facility that uses 
benzene as a solvent and claims this exemption must use an aerated 
biological wastewater treatment system and must use only lined surface 
impoundments or tanks prior to secondary clarification in the 
wastewater treatment system. Facilities that choose to measure 
concentration levels must file a copy of their sampling and analysis 
plan with the Regional Administrator, or State Director, as the context 
requires, or an authorized representative (``Director'' as defined in 
40 CFR 270.2). The sampling and analysis plan must include the 
monitoring point location (headworks), the sampling frequency and 
methodology, and a list of constituents to be monitored. A facility is 
eligible for the direct monitoring option once they receive 
confirmation that the sampling and analysis plan has been received by 
the Director. The Director may reject the sampling and analysis plan if 
he/she finds that, the sampling and analysis plan fails to include the 
above information; or the plan parameters would not enable the facility 
to calculate the weekly average concentration of these chemicals 
accurately. If the sampling and analysis plan is rejected or if the 
Director finds that the facility is not following the sampling and 
analysis plan, the facility must no longer use the direct monitoring 
option until such time as the bases for rejection are corrected; or
    (B) One or more of the following spent solvents listed in Sec.  
261.31--methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, o-
dichlorobenzene, cresols, cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, toluene, methyl 
ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, spent 
chlorofluorocarbon solvents, and 2-ethoxyethanol--Provided That the 
maximum total weekly usage of these solvents (other than the amounts 
that can be demonstrated not to be discharged to wastewater) divided by 
the average weekly flow of wastewater into the headworks of the 
facility's wastewater treatment or pretreatment system does not exceed 
25 parts per million, OR the total measured concentration of these 
solvents entering the wastewater treatment system (at facilities 
subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act as amended, at 40 CFR 
parts 60, 61, or 63), does not exceed 25 parts per million on an 
average weekly basis. Facilities that choose to measure concentration 
levels must file a copy of their sampling and analysis plan with the 
Regional Administrator, or State Director, as the context requires, or 
an authorized representative (``Director'' as defined in 40 CFR 270.2). 
The sampling and analysis plan must include the monitoring point 
location (headworks), the sampling frequency and methodology, and a 
list of constituents to be monitored. A facility is eligible for the 
direct monitoring option once they receive confirmation that the 
sampling and analysis plan has been received by the Director. The 
Director may reject the sampling and analysis plan if he/she finds 
that, the sampling and analysis plan fails to include the above 
information; or the plan parameters would not enable the facility to 
calculate the weekly average concentration of these chemicals 
accurately. If the sampling and analysis plan is rejected or if the 
Director finds that the facility is not following the sampling and 
analysis plan, the facility must no longer use the direct monitoring 
option until such time as the bases for rejection are corrected; or
* * * * *
    (D) A discarded hazardous waste, commercial chemical product, or 
chemical intermediate listed in Sec. Sec.  261.31 through 261.33, 
arising from de minimis losses of these materials. For purposes of this 
paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(D), de minimis losses are unscheduled, 
uncontrollable, insignificant, and inadvertent releases to a wastewater 
treatment system, including those 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; relief device discharges; discharges from 
safety showers and rinsing and cleaning of personal safety equipment; 
and rinsate from empty containers or from containers that are rendered 
empty by that rinsing. Any manufacturing facility that claims an 
exemption for de minimis quantities of wastes listed in Sec. Sec.  
261.31 through 261.32, or any non-manufacturing facility that claims an 
exemption for de minimis quantities of wastes listed in subpart D of 
this part must either have eliminated the discharge of wastewaters or 
have a permit subject to the Clean Water Act that contains limits for, 
the constituents for which each waste was listed (in 40 CFR 261 
appendix VII) of this part; and the constituents in the table 
``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes'' in 40 CFR 268.40 for which 
each waste has a treatment standard (i.e., Land Disposal Restriction 
constituents); or
* * * * *
    (F) One or more of the following wastes listed in Sec.  261.32--
wastewaters from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (EPA 
Hazardous Waste No. K157)--Provided that the maximum weekly usage of 
formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, and triethylamine 
(including all amounts that can not be demonstrated to be reacted in 
the process, destroyed through treatment, or is recovered, i.e., what 
is discharged or volatilized) divided by the average weekly flow of 
process wastewater prior to any dilution into the headworks of the 
facility's wastewater treatment system does not exceed a total of 5 
parts per million by weight OR the total measured concentration of 
these chemicals entering the wastewater treatment system (at facilities 
subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act as amended, at 40 CFR 
parts 60, 61, or 63), does not exceed 5 parts per million on an average 
weekly basis. Facilities that choose to measure concentration levels 
must file a copy of their sampling and analysis plan with the Regional 
Administrator, or State Director, as the context requires, or an 
authorized representative (``Director'' as defined in 40 CFR 270.2). 
The sampling and analysis plan must include the monitoring point 
location (headworks), the sampling frequency and methodology, and a 
list of constituents to be monitored. A facility is eligible for the 
direct monitoring option once they receive confirmation that the 
sampling and analysis plan has been received by the Director. The 
Director may reject the sampling and analysis plan if he/she finds 
that, the sampling and analysis plan fails to include the above 
information; or the plan parameters would not enable the facility to 
calculate the weekly average concentration of these chemicals

[[Page 17250]]

accurately. If the sampling and analysis plan is rejected or if the 
Director finds that the facility is not following the sampling and 
analysis plan, the facility must no longer use the direct monitoring 
option until such time as the bases for rejection are corrected; or
    (G) Wastewaters derived from the treatment of one or more of the 
following wastes listed in Sec.  261.32--organic waste (including heavy 
ends, still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and 
decantates) from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (EPA 
Hazardous Waste No. K156).--Provided, that the maximum concentration of 
formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, and triethylamine 
prior to any dilutions into the headworks of the facility's wastewater 
treatment system does not exceed a total of 5 milligrams per liter OR 
the total measured concentration of these chemicals entering the 
wastewater treatment system (at facilities subject to regulation under 
the Clean Air Act as amended, at 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63), does not 
exceed 5 milligrams per liter on an average weekly basis. Facilities 
that choose to measure concentration levels must file a copy of their 
sampling and analysis plan with the Regional Administrator, or State 
Director, as the context requires, or an authorized representative 
(``Director'' as defined in 40 CFR 270.2). The sampling and analysis 
plan must include the monitoring point location (headworks), the 
sampling frequency and methodology, and a list of constituents to be 
monitored. A facility is eligible for the direct monitoring option once 
they receive confirmation that the sampling and analysis plan has been 
received by the Director. The Director may reject the sampling and 
analysis plan if he/she finds that, the sampling and analysis plan 
fails to include the above information; or the plan parameters would 
not enable the facility to calculate the weekly average concentration 
of these chemicals accurately. If the sampling and analysis plan is 
rejected or if the Director finds that the facility is not following 
the sampling and analysis plan, the facility must no longer use the 
direct monitoring option until such time as the bases for rejection are 
corrected.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03-8154 Filed 4-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P