[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6209-6213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1073]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL-8027-6; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015]


Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions 
Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to revise the waste 
treatment standard for 1,3-phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA) for a biosludge 
generated at DuPont's Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New Jersey. 
This variance is necessary because the facility is unable to measure 
compliance with the 1,3-PDA land disposal restrictions treatment 
standard in its multisource leachate treatment biosludge matrix. As a 
practical matter, therefore, the facility cannot fully document 
compliance with the requirements of the treatment standard. For the 
same reason, EPA cannot ascertain compliance for this constituent. 
Furthermore, faced with the inability to demonstrate treatment residual 
content through analytical testing for this constituent, this facility 
faces potential curtailment of 1,3-PDA production operations. This 
site-specific variance will provide alternative technology treatment 
standards for 1,3-PDA in multisource leachate that do not require 
analysis of the biosludge matrix to determine whether the numerical 
treatment standard is being met, thus ensuring that treatment 
reflecting performance of the Best Demonstrated Available Technology 
occurs and that threats to human health and the environment from land 
disposal of the waste are minimized.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 10, 2006, unless the Agency 
receives adverse comment by March 9, 2006. If adverse comment is 
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA 
docket is (202) 566-0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this 
rulemaking, contact Rhonda Minnick, Hazardous Waste Minimization and 
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (703) 308-8771; fax (703) 308-8433; or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
the site-specific treatment standard as noncontroversial. We anticipate 
no adverse comments because it is site-specific and the alternative 
treatment standard that it establishes is based on performance of the 
Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) that ensures treatment of 
constituents with similar structure and physical form. We believe that 
this treatment will minimize threats to human health and the 
environment posed by land disposal of the waste. However, in the 
``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, we 
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to 
grant this site-specific treatment variance, if adverse comments are 
filed. This direct final rule will be effective on April 10, 2006 
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by March 9, 
2006. If EPA receives adverse comment on this site-specific treatment 
variance, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 
indicating which aspects of the variance will become effective and 
which are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. Any of the provisions 
in today's direct final rulemaking for which we do not receive adverse 
comment will become effective on the date set above. We will address 
all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed 
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this site-specific variance must do 
so at this time.

A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment Variances?

    Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if 
any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or 
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous 
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to 
human health and the environment are minimized.'' We interpret this 
language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of 
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). This interpretation 
was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. 
EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
    We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to 
levels specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because an 
individual waste matrix or concentration can be substantially more 
difficult to treat than those wastes we evaluated in establishing the 
treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such wastes, 
EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may seek a treatment 
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of the variance 
establish an alternative treatment standard for the particular waste at 
issue.

B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3-PDA Treatment Standard?

    The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA was promulgated in the Dyes and 
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing on February 24, 2005 (70 FR 
9138) and it became effective on August 23, 2005. The 1,3-PDA treatment 
standard was placed in the Table of Treatment Standards (see 40 CFR 
268.40) under ``K181'' (the waste code for the Dyes and Pigments 
listing) and under ``F039'' (the waste code for multisource leachate). 
It is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3-PDA that is addressed in this 
site-specific variance. We also added this constituent to the Universal 
Treatment Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48), which means that when 
1,3-PDA is reasonably expected to be present in a characteristic waste 
at point of generation it must be considered an underlying hazardous 
constituent requiring treatment.
    In the final rule, we set a numerical nonwastewater treatment 
standard of

[[Page 6210]]

0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of the best demonstrated available 
technology (BDAT) of combustion. For purposes of establishing the 
treatment standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with other waste constituents 
(notably 1,2-PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, p-Cresidine, 2,4-
dimethylaniline, aniline and 4-chloroaniline). No actual treatment data 
were available for 1,3-PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg treatment standard 
was based on: (1) The thermal stability index ranking system and 
incinerability index (if the most difficult to treat constituents can 
be destroyed via incineration, then all less stable constituents can 
also be destroyed); and (2) similar chemical structures and chemical 
and physical properties that are exhibited by the constituents in each 
treatability group (incineration should be able to destabilize and 
destroy each of the compounds in a similar fashion). See the ``Best 
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Dyes 
and Pigments Production Wastes,'' December 2004, section 2.2.3.

II. What Is the Basis for Today's Determination?

A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment Variance?

    Facilities can apply for a site-specific variance in cases where a 
waste that is generated under conditions specific to only one site 
cannot be treated to the specified levels. In such cases, the generator 
or treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or a delegated 
representative, for a site-specific variance from a treatment standard. 
One of the demonstrations that an applicant for a site-specific 
variance may make is that it is not physically possible to treat the 
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard (40 CFR 
268.44(h)(1)). This is the criteria pertinent to today's variance, in 
that it is not technically possible to measure the constituent in 
DuPont's biosludge treatment residual, as explained below.

B. What Does DuPont Request?

    DuPont contacted EPA about an analytical problem it is having with 
1,3-PDA in their multisource leachate (F039) treatment biosludge. The 
facility produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and then pipes the wastewaters 
from manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite biological wastewater treatment 
plant. DuPont ultimately disposes of the biosolids containing 1,3-PDA 
into their hazardous waste landfill. The mass loading levels of the 
waste 1,3-PDA do not trigger the K181 listing, so such placement is not 
considered land disposal of a hazardous waste. However, the landfill is 
permitted to accept biosolids with several listed hazardous wastes and, 
as a result, generates F039 (a hazardous waste), which is reasonably 
expected to contain 1,3-PDA. The F039 is introduced by pipeline into 
DuPont's biological treatment system, a two-step biological process 
that includes the use of activated carbon. Biodegradation reduces 
organics in this system by approximately 99%. The treatment residual is 
a F039 biosludge that is high in carbon. It is this biosludge that is 
the basis of the requested treatability variance.
    DuPont has sent the biosludge to several commercial laboratories 
for analysis to see if it met the treatment standard and could be 
legally land disposed. The laboratories have consistently been unable 
to detect 1,3-PDA in this high carbon matrix. When asked if they could 
develop a new detection method for this constituent, only one 
laboratory was interested in attempting to do so, but indicated that it 
could take a year to develop and it likely would have a detection limit 
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for a similar compound, 1,4-PDA). 
This detection limit is much higher than the 1,3-PDA treatment standard 
of 0.66 mg/kg.
    DuPont pointed out that when the treatment standard for a similar 
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2-phenylenediamine, o-phenylenediamine), was 
promulgated in the dyes and pigments listing rule, we set a treatment 
standard expressed as specified technologies because of method 
detection problems: We specified that combustion (CMBST), or chemical 
oxidation (CHOXD) followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon 
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN are 
the treatment standard. DuPont requested that we provide a variance 
that would set specified technologies as the treatment standard for 
1,3-PDA at their Chambers Works facility, as we did for 1,2-PDA. We 
believe that this is a reasonable request because when we evaluated the 
waste constituents to determine the original treatment standards, we 
grouped 1,3-PDA with 1,2-PDA (and other constituents) because they are 
similar in chemical structure and physical properties.

C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA

    We are granting DuPont's request in today's site-specific variance. 
Under one of the criteria for a variance from the treatment standard, 
the applicant must demonstrate that it is not physically possible to 
treat the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard. We 
believe that today's variance falls into this category, in that it is 
technically impossible for DuPont to demonstrate that it complies with 
a treatment level when laboratories have not been able to detect the 
waste in DuPont's particular, site-specific biosludge matrix.\1\ 
Therefore, certification that this constituent has been treated in the 
F039 biosludge matrix is not possible, and without the certification, 
disposal of the F039 biosludge cannot legally occur. This situation may 
impede production of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal disposal of 
this waste would no longer be available. See Steel Manufacturers 
Association v. EPA., 27 F.3d 642, 646-47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a 
treatment standard providing a legal means of disposing of wastes from 
a process is equivalent to shutting down that process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This finding is similar to a previous LDR determination. We 
originally promulgated a numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA 
(o-phenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583). However, we 
subsequently withdrew the treatment standard because of poor method 
performance on September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that 
treatment of other constituents would provide adequate treatment for 
o-phenylenediamine (63 FR 47409).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative treatment standard established by today's site-
specific variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or chemical oxidation (CHOXD) 
followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon adsorption (CARBN), or a 
treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the same treatment standard 
we set in the K181 listing rule for a similar constituent, 1,2-PDA. By 
altering the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow certification of 
compliance based on the use of specified treatment technologies without 
constituent-specific testing, we can ensure that effective treatment 
occurs without delay and can also assure that threats to human health 
and the environment are minimized. We believe that DuPont's two-step 
biological treatment system that includes the use of activated carbon 
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039 multisource leachate waste.\2\ 
And, as mentioned in footnote 1, we made a similar finding that 
treatment of other carbamate waste constituents would adequately treat 
1,2-PDA, when we withdrew it as a constituent of concern in 1998. 
Likewise, we believe that treatment of the other constituents of

[[Page 6211]]

concern in DuPont's F039 multisource leachate waste will serve as a 
surrogate for 1,3-PDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ When we originally promulgated treatment standards for F039, 
we stated that constituents on the BDAT list serve as surrogates for 
those constituents that may be present in the multisource leachate 
that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR 22622, June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Because this action 
creates no new regulatory requirements, it has been determined that 
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of 
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
This action is a site-specific variance to the LDR treatment standards, 
which allows a specified BDAT treatment technology to be used for 
treating one facility's hazardous waste prior to land disposal. The 
facility remains subject to the unchanged Land Disposal Restrictions 
paperwork requirements found at 40 CFR 268.7.
    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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This treatment variance does not create any new regulatory 
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard 
for a specific waste stream that replaces a standard already in effect, 
and it applies to only one facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 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 
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 of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty 
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This 
action is a site-specific variance that allows a different treatment 
standard to be met for treating one constituent in one facility's 
hazardous waste prior to land disposal.

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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action is a site-specific 
variance for one facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule.

[[Page 6212]]

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 final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action 
is a site-specific variance that applies to only one facility, which is 
not a tribal facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

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

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

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 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. The Agency uses 
established technical standards when determining the best demonstrated 
available technologies upon which land disposal restrictions treatment 
standards are based. Therefore, there is no need to provide Congress an 
explanation because consensus standards were used in establishing this 
alternative treatment standard for 1,3-PDA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

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

K. Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability, applying only to a 
specific waste type at one facility under particular circumstances.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), however, this rule will be effective April 10, 
2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by adding in 
alphabetical order an additional entry for ``DuPont Environmental 
Treatment Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ'' and adding a new footnote 13 
to read as follows:


Sec.  268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *

[[Page 6213]]



                                        Table.--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec.   268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Wastewaters                       Nonwastewaters
                                                                   Regulated     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Facility name \1\ and address  Waste code       See also          hazardous      Concentration (mg/                      Concentration
                                                                  constituent             L)               Notes             (mg/kg)           Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
DuPont Environmental Treatment       F039   Standards under    1,3-               NA...............  NA...............  CMBST; CHOXD fb           (\13\)
 Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ.              Sec.   268.40.     phenylenediamine                                         BIODG or CARBN;
                                                                1,3-PDA.                                                 or BIODG fb
                                                                                                                         CARBN.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * * * *
(13) This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.

[FR Doc. 06-1073 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P