land disposal restrictions for second third scheduled ... · wastes. g. rationale for immediate...

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148, 264, 265, 266, 268,

and 271

[SWH-FRL-3564-9]

Land Disposal Restrictions for SecondThird Scheduled Wastes

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is today promulgatingregulations Implementing theCongressionally mandated prohibitionson land disposal of hazardous wasteslisted in 40 CFR 268.11 (the second one-third of the Schedule of restrictedhazardous wastes, hereafter referred toas the Second Third). This action istaken in response to amendments to theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA), enacted in the Hazardousand Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)of 1984. Today's notice promulgatesspecific treatment standards andprohibition effective dates for certainSecond Third wastes, and imposes the"soft hammer" provisions of 40 CFR268.8 on Second Third wastes for whichthe Agency is not establishing treatmentstandards. In addition, this noticepromulgates treatment standards andeffective dates for certain First Third (40CFR 268.10) "soft hammer" wastes, aswell as for certain wastes originallycontained in the Third Third of theschedule (40 CFR 268.12). Wastes forwhich treatment standards are beingpromulgated can be land disposed afterthe applicable effective dates only if therespective treatment standards are met,or if disposal occurs in units that satisfythe "no migration" standard.EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule iseffective June 8, 1989, except for EPAHazardous Waste F006-cyanide(nonwastewater) which is effective July9, 1989.ADDRESSES: The official record for thisrulemaking is identified as DocketNumber F-89-LD11-FFFFF and islocated in the EPA RCRA docket, Room2427 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC20460. The docket is open from 9:00 to4:00, Monday through Friday, except forFederal holidays. The public must makean appointment to review docketmaterials by calling (202) 475-9327 Thepublic may copy a maximum of 100pages from any regulatory document atno cost. Additional copies cost $.15 perpage.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:For general information contact the

RCRA Hotline, Office of Solid Waste,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,401 M Street SW., Washington, DC20460; Telephone: 800-424-9346 (toll-free) or 382-3000 locally. For generalinformation on specific aspects of thisfinal rule, contact Bob Scarberry orMichaelle Wilson, Office of Solid Waste(OS-333), (202) 382-4770. For specificinformation on BDAT treatmentstandards, contact James Berlow, Officeof Solid Waste (OS-322), (202) 382-7917For specific information on theUnderground Injection Control Programand hazardous waste injection wells,contact Bruce Kobelski, Office ofDrinking Water (WH-550), (202) 382-5508. For specific information oncapacity determinations or nationalvariances, contact Jo-Ann Bassi, Officeof Solid Waste (OS-322), (202) 475-6672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OUTLINEI. Background

A. Summary of the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 and the LandDisposal Restrictions Framework.

1. Statutory Requirements.2. Applicability to Injected Wastes.3. Solvents and Dioxins.4. California List Wastes.5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins, and

California List Wastes in Injection Wells.6. Scheduled Wastes.7 Newly Identified and Listed Wastes.B. Regulatory Framework.1. Applicability.2. Treatment Standards.3. National Variances From the Effective

Dates.4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the Effective

Dates.5. "No Migration" Exemptions From the

Restrictions.6. Variances From the Treatment

Standards.7 Exemption for Treatment in Surface

Impoundments.8. Storage of Restricted Wastes.9. The "Soft Hammer" Provisions.C. Summary of the Proposed Rule.D. Comments Received on the Proposed

Rule.1. Regulation of Lab Packs.2. Advance Notice of Third Third

Approach.3. Comments on Stabilization of Organics.

I. Summary of Today's Final RuleA. Applicability of Treatment Standards.B. Best Demonstrated Available

Technologies (BDAT).C. Applicability of Today's Proposed Rule

to Class I-H Hazardous Waste InjectionWells Regulated Under 40 CFR Part 148.

D. Waste Analysis Requirements.E. Nationwide Extensions of the Effective

Date.F Treatment Standards for Prohibited

Wastes that are Mixed with Non-ProhibitedWastes.

G. Rationale for Immediate Effective Date.

III. Detailed Discussion of Today's RuleA. Development and Identification of

Treatment Standards.1. Clarification of the General Applicability

of the BDAT.2. Second Third Wastes From Specific

Sources for Which BDAT Standards Are NotPromulgated in Today's Rule (K019, K025,K041, K042, K097 K098, K105).

3. Treatment Standards and Responses toMajor Comments for All Wastes ProposedWith Second Third Wastes.

a. Cyanide Wastes.1. Comments with General Applicability to

Cyanide Wastes.2. Wastes from tie Electroplating

Operations (F006, F007 F008, F009).3. Wastes from Heat Treating Operations

(F010, F011, F012).4. F019 Wastes.5. Wastes from Acrylonitrile Production

(K011, K013, K014).6. Cyanide Wastes Designated With a "P"

Waste Code (P013, P021, P029, P030, P063,P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, P121).

7 Cyanide Wastes Designated as D003Reactive.

b. Wastes from Chlorinated AliphaticsProduction (F024).

c. Wastes from Pigment Production (K002,K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008).

d. Wastes from Acetaldehyde Production((09, Koo).

e. Phthalates and Phthalic AnhydrideProduction Wastes (K023, K093, K094, U028,U069, U088, U102, U107, Ulg0).

f. Wastes from the Production ofDinitrotoluene, Toluene Diamine, andToluene Diisocyanate (K027, Kill, K112,K113, K114, K115, K116. U221, U223).

g. Wastes from 1,1,1-TrichloroethaneProduction (K028, K029, K095. K096).

h. Organophosphorus Pesticide WastesK036, K038, K039, K040, P039, P040, P041,P043, P044, P062. P071, P085, P089, P094, P097P109, Pl11, U058, U087 U235).

i. Wastes from 2.4-D Production (K043).B. "Soft Hammer" Applicable Treatment

Standards.C. Capacity Determinations.1. Determination of Alternative Capacity

and Effective Dates for Surface Land-Disposed Wastes for Which TreatmentStandards are Promulgated.

a. Total Quantity of Land-DisposedWastes.

b. Required Alternative Capacity forSurface Land Disposed Wastes.

c. Capacity Currently Available andEffective Dates.

2. Extension of the Effective Date forContaminated Soil and Debris.

3. Capacity Determination for UndergroundInjected Wastes.

a. Effective Date Determinations forSecond Third Scheduled Wastes for WhichEPA Has Not Set Treatment Standards.

b. Scheduled Wastes With EstablishedTreatment Standards Which Current DataIndicate are Not Being Injected.

c. Scheduled Wastes With EstablishedTreatment Standards Which Current DataIndicate are Being Injected.

26594

HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 26594 1989

This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.


IV State AuthorityA. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States.B. Effect on State Authorizations.C. State Implementation.

V Effect of the Land Disposal RestrictionsProgram on Other Environmental Programs

A. Discharges Regulated Under the CleanWater Act.

B. Discharges Regulated Under the MarineProtection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.

C. Air Emissions Regulated Under theClean Air Act.

D. Clean Up Actions Under theComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act.

E. Applicability of Treatment Standards toWastes from Pesticides Regulated Under theFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act.

f. Regulatory Overlap of PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs) Under the ToxicSubstances Control Act and ResourceConservation and Recovery Act.VI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis.1. Purpose.2. Executive Order 12291.3. Basic Approach.4. Results.a. Population of Affected Facilities.b. Costs.c. Economic Impact.d. Benefits.B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.C. Paperwork Reduction Act.D. Review of Supporting Documents.

VII. References

1. Background

A. Summary of the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 and theLand Disposal Restrictions Framework

1. Statutory Requirements

The Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments [HSWA), enacted onNovember 8, 1984, prohibit the landdisposal of hazardous wastes.Specifically, the amendments specifydates when particular groups ofhazardous wastes are prohibited fromland disposal unless "it has beendemonstrated to the Administrator, to areasonable degree of certainty, thatthere will be no migration of hazardousconstituents from the disposal unit orinjection zone for as long as the wastesremain hazardous" (RCRA sections 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5); 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(1),(e)(1), (g)(5)). Congress established aseparate schedule for restricting thedisposal by underground injection ofsolvent- and dioxm-containinghazardous wastes, wastes referred tocollectively as California list hazardouswastes (RCRA section 3004(f)(2), 42U.S.C. 6924(f)(2)), and soil and debrisresulting from CERCLA section 104 and106 response actions and RCRAcorrective actions when the soil and

debris contains listed spent solvent,dioxin, and California list hazardouswastes.

The amendments also require theAgency to set "levels or methods oftreatment, if any, which substantiallydiminish the toxicity of the waste orsubstantially reduce the likelihood ofmigration of hazardous constituentsfrom the waste so that short-term andlong-term threats to human health andthe environment are minimized" (RCRAsection 3004(m)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(1)).Wastes that meet treatment standardsestablished by EPA are not prohibitedand may be land disposed. In addition, ahazardous waste that does not meet thetreatment standard may be landdisposed provided the "no migration"demonstration specified m RCRAsections 3004 (d)(1), (e)(1) and (g)(5) ismade.

For the purposes of the restnctions,HSWA defines land disposal "toinclude, but not be limited to, anyplacement of hazardous waste ina landfill, surface impoundment, wastepile, injection well, land treatmentfacility, salt dome formation, salt bedformation, or underground mine orcave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.6924(k)). Therefore, because HSWAdefines land disposal to includeunderground injection wells, disposal ofhazardous wastes in injection wells issubject to the land disposal restrictions.

The land disposal restrictions areimmediately effective unless theAdministrator grants a nationalvariance from the statutory or regulatorydeadline and establishes a different date(not to exceed two years beyond theapplicable deadline) based on "theearliest date on which adequatealternative treatment, recovery, ordisposal capacity which protects humanhealth and the environment will beavailable" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2), 42U.S.C. 6924(h)(2)). The Administratormay also grant a case-by-case extensionof the effective date for up to one year,renewable once for up to one additionalyear, when an applicant successfullymakes certain demonstrations (RCRAsection 3004(h)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(3)).A case-by-case extension can begranted whether or not a nationalcapacity variance has been granted.

The statute also allows treatment ofhazardous wastes in surfaceimpoundments that meet certainminimum technological requirements (orcertain exceptions thereto). Treatmentin surface impoundments is permissibleprovided the treatment residues that donot meet the treatment standard(s) (orapplicable statutory prohibition levels)are "removed for subsequentmanagement within one year of the

entry of the waste into the surfaceimpoundment" (RCRA section3005(j)(11)(B], 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(11)(B)J.

In addition to prohibiting the landdisposal of hazardous wastes, Congressprohibited storage of any waste which isprohibited from land disposal unless"such storage is solely for the purpose ofthe accumulation of such quantities ofhazardous waste as are necessary tofacilitate proper recovery, treatment ordisposal" (RCRA section 3004(j), 42U.S.C. 6924(j)).

2. Applicability to Injected Wastes

As noted above, disposal ofhazardous wastes in injection wells issubject to the provisions of HSWA. TheAgency has previously proposed andpromulgated regulations pertaining toinjected wastes separately fromregulations addressing wastes disposedin surface facilities. The Agency chosethis approach for two reasons. First,injection of hazardous wastes iscontrolled by two statutes, RCRA andthe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).The regulations governing injection ofthese wastes have been codified alongwith other regulations of theUnderground Injection Control (UIC)program under the SDWA in Parts 124,144, 145, 146, 147 and 148 of the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR). EPA believesthat it is useful to the regulatedcommunity and to the State regulators tohave requirements regarding restrictionson hazardous waste injection located inthe same portion of the CFR as are otherrequirements pertaining to injectionwells. Second, the statute established aseparate schedule for the restrictions onInjection of certain wastes.

3. Solvents and Dioxins

Effective November 8, 1986; HSWAprohibited land disposal (except byunderground injection into deep wells)of dioxin-containing hazardous wastesnumbered F020, F021, F022, and F023and solvent-containing hazardouswastes numbered Fool, F002, F003, F004,and F005 listed in 40 CFR 261.31. (RCRAsections 3004 (e)(1), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924(e)(1). (e)(2)).

On November 7 1986, EPApromulgated a final rule (51 FR 40572)implementing RCRA section 3004(e).

-This rule not only established thegeneral framework for the land disposalrestrictions program, but alsoestablished treatment standards for theF001-FO05 solvent wastes and F020,F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-containingwastes.

26595



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

4. California List Wastes

Effective July 8, 1987 the statuteprohibited further land disposal (exceptby deep well mection) of the fo~llwmglisted or identified wastes (RCRAsection 3001) set out in RCRA sections3004 (d)(1) and (d)(2) (42 U.S.C. 6924(d)(1), (d)(2)).

(A) Liquid hazardous wastes,including free liquids associated withany solid or sludge, containing freecyanides at concentrations greater thanor equial to 1,000 mg/l.

(B) Liquid hazardous wastes,including free liquids associated withany solid or sludge, containing thefollowing metals (or elements) orcompounds of these metals or elements)at concentrations greater than or equalto those specified below:

(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As)500 mg/l;

(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (asCd) 100 mg/1;

(iii) chromium (VI and/or compounds(as Cr VI)) 500 mg/l;

(iv) lead and/or compounds las Pb)500 mg/l;

(v) mercury and/or compounds (asHg) 20 mg/l;

(vi) nickel and/or compounds.(as Ni)134 mg/l;

(vii) selemum and/or compounds ,(asSe) 100 mg/l; and

(viii) thallium and/or compounds (asTl) 130 mg/1.

(C) Liquid hazardous wastes having apH less than or equal to two (2.0).

(D) Liquid hazardous wastescontaining poly.chlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) at concentrations greater than orequal to 50 ppm.

(E) Hazardous wastes containinghalogenated organic compounds (HOCs)in total concentration greater than orequal to 1,000 mg/kg.

On July 8, 1987 EPA promulgated afinal rule (52 FR 25760) implementingRCRA section 3004(d). This ruleestablished treatment standards forCalifornia list wastes containing PCBsand certain HOCs, and codified thestatutory prohibition for liquid corrosivewastes. The -statutory prohibition is alsoin effect for California list wastescontaining free cyanides, metals, anddilute HOC wastewaters.

5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins andCalifornia List Wastes in Injection Wells

Section 3004(f) of RCRA required thatthe Administrator prohibit the disposalof solvents, dioxins and California listwastes in deep wells, effective August 8,1988, unless such disposal had beendetermined to be protective of humanhealth and the environment for as longas the wastes remained hazardous or

unless a variance had been grantedunder RCRA section 3004(h). On July 26,1988, the Agency established effectivedates for the prohibition on injection -ofsolvents and dioxin wastes (53 FR28118). In another regulation, effectiveAugust 6, 1988 and published August 16,1988 in the Federal Register, the Agencyestablished, in part, effective dates forthe prohibition on injection of Califormalist wastes (53 FR 30908).

6. Scheduled Wastes

The amendments required the Agencyto prepare a schedule for restricting theland disposal of all hazardous wasteslisted or identified as of November 8,1984 in 40 CFR Part 261, excludingsolvent- and dioxin-containing wastesand California list wastes covered underthe schedule set by Congress. Theschedule, based on a ranking of thelisted wastes that considers theirintrinsic hazard and their volume, is toensure that prohibitions and treatmentstandards are promulgated first for highvolume hazardous wastes with highintrinsic hazard before standards are setfor low volume wastes 'with lowintrinsic hazard. The statute furtherrequires that these determinations bemade by the following deadlines:

(A) At least one4hird (the First Third)of all listed hazardous wastes by August8, 1988.

(B) At least two-thirds (the SecondThird) of all listed hazardous wastes byJune 8, 1989.

(C) All remaining listed hazardouswastes and all hazardous wastesidentified by one or more of the.characteristics defined in 40 :CFR Part261 (the Third Third) by May 8, 1990.

On May 28, 1986, EPA promulgatedthe schedule for setting treatmentstandards for the listed and identifiedhazardous -wastes (51 FR 19300). Thisschedule is incorporated in 40 CFR268.10, 268.11, and 268.12.

If EPA fails to set a treatmentstandard by the statutory deadline forany hazardous waste in the First orSecond Third, the waste may bedisposed m a landfill or surfaceimpoundment provided "such facility" isin compliance with the minimumtechnological requirements specified inRCRA section 3004(o) for new facilities(RCRA section 3004(g)(6)).

Note: On August 17 1988,EPA interpretedthe term "such facility" in 3004(g)(6) to referto the individual surface impoundment orlandfill unit. See 53 FR 31181. Thisinterpretation was upheld by the D.C. Circuitin SteelBar Mills v. EPA, No. 88-1608 (Orderof Feb. 22, 1989).

In addition, prior to land disposal, thegenerator must certify to theAdministrator that he has investigated

the availability of treatment capacityand has determined that he hascontracted to use the practicallyavailable technology that yields thegreatest environmental benefit, or thatdisposal in such landfill or -surfaceimpoundment is the only practicalalternative -to treatment currentlyavailable to the generator. Thisrestriction on the use of landfills andsurface impoundments applies until EPAsets a treatment standard for the wasteor until May 4, 1990, whichever issooner. Other forms of land disposal,including underground mjection, are notsimilarly restricted-and may continue tobe used for disposal of untreated wastesuntil EPA promulgates a treatmentstandard and sets an effective date, oruntil May 8, 1990, whichever is sooner. Ifthe Agency fails to set a treatmentstandard for any scheduled hazardouswaste by May 8, 1990, the waste isautomatically prohibited from all formsof land disposal after that time unlessthe waste is the subject of a successful"no migration" demonstration (RCRAsection 3004(g)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(5)).

For the scheduled wastes, the statutedoes not provide different deadlines forrestriction of underground injectedversus surface land disposed wastes;however, the Agency proposed andpromulgated First Third regulations forsurface disposed and injected wastes onseparate dates. The First Third finalrule, promulgated on August 8, 1988 andpublished in the federal Register onAugust 17 1988 (53 FR 31138), set out theconditions under which wastes maycontinue to be land disposed by meansother than by injection. Effective datesfor the prohibition of injection of certainFirst Third wastes are included in thefinal regulation published August 16,1988 (53 FR 30908). In addition, theAgency promulgated effective dates forthe prohibition on injection of anothergroup of First Third wastes on June 14,1989 (54 FR 25416). Today's final rulepromulgates the conditions -under whichSecond Turd wastes may continue to beland disposed. It also promulgatestreatment standards for some First Thirdand Third Third restricted hazardouswastes. This rule applies to all forms ofland disposal including deep wellinjection, and finalizes the January 11,1989 proposed rulemaking (54 FR 1056).

7 Newly Identified and Listed Wastes

RCRA requires the Agency to make aland disposal prohibition determinationfor any hazardous waste that is newlyidentified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261after November 8, 1984 within sixmonths of the date of identification orlisting (RCRA section 3004(g)(4), 42

26596




U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)). However, the statutedoes not provide for an automaticprohibition of the land disposal of suchwastes if EPA fails to meet thisdeadline.

B. Regulatory Framework

The November 7 1986 final rule (51 FR40572) established the regulatoryframework for implementing the landdisposal restrictions program. Somechanges to the framework were made inthe July 8, 1987 California list final rule(52 FR 25760), as well as in the August17 1988 First Third final rule (53 FR31138). Regulations specifying how theframework applies to injected wasteswere promulgated July 26,1988 (53 FR28118).

The following discussion summarizesthe major provisions of the land disposalrestrictions framework. (For acomprehensive understanding of theLand Disposal Restrictions program,refer to the aforementioned final rules.]It is included for purposes ofinformation only, any does not reopenand of the previously-stated principlesfor judicial review.

1. Applicability

The land disposal restrictions applyprospectively to the affected wastes. Inother words, hazardous wastes landdisposed after the applicable effectivedates are subject to the restrictions, butwastes land disposed prior to theeffective dates are not required to beremoved or exhumed for treatment (51FR 40577]. Similarly, only surfaceimpoundments receiving restrictedwastes after the applicable deadline aresubject to the restrictions on treatmentin surface impoundments contained in40 CFR 268.4 and RCRA 3005(j)(11).Also, the storage restrictions apply towastes placed in storage after theeffective dates.

The provisions of the land disposalrestrictions program apply to wastesproduced by generators (including smallquantity generators) of greater than 100kilograms of hazardous waste (orgreater than 1 kilogram of acutelyhazardous waste) in a calendar month.Wastes produced by small quantitygenerators of less than 100 kilograms ofhazardous waste (or less than 1kilogram of acute hazardous waste) percalendar month are conditionallyexempt from RCRA, including the landdisposal restrictions (see 40 CFR 268.1).

The land disposal restrictions apply toboth interim status and permittedfacilities. The requirements of the landdisposal restrictions program supersede40 CFR 270.4(a); therefore, even thoughthe requirements may not be specified in

the permit conditions, all permittedfacilities are subject to the restrictions.

2. Treatment Standards

By each statutory deadline, theAgency must establish the applicabletreatment standards under 40 CFR Part268 Subpart D for each restrictedhazardous waste. After the applicableeffective dates, restricted wastes may beland disposed if they meet the treatmentstandards. If EPA does not promulgatetreatment standards by the statutorydeadlines, such wastes are prohibitedfrom land disposal (with the exceptionof First Third and Second Third wastesthat are subject to the "soft hammer"provisions of 40 CFR 268.8).

A treatment standard is based on theperformance of the best demonstratedavailable technology (BDAT) to treat thewaste (51 FR 40578). EPA may establishtreatment standards either as specifictechnologies or as performancestandards based on the performance ofBDAT technologies. Compliance withperformance standards may bemonitored by measuring theconcentration level of the hazardousconstituents (or in some circumstances,indicator pollutants) in the waste,treatment residual, or in the extract ofthe waste or treatment residual. Whentreatment standards are set asperformance levels, the regulatedcommunity may use any technology nototherwise prohibited (such asimpermissible dilution) to treat thewaste to meet the treatment standard.Treaters thus are not limited to use ofonly a particular technology. However,when treatment standards areexpressed as specific technologies, suchtechnologies must be employed.

3. National Variances from the EffectiveDates

The Agency has the authority to grantnational variances from the statutory orregulatory effective dates, not to exceedtwo years, if there is insufficientalternative protective treatment,recovery or disposal capacity for thewastes (RCRA section 3004(h)(2)). Ifthere is a significant shortage of suchcapacity nationwide, EPA will establishan alternative effective date based onthe earliest date such capacity will beavailable.

During the period a capacity varianceis in place, disposal in a landfill orsurface impoundment may be made onlyin a unit meeting the minimumtechnological requirements of RCRAsection 3004(o). The D.C. Circuit recentlyupheld the Agency's interpretation ofthe term "such facility" in section3004(h)(4) to refer to the disposal unit.(Steel Bar Mills Assh'n. v. EPA, No 88-

1608, Order of Feb. 22, 1989; Mobil OilCorp. v. EPA,-F.2d-(D.C. Cir., April 4,1989)). It is the Agency's opinion,however, that if a waste subject to anational capacity variance is treated tomeet the applicable treatment standards(or meets the standards as generated),the land disposal restrictions allow suchwaste to be disposed in a Subtitle Clandfill or surface impoundmentregardless of whether the unit meetsminimum technological requirements(MTRs) (but see RCRA sections3004(o)(1) and 3005(j)(1), whichindependently require that certainsurface impoundments and landfillsmeet MTRs]. This is because suchwaste, once treated to meet thepromulgated treatment standard (orwhich meets such standard asgenerated), is no longer prohibited fromland disposal. In addition, from a policyperspective, if a person treats a nationalcapacity variance waste to meet atreatment standard, thus electing not totake advantage of the variance, heshould receive some benefit under thelaw and thus should be able to utilizenon-MTR landfills and impoundments ashe would if the Agency had not grantedthe national capacity variance.

4. Case-By-Case Extensions of theEffective Dates

The Agency will consider granting upto a one-year extension (renewableonce) of a ban effective date on a case-by-case basis. The requirementsoutlined in 40 CFR 268.5 must besatisfied. During the period that such acase-by-case extension is in place,disposal in a landfill or surfaceimpoundment may be made only in aunit meeting the minimum technologicalrequirements of RCRA section 3004(o).In considering whether to grant a case-by-case extension, the Agency hasstated that it will consider the feasibilityof providing alternative capacity duringthe extension period, and that thedetermination of feasibility "mayinvolve considerations of the technicaland practical difficulties associated withproviding alternative capacity. (51 FR40603, Nov. 7 1986.) EPA wishes toclarify that In assessing questions offeasibility, it will never base a decisionsolely on the assertion that alternativetreatment is too costly.

5. "No Migration" Exemptions From theRestrictions

The Agency has the authority to allowthe land disposal of a restrictedhazardous waste which does not meetthe treatment standard upon thesuccessful demonstration that there willbe no migration of hazardous

Ill26597




constituents from the disposal unit orinjection zone for as loqg as the wasteremains hazardous (for surface disposedwastes see 40 CFR 268.6; forunderground injected wastes see 40 CFR148.20). If a "no migration" petition Isgranted, it can remain in effect for nolonger than ten years for disposal ininterim status land disposal units, andfor no longer than the term of the RCRApermit for disposal in permitted units (40CFR 268.61h)).

The Agency's plan for implementingthe "no migration" provisions of RCRAwith respect to injected wastes areoutlined in detail in 40 CFR 148.20 (53 FR28118, July 26, 1988). A petitioner isrequired to demonstrate throughmodeling that there is no migration ofhazardous constituents from theinjection zone for as long as the wasteremains hazardous. This demonstrationcan be made in one of two ways: Theuse of flow and transport models toshow that injected fluids vill notmigrate vertically out of the injectionzone for a period of 10,000 years orlaterally within the injection zone to apoint of discharge or interface with anunderground source of drinking water;or, use of geochemical modeling to showthat the waste is transformed so it willbecome nonhazardous at the edge of theinjection zone. Also, a showing must bemade that the well is in compliance withthe substantive area of review,corrective action, and mechanicalintegrity requirements of Part 146.

6. Variances From the TreatmentStandards

The variance from the treatmentstandard procedures were established toaccount for cases where the treatmentstandard is expressed as a performancelevel and the waste, afterproperly-conducted treatment, cannot meet thelevel, or where the treatment technologyis not appropriate for the waste. Thepetitioner must demonstrate thatbecause the physical or chemcalproperties of the waste differssignificantly from the wastes analyzedin developing the treatment standard,the waste cannot be treated to -specifiedlevels or by the specified methods (51FR 40605 and 40 CFR 268.44). Thevariance procedure can result in theestablishment of a new treatabilitygroup and corresponding treatmentstandard that applies to all wastesmeeting the criteria of the new wastetreatability group. A site-specificvariance from the treatment standardmay also be granted administratively(without rulemaklng), but the variancehas no generic applicability to the waste-if it is generated at other sites (53 FR31199, August 17, 1988).

7 Exemption for Treatment in SurfaceImpoundments

Wastes that would otherwise beprohibited from one or more methods ofland disposal may be treated in asurface impoundment that meets certaintechnological requirements (RCRAsection 3005(j)(11) and 40 CFR268.4(a)(3)) as long as treatmentresiduals that do not meet the applicabletreatment standard (or statutoryprohibition levels where -no treatmentstandards are established) are removedfor subsequent management within oneyear of entry into the impoundment andare not placed into any other surfaceimpoundment. The owner or operatormust certify to the RegionalAdministrator that the impoundmentmeets the liner, leachbate collectionsystem and ground water monitoringrequirements imposed by RCRA section3004(o)(1) (unless the impoundmentqualifies for an exemption from thoserequirements under RCRA sections 3005(j)(2) and (j)(4)). The owner or operatormust also submit a copy of the wasteanalysis plan that has been modified toprovide for testing treatment residuals inaccordance with § 268.4 requirements.

8. Storage of Restricted Wastes

Storage of restricted wastes isprohibited except where storage issolely for the purpose of accumulatingsufficient quantities of wastes tofacilitate proper treatment, recovery, ordisposal [RCRA section 30040j) and 40CFR 268.50). A facility that stores aprohibited waste for more than one yearbears the burden of proving that suchstorage is solely for this purpose. TheAgency bears the burden of proof if itbelieves that storage of a restrictedwaste by a facility for up to one year isnot for the purpose of accumulatingsufficient quantities to facilitate propertreatment, recovery, or disposal. Sinceany placement of wastes in landfills,piles, impoundments, etc. is defined asland disposal [RCRA section 3004(k)),only storage in tanks and containers isaffected by the storage prohibition In§ 268.50 (see 52 FR,21013, June 4, 1987).

9. The "Soft Hammer" Provisions

The First and Second Third wastes forwhich EPA has not promulgatedtreatment standards may be disposed inlandfill and surface impoundment units,provided certain demonstrations aremade, and provided these units meet theminimum technology requirements ofsection 3004(o) as specified in 40 CFR268.8.

The Agency's reading that "softhammer" wastes destined for landfill orimpoundment disposal can only be

disposed in minimum technologylandfills and surface impoundment unitswas upheld by the D.C. Circuit in SteelBar Mills Ass'n. v. EPA, No. 88-1608(order of Feb. 22, 1989), and endorsed indicta in Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA,__F.2d__ (D.C. Cir., April 4, 1989, slip op.at 7-8). The "soft hammer" provisionsapply only until May 8, 1990, or untilEPA promulgates treatment standards,whichever is sooner. Other types of landdisposal are not restricted until EPApromulgates treatment standards andeffective dates, or until May 8, 1990.

C. Summary of the Proposed-Rale

The Agency proposed treatmentstandards and effective dates for 32Second Third wastes. In addition, theAgency proposed treatment standardsand effective dates for 19 First Thirdwastes which previously had beensubject to the "soft hammer" provisions,as well as for 14 Third Third wastes and4 newly listed wastes. Effective datesfor wastes being underground injectedwere also proposed. No changes to theland disposal restrictions frameworkwere proposed. The proposed approach,as well as any changes being made intoday's final rule, is discussed inpreamble section III of today's Tule.

D. Comments Received on the ProposedRule

The Agency received 92 commentsaddressing-varous elements of theproposed rule. Some of the mostfrequently discussed issues were: theproposed treatment standardb forcyanide wastes, the use of "no landdisposal" asa treatment standard, andrescheduling of wastes from the ThirdThird to the.Second Third. A summaryof these issues, along with the Agency'sresponse, is provided in the appropriatepreamble sections related to theindividual waste codes of today's rule.

The Agency also reoerved commentson the applicability of the land disposalrestrictions -to wastes included in labpacks and on the advance notice of theAgency's proposed :approach forregulating the remaining listed andcharacteristic wastes by May 8, 1990. Asummary of these comments and theAgency's Tesponses follows in thissection.

Detailed summaries of all commentsand the Agency's responses canbefound in the .documents "CommentResponse Document for the SecondThird Land Disposal RestrictionsProposed Rule" Volumes 1-3, in theRCRA docket.

265983




1. Regulation of Lab Packs

The Agency received severalcomments related to the regulation oflab packs under the land disposalrestrictions framework. Somecommenters requested an exemptionfrom the land disposal restrictions forlab packs. Other commenters requestedthat the Agency establish as thetreatment standard a specifiedtreatment method for the entire labpack, disregarding the treatmentstandards applicable to the wastes itcontains. Several commenters requestedrelief from the paperwork burdenassociated with providing notice of eachrestricted waste in the lab pack and itscorresponding treatment standard (asrequired under the land disposalrestrictions recordkeepingrequirements). Commenters also statedthat there may be hundreds of wastesincluded in a lab pack and the landdisposal restrictions require thatapplicable treatment standards or "softhammer" requirements be met for eachwaste prior to land disposal. They assertthat such regulation is inappropriate forlab packs.

The Agency addressed the issue -ofapplicability of the land disposalrestrictions to lab packs in the final rulepromulgated on November 7 1986 (see51 FR 40584-85), and is not changing itsposition in today's final rule. TheAgency maintains that these wastescannot be exempt from the statutoryrequirements since the plain language ofthe statute includes them, and there isno indication in the legislative history toexclude lab packs from the landdisposal restrictions if they containrestricted wastes.

With respect to means of easing theadministrative burden on lab packs, theAgency is sympathetic to the concernsvoiced, but lacks the time and resources(given the pressing statutory deadlines)to take action in this rulemaking,particularly when no clearly acceptableapproach is now apparent. The Agencyis thus today soliciting further commentand data on issues associated with labpacks. The Agency requests data andspecific suggestions supportingtreatment options for lab packs. TheAgency also solicits specific suggestionson modifications that could be made tothe notification and certificationrequirements, in order that theadministrative burden for lab packsmight be somewhat relieved, while atthe same time satisfying the "cradle tograve" paper trail for hazardous wastesregulated under the land disposalrestrictions.

2. Advance Notice of Third ThirdApproach

Several comments addressed theAgency's advance notice of an approachfor regulating the remaining listed andcharacteristic hazardous wastes by May8, 1990. The Agency appreciates thesecomments and suggestions, and willconsider them when proposing landdisposal restrictions for the Third Thirdlater this year. The Agency will respondto comments received on the advancenotice in the Response to CommentsDocument for Third Third wastes.

3. Comments on Stabilization ofOrganics

Comments were received in responseto the Agency's request for data on theeffectiveness of stabilization of organicconstituents. The Agency willevaluatethese comments prior to promulgation ofthe Third Third final rule.

II. Summary of Today's Final RuleToday's notice describes the Agency's

final approach to implementing RCRAsection 3004(g) requirements withrespect to certain listed hazardouswastes included in 40 CFR 268.11 (aswell as § § 268.10 and 268.12). TheAgency is required to promulgateregulations establishing conditionsunder which Second Third wastes maybe land disposed by the statutorydeadline of June 8,1989.A. Applicability of Treatment Standards

Today the Agency is promulgatingtreatment standards and effective datesfor only certain Second Third wastes.Wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.11 for whichEPA does not establish treatmentstandards or effective dates are subjectto the "soft hammer" provisions thatallow continued land disposal until May8, 1990, or until treatment standards arepromulgated, whichever is sooner (40CFR 268.8).

The Agency is also promulgatingtreatment standards for certain FirstThird "soft hammer" wastes, as well ascertain Third Third wastes, to becomeeffective immediately uponpromulgation. The Third Third wastesincluded in today's final rule wereoriginally scheduled to be prohibitedfrom land disposal by May 8, 1990.These wastes are included in today'srule because of the similarity of theThird Third wastes to First or SecondThird waste treatability groups forwhich treatment standards are beingpromulgated. The Agency maintains thatthe original schedule promulgated May26, 1986 (51 FR 19300) is not irrevocable:the Agency retains a continuingauthority to shift particular wastes from

one third of the schedule to another (seeChemical Waste Management v. EPA,839 F 2d 1526, 1529 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1989).The statutory language likewiseindicates that scheduling decisions arecommitted solely to the Agency'sdiscretion (RCRA section 3004(g)(3)),and that prohibitions need not bedelayed until the end of a schedulingperiod to take effect (see, e.g., RCRAsection 3004(g)(1): "Not later than

*"). Given the Congressionalconcern about an expeditious end toland disposal of untreated hazardouswastes (see e.g., RCRA sections1002(b)(7), 1003(5), 1003(6)), it alsomakes sense from a policy perspectiveto accelerate prohibitions where it ispossible to do so. Thus, the Agency isnot precluded from proposing orpromulgating treatment standards forany wastes ahead of schedule.

In addition, the Agency is amendingthe schedule so that certain SecondThird wastes are moved to the ThirdThird. The Agency is movingwastewater residues resulting fromcertain treatment methods (i.e., metalsrecovery, metals precipitation, cyanidedestruction, carbon adsorption, chemicaloxidation, steam stripping,biodegradation, and incineration orother direct thermal destructionprovided such treatment methods arewell-designed and well-operated) forwhich EPA has not promulgatedwastewater treatment standards. Thisaction is being taken in order thatresidues from substantial treatment ofthese "soft hammer" wastes may befurther treated in land disposal unitsthat do not meet minimum technologyrequirements. As was explained intheFirst Third final rule (53 FR 31184), theAgency finds justification for suchaction in that wastes that haveundergone substantial treatment tolevels that may ultimately satisfytreatment standards should not beprecluded from further treatment inpolishing or advanced biologicaltreatment units (RCRA sections 3005(j)(3) and (j)(13)) that are substantiallyprotective of human health and theenvironment.

It should be noted that the Agencymoved all multi-source leachate derivedfrom most listed hazardous wastes tothe Third Third in a final rulepromulgated on February 27 1989 (54 FR8264). The February 27 1989 rule thusapplies to multi-source leachate derivedfrom disposal of Second Third listedhazardous wastes. This action has theeffect of rescheduling the residues fromtreating the leachate and tocontaminated ground water or soil thatcontain such leachate. Id. Other

26599I




restricted wastes not initially part of theleachate that are mixed with it,however, are not rescheduled and thusremain subject to all applicablestatutory and regulatory prohibitions. Id.

EPA is today deleting § 268.12(c), asadopted in the August 17 1988 FirstThird regulation. That provisionrescheduled leachate derived frommanagement of soft hammer wastes tothe Third Third. By rescheduling allmulti-source leachate to the Third Third,this provision is no longer necessary.The only leachate to which it would stillapply would be single-source leachate,and EPA has already determined that allprohibitions and standards for single-source leachate should take effectimmediately (see 54 FR 8265, Feb. 271989). Consequently, there is no reasonfor this provision to remain in effect.

The Agency is moving Second Thirdwastes that are mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes to the Third Third.As was explained in the First Third finalrule (53 FR 31147), there are relativelysmall volumes of such waste mixturesbeing generated, so such waste is moreappropriately addressed in the ThirdThird.

B. Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnologies (BDA T)

Today's final rule defines wastetreatability groups and identifies theBest Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for each (seepreamble section III.A.]. Treatmentstandards applicable to each treatabilitygroup are based on the performancelevels achievable by the correspondingBDAT. Any technology not otherwiseprohibited (i.e., impermissible dilution)may be used to meet concentration-based treatment standards. Wheretreatment standards are expressed as aspecified technology, the waste must betreated using the specified technologyprior to land disposal.

Following are tables listing BDAT forthe wastes for which treatmentstandards are promulgated in today'srule:Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnologies for Wastes Included inToday's Final Rule

1. Alkaline chlorination, followed byprecipitation, settling, and sludgedewatering:F007 wastewatersF008 wastewatersF009 wastewatersFO0 wastewatersF011 wastewatersF012 wastewatersP013 wastewatersP021 wastewaters

P029 wastewatersP030 wastewatersP063 wastewatersP074 wastewatersP098 wastewatersP099 wastewatersP104 wastewatersP106 wastewatersP121 wastewaters2. Alkaline chlorination, followed byprecipitation, settling, filtration, andstabilization of metals:

FO06 nonwastewaters(note: metal standards for this

wastecode were establisehd as part ofthe First Third final rule and are notbeing repromulgated)

F007 nonwastewatersF008 nonwastewatersF009 nonwastewaters

3. Electrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination, followed byprecipitation, settling, filtration, andstabilization of metals:

FOl1 nonwastewatersF012 nonwastewatersP074 nonwastewatersP099 nonwastewatersP104 nonwastewaterso

4. Electrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination, followed byprecipitation, settling, filtration:

P013 nonwastewatersP021 nonwastewatersP029 nonwastewatersP030 nonwastewatersP063 nonwastewatersP098 nonwastewatersP106 nonwastewatersP121 nonwastewaters

4. Incineration:

F010 nonwastewatersF024K009 nonwastewatersK010 nonwastewatersK011 nonwastewatersK013 nonwastewatersK014 nonwastewatersK023K028K029 nonwastewatersK038 nonwastewatersK039 nonwastewaters*K040 nonwastewatersK043K093K094K095 nonwastewatersK096 nonwastewatersP039 nonwastewatersP040 nonwastewaters*P041 nonwastewaters*P043 nonwastewaters.P044 nonwastewaters*P062 nonwastewaters*

P071 nonwastewatersP085 nonwastewaters*P089 nonwastewatersP094 nonwastewatersP097 nonwastewatersP109 nonwastewaters*P111 nonwastewaters*U028U058 nonwastewaters*U069U087 nonwastewaters*U088U102U107U109U235 nonwastewaters*Required method of treatment

5. Incineration or fuel substitution:

K027 nonwastewaters*K113 nonwastewaters*K114 nonwastewaters*K115 nonwastewaters*K116 nonwastewaters*U221 nonwastewaters*U223 nonwastewaters**Required method of treatment

6. Carbon adsorption or incineration; orpretreatment (such as biologicaltreatment or chemical oxidation)followed by carbon adsorption andincineration:

K027 wastewaters*K039 wastewaters*K113 wastewaters*K114 wastewaters*K115 wastewaters*K116 wastewaters*P040 wastewaters*P041 wastewaters*P043 wastewaters*P044 wastewaters*P062 wastewaters*P085 wastewaters*P109 wastewaters*P111 wastewaters*U058 wastewaters*

-U087 wastewaters*U221 wastewaters*U223 wastewaters**Required method of treatment

7 Biolgical treatment:

K036 wastewatersK038 wastewatersK040 wastewatersP039 wastewatersP073 wastewatersP089 wastewatersP094 wastewatersP097 wastewatersU235 wastewaters

8. Steam stripping followed bybiological treatment:

K009 wastewatersK010 wastewaters

26600




9. No land disposal based on nogeneration (generated from the processin the listing description and disposedafter June 8, 1989):

K005 nonwastewatersK007 nonwastewaters

10. Stabilization:

K115-ckel

11. No standards for the Second Thirdwaste codes ("soft hammer"):

K025 wastewatersK029 wastewatersK041K042K095 wastewatersK096 wastewatersK097K098K105P002, P003, P007 P008, P014, P026, P027

P049, P054, P057 P060, P066, P067P072, P107 P112, P113, P114,

U002, U003, U005, U008, U011, U014,U015, U020, U021, U023, U025, U026,U032, U035, U047 U049, U057 U059,U060, U062, U070, U073, U080, U083,U092, U093, U094, U095, U097 U098,U099, UlOl, U106, U109, UllO, Ull!,U114, Ul16, Ul19, U127 U128, U131,U135, U138, U140, U142, U143, U144,U146, U147 U149, U150, U161, U162,U163, U164, U165, U168, U169, U170,U172, U173, U174, U176, U178, U179,U189, U193, U196, U203, U205, U206,U208, U213, U214, U215, U216, U217U218, U239, U244

C. Applicability of Today's Rule toClass I-H Hazardous Waste InjectionWells Regulated Under 40 CFR Part 148

The Agency has previously proposedand promulgated regulations andeffective dates for underground injectedhazardous wastes covered under RCRAsections 3004(f) and (g) separately fromregulations addressing wastes disposedin surface facilities. The Agency is todayaddressing all methods of land disposal,including injection wells regulatedjointly under the Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) and RCRA.

D. Waste Analysis Requirements

The Agency is today finalizing forSecond Third wastes the waste analysisrequirements already promulgated in theFirst Third final rule (53 FR 31146).Where BDAT is a destruction orremoval technology, a total wasteanalysis is required because it is mostappropriate for measuring suchdestruction or removal. Similarly, whereBDAT is identified as an immobilizationtechnology such as stabilization,analysis of a TCLP waste extract isrequired because it is the mostappropriate measure of immobilization.

In cases where both types of technologyare identified as BDAT, both types ofwaste analyses are required.

In order for the, initial generator todetermine whether his waste meets theapplicable treatment standard asgenerated, he should analyze the totalwaste if a treatment standard is in§ 268.41, or he should analyze a wasteextract if the treatment standard isfound in § 268.43. The generator mayalso make this determination based onhis knowledge of the waste providedthere is a reasonable basis for doing soas, for example, the generator using solittle of a key constituent that it couldnot be found in the waste at levelsexceeding a treatment standard (51 FR40597 Nov. 7 1986; and § 268.7(a)).

E. Nationwide Extensions of theEffective Date

Due to lack of sufficient alternativeprotective treatment or recoverycapacity, EPA is granting a nationalcapacity extension for soil and debriscontaminated with certain waste codescovered by today's final rule. A two-year extension, until June 8,1991, isgranted for soil and debris contaminatedwith First, Second, and Third Thirdwastes for which treatment standardspromulgated in today's rule are basedupon the performance of incineration.(See preamble section III.C.2.)

A capacity variance is also grantedfor certain wastes disposed byunderground injection. A two-yearextension of the effective date, untilJune 8, 1991, is granted for hazardouswaste codes F007 K009 (wastewaters),K011 (nonwastewaters), and K013(nonwastewaters] (see preamble sectionIII.C.3.).

EPA has determined to establish aneffective date of July 8, 1989 for theF006--cyanide (nonwastewater)treatment standard. Although existinginformation indicates that the treatmentstandard is readily achievable withexisting treatment systems, the delayedeffective date will provide any timeneeded for generators to adjust or finetune existing treatment systems, or toenter into contracts with commercialtreaters. At the same time, given theififormation showing that well over 90percent of generators are alreadyachieving treatment standards and theexistence of excess commercialtreatment capacity (see preamblesection III.C.), EPA does not believe thatthe regulated community needs anylonger period to come into compliancewith the new standard (see RCRAsection 3010(b)[1)).

EPA does not believe that section3004(h)(1) mandates an immediateeffective date for the cyanide standard

for F006 nonwastewaters. Section3004(h)(1) applies to prohibitions issuedunder sections 3004(d)-(g). The cyanidestandard is not a prohibition of thewaste (since F006 is already prohibitedunder the First Third rule), but rather anadditional treatment standard issuedpursuant to section 3004(m). The generalpolicy of section 3004(h), however,provides good cause, within the meaningof section 3010(b)(3) for notdelaying thenew standard's effective date for anymore than 30 days.

The Agency is also delaying theeffective date for 30 days, until July 8,1989, for F007 F008, and F009wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPAhas determined that no long termnational capacity variance for thesewastes is warranted. The extension isbeing granted, however, in order to becautious and allow time (if any is trulyneeded) for facilities to adjust existingcyanide treatment processes to operatemore efficiently, or to enter intocontracts with commercial treatmentfacilities.

EPA is also granting a 30-day capacityextension to Foil and F01Z wastewatersand nonwastewaters, until July 8, 1989.Additionally, for the penod betweenJuly 8, 1989 and December 8, 1989, Foiland F012 nonwastewaters will besubject to the same cyanide standardsas the electroplating wastes (ie., 590mg/kg.for total cyanide and 30 mg/kgfor amenable cyanide). EffectiveDecember 8, 1989,.however, thesewastes must meet the 110 mg/kg totalcyanide.standard and the 9.1 mg/kgamenable cyamde standard (seepreamble section III.C.1. for furtherdiscussion of the effective dates).

F Treatment Standards for ProhibitedWastes that are Mixed with Non-Prohibited Wastes

Prohibited wastes are not exemptedfrom the land disposal prohibitionswhen they are mixed with other wastes(or any other materials, for that matter.)Were this not the case, land disposalprohibitions would be without meaningsince they could be evaded by theexpedient of rmxing with a non-prohibited waste. (See 54 FR 8265, Feb.27 1989.)

Prohibited wastes are sometimesmixed with other materials in the courseof treatment. If the prohibited waste isno longer capable of being treated.tomeet the treatment standard afternuxmg, it is possible that an improperform of mixing is occurring. The Agencyrealizes and acknowledges, however,that mixing wastes can be a normal partof treatment. Therefore, to the extentthat such mixing occurs and can be

26601




determined to be a legitimate part of thetreatment process, the mixture could beeligible for a treatability variancepursuant to § 268.44. Part of thedemonstration, however, would bewhether mixing has made the prohibitedwaste more difficult to treat, and if so,whether the treatment method utilized isstill legitimate.

It should be evident that intentionalmixing to evade a treatment standard isimpermissible, and if such intentionalmixing occurs, it never could serve asgrounds for granting a treatabilityvariance under § 268.44. The Agencyfurther expects that generators andtreatment facilities would takereasonable steps to avoid mixing wastestreams that are generated separately ifsuch mixing is not a legitimate part ofthe treatment process. For example, itwould ordinarily be inappropriate tomix a metal-bearing waste like F006with a halogenated organic waste likeF024.

The status of mixtures that consist ofmulti-source leachate and other non-leachate First Third prohibited wastes ispresently controlled by a recent orderfiled by the D.C. Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit. In thatorder, the Court left in effect (by mutualconsent of the parties) a judicial stay ofthe applicability of the so-called wastecode carry-through principle to multi-source leachate. The order continues,"[a]s to anything contaminated both byleachate and by other first-thirdprohibited wastes, the other wastesmust, to the extent technically feasible,be treated to the applicable treatmentstandards. Prohibited wastesintentionally mixed with leachate for thepurpose of avoiding applicabletreatment standards remain subject toall of the standards and requirements inthe August 8, 1988 rule. Order of April24, 1989 in Chemical WasteManagement v. EPA, No. 88-1581.

EPA interprets this order in thefollowing way: First, by requiring thatall non-leachate First Third prohibitedwastes be treated "to the extenttechnically feasible" the Court madeclear that only technical considerationsare involved in the determination, andthat the cost of treatment is not arelevant consideration. (In fact, theCourt amended its earlier order ofSeptember 23, 1988, which requiredtreatment "to the extent feasible" inresponse to the government's pleadingthat cost could not legally be consideredin determining treatment standards.) Iddetermining whether treatment hasoccurred to the extent technicallyfeasible, it ordinarily would benecessary to address the possible means

of treating all of the hazardousconstituents in the prohibited waste,including both organics and morganics.

Second, all of the parties in theirpleadings to the Court represented thatany mixing of prohibited wastes andmulti-source leachate that occurred afterSeptember 23, 1988, the date of the firstamended order entered by the Courtrelated to this situation, would bedeemed to be mixing with the purpose ofavoiding a treatment standard and thattherefore all applicable treatmentstandards would continue to apply tothe non-leachate prohibited waste(s) insuch mixtures. (See Petitioners'Response of April 13, 1989 at pp. 5-6, 8expressing this understanding, andPetitioners' Supplemental Response ofApril 24, 1989 characterizing languagesuggested by petitioners that documentsthis understanding as stating that"restricted wastes in such mixturesoccurring on or after the date ofamendment of the stay order will haveto be treated to the applicable treatmentstandards, notwithstanding the presencein the mixture of multi-sourceleachates.") Consequently, anyprohibited waste that was mixed withmulti-source leachate after September23, 1988 remains subject to treatmentstandards.

EPA believes that any person seekingto dispose of a lea chate-non-leachateFirst Third prohibited waste mixturewould have the burden of demonstratingthat the mixture has been treated to theextent technically feasible. This isbecause that person would be claimingan exception to a remedial statutoryscheme, see, e.g., SEC v. Ralston PurinaCo., 346 U.S. 119, 126 (1953), and inaddition would be in possession of factswithin its special knowledge. TheAgency notes in addition that Statescould evaluate the validity of an "extenttechnically feasible" claim only if theState is authorized to administer theland disposal prohibition regulations.Since no State is so authorized at thepresent time, any regulatoryconcurrence would have to come fromEPA.

EPA believes it important that theCourt's order not be used as a means toevade technically achievable treatmentstandards. Therefore, the Agencyrecommends careful evaluation of anyclaim that one of these mixtures hasbeen treated to the extent technicallyfeasible. In addition, the Agencyrecommends that EPA headquarterspersonnel be notified of such claims inorder to assist in the technicaldetermination andin order to have

technology-based determinations ofwaste treatability be as consistent aspossible.

G. Rationale for Immediate EffectiveDate

The regulations promulgated todaywill be effective immediately exceptwhere the Agency has specified anational extension of the effective dateor otherwise specified an alternativeeffective date. HSWA requires thattoday's regulations become effective onor before the June 8, 1989 effective dateof the restrictions on the second one-third of the wastes scheduled pursuantto RCRA section 3004(g)(4)(A). If theAgency fails to promulgate regulationsfor any of these wastes by the statutoryeffective date, the restrictions ondisposal of the waste in a landfill orsurface impoundment, stipulated insection 3004(g)(6)(B) take effectautomatically on June 8, 1989. If theAgency has not promulgated treatmentstandards for any scheduled waste byMay 8, 1990, that waste is prohibitedfrom all forms of land disposal unless agenerator has been granted an extensionof the effective date (either a nationalcapacity extension or a case-by-caseextension) or a "no migration" findinghas been made. Hence, June 8,1989 isthe latest date for EPA to promulgateregulations that will prevent the "softhammer" m section 3004(g) frombecoming effective for all Second Thirdwastes.

Section 3004(h) requires thatregulations established under sections3004 (d), (3), (f), or (g) be effectiveimmediately upon promulgation.Furthermore, section 3004(m) specifiesthat regulations setting treatmentstandards must have the same effectivedate as applicable regulationsestablished under sections 3004 (d), (e),(f), or (g). For today's regulations whichset treatment standards and arepromulgated under section 3004(g), thisdate will be June 8, 1989. Since thestatute clearly states that the regulationsimplementing section 3004(g) must gointo effect on or before June 8, 1989 inorder to prevent the "soft hammer" fromfalling, EPA finds that good cause existsunder section 3010(b)(3) to have animmediate effective date. For the samereason, EPA finds that good cause alsoexists under section 554(d)(3) of theAdministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.section 553(d)(3), to waive therequirements that regulations bepublished at least 30 days before theeffective date.

26602




III. Detailed Discussion of Today's Rule

A. Development and Identification ofTreatment Standards

Today's rule promulgates BDATtreatment standards for many SecondThird wastes, some First Third wastesfor which land disposal has beenpreviously restricted according to the"soft hammer" provisions, and severalThird Third wastes. Sections III.A.1.through III.A.11. of the January 11, 1989Proposed Rule (54 FR 1062-1104)presented discussions on thedetermination of treatability groups andthe development of treatment standardsfor RCRA hazardous wastes. SectionsIII.A.1. through III.A.7 (54 FR 1062-1065)presented an overview of the generalprocedures that the Agency follows forthese determinations. A detaileddiscussion of the methodology foridentification of BDAT is provided in theNovember 7 1986 Final Rule forSolvents and Dioxins (51 FR 40572). TheAgency specifically stated that it did notreopen the issues presented in thesesections for public comment, but merelyrestated the Agency's position on theseissues in order to save readers thetrouble of referring to earlier documents.The same is true for most of thereiterated discussions in today'spreamble. However, the Agency is alsoadding a clarifying discussion of certainissues, particularly the comparison oftreatment standards to PracticalQuantitation Limits (PQLs), and the useof grab and composite samples forpurposes of establishing and enforcingtreatment standards.

1. Clarification of the GeneralApplicability of BDAT

a. Wastewater versus non wastewaterstandards. The treatment standards intoday's rule are generally expressed asconstituent concentrations for"wastewaters" and for"nonwastewaters" The treatmentstandards apply to the prohibited wasteas well as to all residuals generated bytreating the original prohibited waste.Therefore, solids generated fromtreatment of a particular waste mustmeet the nonwastewater treatmentstandards and wastewaters generatedfrom treatment of this waste must meetthe wastewater treatment standards.Section III.A.3.(f.) and (h.) of today's ruleprovides a discussion of theapplicability of treatment standards totreatment residuals where BDAT isestablished as a method of treatmentrather than as numerical concentration-based standards.

For purposes of this rule, the Agencydefines wastewaters as those wastes(listed wastes, including wastes

generated as a result of the "mixtureand "derived-from" rules) that containless than 1% total organic carbon (TOC)and less than 1% total suspended solids,except for those wastes identified asFOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 solvent-water mixtures. See 53 FR 31145 (August17 1988) adopting this definition forFirst Third wastes and 51 FR 40579(November 7 1986) for the definition ofFOOL, F002, F003, F004, and F005 solvent-water mixtures. Those wastes (listedwastes, including wastes that arehazardous as a result of the "mixture"and "derived-from" rules) that do notmeet these criteria are defined asnonwastewaters and thus would containgreater than or equal to 1% TOC, orgreater than or equal to 1% totalsuspended solids. It is not permissible todilute or perform partial treatment on awaste in order to switch theapplicability of a nonwastewaterstandard to a wastewater standard (orvice versa). (See 52 FR 21012 (June 4,1987); but see 52 FR 25767 (June 8, 1987)noting special circumstances whenCalifornia list wastes are involved).Dewatering technologies (such asfiltration and centrifugation) that aredesigned to separate wastewater fromnonwastewaters are not prohibited.

b. Analytical requirements andrelationship of PQLs to BDAT. For allwastes in today's rule, BDAT has beenidentified as a destruction technologyfor all of the organic constituents and forcyanides. The corresponding treatmentstandards for these constituents arebased on the analysis of totalconcentration. Since these technologiesare specifically designed to destroy theorganics and cyanides, the Agencymaintains that the best measure oftreatment performance is the one thatreflects the extent to which theseorganics and cyanides have beendestroyed.

Note: The land disposal restrictions forsolvent waste codes FO01-F005 (51 FR 40572)require the analysis of TCLP extracts as ameasure of performance. At the time that thetreatment standards for Foo1-F005 werepromulgated, useful data were not availableon total constituent concentrations in treatedresiduals and, as a result, the TCLP wasconsidered to be the best available measureof performance.

In cases where treatment standardsfor metals in nonwastewaters are basedon stabilization, the use of the TCLP isrequired as a measure of theperformance of the treatmenttechnology. The Agency maintains thatwhere data are available, the TCLP databest reflect the extent to which themobility of these metals can beminimized. Where treatment standardsfor nonwastewaters are based on

multiple treatment processes due to thepresence of organics and metals, thewaste has to meet both total constituentconcentrations for organics and TCLPconcentrations for metals prior to landdisposal.

The Agency evaluates all BDAT listconstituents when establishingtreatment standards. This list ofchemicals was derived from theconstituents listed m 40 CFR Part 261Appendix VII and Appendix VIII. Therationale for selection of the particularconstituents to be regulated can befound in the background document foreach waste or waste treatability group.The Agency believes that it is notrestricted to regulating only thoseconstituents for which a waste is listed(40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VII). This isappropriate given that Appendix VII,setting forth the constituents that werethe basis for listing, is not an exhaustivelist of hazardous constituents in eachwaste, and was never intended to be.(See RCRA section 3001(f), a provisiondesigned to force EPA to considerhazardous constituents other than thosefor which the waste was listed whenevaluating delisting petitions. Section3001(f) thus acknowledges thatAppendix VII is only a partial list of thehazardous constituents that can bepresent in a listed waste.)

EPA has been asked a number ofquestions about the relationship ofBDAT treatment standards to thepractical quantitation limits (PQLs) for anumber of constituents. In response, it isimportant to clarify the definition ofPQLs, their intended use, and theirrelationship to BDAT treatmentstandards.

In the September, 1986, edition of SW-846 (Volume 1B, Chapter 1, p. 1-9), theAgency defines PQLs as follows: "Thepractical quantitation limit (PQL) is thelowest level that can be reliablyachieved within the specified limits ofprecision and accuracy during routinelaboratory operating conditions.Further, in Method 8250 of SW--846 (theanalytical method for determination ofsemivolatile organics in wastes by gaschromatography/mass spectrometry) theAgency states "Sample PQLs are highlymatrix-dependent. The PQLs listedherein are provided for guidance andmay not always be achievable" (Ibid,Table 2, p. 8250-5), and further definesPQLs as the method detection limit(from Table 1, p. 8250-2, 3, and 4)multiplied by a matrix dependent factorthat was estimated for four matrices(Table 2, p. 8250-5).

As evident from the above citations,the Agency recognizes the importance ofthe dependency of the waste matrix to

26603




the level of PQLs obtainable. TheAgency also recognizes that PQLs listedin SW-846 are not always achievablefor constituents as measured inuntreated wastes. However, the Agencypoints out that the levels of PQLs aredirectly related to the amount ofinterferences that are present m thedifferent waste matrices. Most treatmentprocesses, particularly destructivetechnologies such as incineration, do notdestroy only the hazardous constituentsof the waste. They destroy otherorganics present that typically interferewith the analysis for constituents inuntreated wastes. Thus, PQLs aretypically significantly lower fortreatment residuals such as incineratorash than for untreated wastes. Thesedifferences in PQLs for untreated andtreated wastes are demonstrated inalmost every BDAT backgrounddocument where incineration has beenestablished as BDAT.

With respect to the use of PQLs, theAgency points out that PQLs wereestablished as a means of guidance foranalysis of waste samples and wereintended to act as minimumperformance criteria for analyticallaboratories. They do not necessarilyrepresent the lowest limits of achievableanalytical performance for any givenwaste. They were also intended to bebroadly applied to groups of wastes. Thematrix dependent correction factorswere not developed for any particularwaste code, and as listed in Table 2(cited above) do not specifically applyto any particular treatment residuals(i.e., Table 2 only lists correction factorsfor matrices identified as ground water,low-level soil, high-level soil, and non-water miscible waste). Further, theAgency is currently in the process ofmodifying and expanding these matrixcorrection factors, as well as modifyingthe detection limits from which the PQLsare derived.

The major point of confusionregarding PQLs is that the PQLs noted inSW-846 for some constituents are higherthan some of the promulgated treatmentstandards. This apparent anomalyresults primarily from the fact that thePQLs in SW-846 were not based ontesting the matrices that were tested indeveloping the treatment standards. Thetreatment standards for a given wastecode, in contrast, are based onanalytical testing of the residuals fromthe treatment of that waste (or in somecases, a similar waste from which thetreatment standards are transferred).Thus, the resulting treatment standardsappropriately reflect the level ofanalytical performance achievable forthat waste.

Other commenters questionedwhether constraints posed by the limitsof applicable analytic methods allow thetreatment standards to be met on areliable, routine basis. The Agencypoints out that the laboratories used inthe development of the BDAT standardsare themselves reliable and mustmaintain compliance with all QA/QCrequirements on a routine basis. Further,the background documents for allwastes for which incineration has beenestablished as BDAT, indicate aconsistency of the laboratories inobtaining low detection limits for theregulated constituents in these wastes,thus providing additional support thatthese treatment standards areachievable on a routine and reliablebasis.

In cases where a facility believes thatparticular, waste-specific treatmentstandards cannot be obtained due to theinability of their laboratory to achievePQLs below the treatment standards oncertain treatment residuals, the facilitymay submit a petition for a variancefrom those particular treatmentstandards for that particular waste orwastes. In such a case, the facility mustdemonstrate that the analyses are incompliance with all other BDAT QA/QCprovisions and that the treatmentprocess is a well-designed and well-operated BDAT process. (As outlined inthe BDAT Generic Quality AssuranceProject Plan (EPA/530-SW-87-011,March 1987), the Agency may also useanalytical methods for setting treatmentstandards that are not specificallyidentified in SW-846, provided that themethods comply with all appropriatedetection limits, spike/surrogaterecoveries, and other quality assurancecriteria.)

c. Restrictions on the use oftechnologies identified as BDA T. All ofthe treatment standards expressed asconcentrations of specific constituentsin the waste reflect performanceachieved by the Best DemonstratedAvailable Technology (BDAT). As such,compliance with these standards onlyrequires that these concentrations(treatment levels) be achieved prior toland disposal. The standard generallydoes not require or restrict the use ofany particular treatment technology toachieve these levels. The Agencyemphasizes that the technologiesidentified as BDAT (for those wasteswith only concentration-basedstandards) are simply thosetechnologies that EPA utilized todevelop the waste specificconcentration-based performancestandards. The waste need not betreated by that specific technology. Any

treatment, including recycling or anycombination of treatment technologies,unless prohibited (such as impermissibledilution), can be used to achieve theseconcentration-based standards unlessthat technology is defined as landdisposal (i.e., land treatment).

Treatment standards promulgatedtoday are expressed as numericalconcentration levels, with a fewexceptions. Because of difficultiesassociated with analysis of specificconstituents in wastes from theproduction of toluene diisocyanate(K027 K113, K114, K115, K116, U221 andU223) and certain organophosphoruspesticides (K039, P040, P041, P043, P044,P062, P085, P109, Pill, U058 and U087),some treatment standards in today'srule are expressed as a technologyrather than as a concentration-basedstandard (see sections III.A.3.(f.) andIII.A.3.(h.)). In addition, treatmentstandards for K005 and K007 wastes thatare generated from the processdescribed in the listing for these wastecodes (rather than derived fromresiduals from prior disposal of thesewastes) are expressed as "No LandDisposal Based on No Generation" (seesection III.A.3.(c.)).

In situations where wastes subject toconcentration-based standards aremixed with wastes subject to treatmentstandards that are specifiedtechnologies, the mixture would have tobe treated by the specified BDATmethod, and would have to meet theconcentration-based treatmentstandards for any other prohibitedwastes that are contained in the matrix.See generally 53 FR 31146-147 (August17 1988).

It may not be appropriate to apply thespecified technology to every mixturethat contains the waste subject to thattechnology. However, EPA hasstructured the final rule in a way thatthe technology specified as BDAT islikely to be appropriate for the types ofmixtures that are most likely to beencountered in the near term applicationof this rule.

For example, EPA has specifiedincineration or fuel substitution as thetreatment technology for certain wastesprohibited by today's regulation. Themost likely mixture for which thesetechnologies might be inappropriate iscontaminated soil and debris. In today'srule, however, EPA is granting a two-year national capacity variance for soiland debris for those wastes whereBDAT has been specified asincineration. Multi-source leachatemight also be contaminated with thesewastes, but EPA has deferred standardsfor such leachates until the Third Third.

26604



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, lune 23. 1989 / Rules and Regulations

See 54 FR 8264 (February 27 1989). EPAalso notes that in other situations it maybe inappropriate for multi-wastemixtures to be treated by the specifiedtreatment methods which aredemonstrated treated methods for mostwastes that contain organiccontaminants. Given the lack ofimmediate applicability to soil anddebris and multi-source leachate, theAgency does not believe that there aremay other situations where thepromulgated treatment standards wouldprove inappropriate. However for thosesituations, the treatability variance in 40CFR 268.44 is available.

d. Applicability of treatmentstandards to treatment residuesidentified as "derived-from" wastes.BDAT typically consists of a treatmentoperation, or series of operations, thatgenerate additional waste residues. Forexample, the BDAT for K001nonwastewaters is incinerationfollowed by stabilization. (See 53 FR31153 (August 17 1988).) Incinerationgenerates two residues that may requirefurther treatment, namely ash andscrubber waters. Treatment of scrubberwaters to remove metals may generateadditional inorganic residues alsorequiring stabilization. Ultimately theseadditional wastes (i.e., treatmentresidues) may be land disposed, so theymust meet the same standards as thestabilized ash. With respect to theseadditional wastes, the Agencyemphasizes that all residues fromtreating the original listed waste arelikewise considered to be the listedwaste by virtue of the "derived-from"rule contained in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2).Consequently, ill wastes generated inthe course of treatment are prohibitedfrom land disposal unless they complywith the treatment standard or areotherwise exempted from theprohibition through a no-migrationpetition or by a capacity variance.

The Agency is, however, developing"de minimis" levels for certainhazardous constituents in listed wastesbelow which the waste will no longer bea hazardous waste for purposes ofSubtitle C regulation. At this time, EPAhas not proposed these "de minimis"levels. In addition, the Agency has notcompleted its evaluation of theregulations that would be impacted bythese "de minimis" levels-in particular,their relationship to BDAT treatmentstandards.

e. Transfer of treatment standards.Some treatment standards are not basedon testing the performance of BDAT onthe specific waste subject to thetreatment standard. Rather, in certaininstances, the Agency examines

similarities in waste characteristics andconstitutents and determines whetherthe treatment standards can betransferred. EPA believes thattransferrng treatment performance datato establish standards for untestedwastes or constitutents is technicallyvalid when the untested wastes aregenerated from similar industries and/orsimilar processing steps or when theconstituents have similar chemical andphysical properties. Transfer oftreatment standards to wastes fromsimilar processing steps involvesrelatively minimal amount of analysisbecause of the likelihood that theproduction processes will produce awaste matrix with similarcharacteristics.

In cases where only the industry issimilar, EPA closely examines the wastecharacteristics prior to concluding thatthe untested waste constitutents can betreated to levels associated with testedwastes. EPA reviews the availablewaste characteristic data to identifythose parameters which are expected toaffect treatment selection. Some of themost important constitutents, as well asother parameters, are identified tofacilitate the selection of the appropriatetreatment technology for a given waste.When the analysis suggests that theuntested waste can be treated with thesame technology as a waste for whichtreatment performance data are alreadyavailable, a more detailed list ofconstituents is analyzed to identify themost important waste characteristicswhich the Agency believes will affectthe performance of the technology. Byexamining and comparing thesecharacteristics, the Agency determineswhether the untested wastes willachieve the same level of treatment asthe tested waste. Where the Agencydetermines that the untested waste canbe treated to the same concentration-based levels as well as the tested waste,the treatment standards can betransferred. A detailed discussion of thistransfer process can be found in theBDAT background documents for eachwaste or waste treatability group.

f. Treatment standards based onsingle facility data and grab samplesversus composite samples. As discussedpreviously in the August 17 1989 finalrule for First Third wastes, the Agencybelieves that the use of a small numberof data sets from a single treatmentfacility can be representative of thetreatment achieved by the particulartreatment system. This is particularlytrue when no other treatment data isavailable, or when data exist but thereis no verification that the treatmentprocess from which the data was

obtained was well-designed or well-operated. It is not possible for theAgency to sample every facilitygenerating the waste or every treatmentsystem treating the waste. For thepurposes of determining BDATtreatment standards, the Agency hasestablished a procedure andmethodology for selecting particularfacilities and treatment systems that itconsiders to be well-designed and well-oeprated (53 FR 31138). The Agency alsoselects wastes that are representative ofthose most difficult to treat.

The Agency recognizes that there arecertain variabilities inherent to everytreatment system as well as a certainamount of variability in thecharacteristics of the wastes. In thecalculation of the treatment standards,the Agency accounts for these bymultiplying the mean of theconcentration of the constituents to beregulated by a correction factor knownas the variability factor. This factor isderived utilizing a quantitativeprocedure that determines the statistical99th percentile for the treatmentstandard. This results in theestablishment of a treatment standardthat is believed to be achievable 99percent of the time by a well-designed,well-operated system.

The Agency further accounts forvariability due to analyticalreproducibility by adjusting thetreatment standard for the analyticalrecovery data for constituents. Inaddition, the Agency performs allanalyses of hazardous constituents usedin the development of the treatmentperformance data, in accordance withan established quality assurance/quality control plan (as outlined in theBDAT Generic Quality AssuranceProject Plan).

Where performance data exist basedon both the analysis of compositesamples and on the analysis of grabsamples, the Agency establishes thetreatment standards based on theanalysis of grab samples. There are twoprincipal reasons for this. It is normallyeasier and more expeditious for EPA toenforce on the basis of grab samples. Inaddition, grab samples normally reflectmaximum process variability, and thuswould reasonably characterize theranges of treatment system performance.

In cases where only composite dataexist, the Agency considers the QA/QCof the data, the inherent efficiency of theprocess design, and the level ofperformance achieved. The Agency maythen choose to use this composite datato develop the treatment standard.Where this data is used to establish thetreatment standard, the treatment

9 A A a A




standard is identified as based onanalysis of a composite sample.Enforcement of that standard thuswould also be based on compositesamples.

An individual facility's waste analysisplan will provide the basis for thatfacility's compliance monitoring. Thisplan must be adequate to assurecompliance with Part 268. However, afacility remains strictly liable formeeting the treatment standards, so thatif it disposes of a waste that does notmeet a treatment standard, it is inviolation of the land disposalrestrictions regulations. If the facilitycomplied with its waste analysis plan, itwould not be in violation of the wasteanalysis plan provisions. Put anotherway, a waste analysis plan cannotimmunize land disposal of prohibitedwastes, although such plans may bewritten to authorize types of samplingand monitoring different from thoseused to develop the treatmentstandard(s).

If a waste analysis plan were toauthorize a different mode of samplingor monitoring, there would need to be ademonstration that the plan (and thespecific deviating feature) is adequate toassure compliance with Part 268 (see 40CFR 264.13(a)). This might require, forexample, a demonstration of statisticalequivalence between a compositesampling protocol and one based ongrab sampling, or a demonstration ofwhy monitoring for a subset ofpollutants would assure compliance ofthose not monitored. (EPA repeats thatenforcement of the rule is based on thetreatment standard, not the facility'swaste analysis plan, so thatenforcement officials would normallytake grab samples and analyze for allconstituents regulated by the applicabletreatment standards.)

2. Second Third Wastes From SpecificSources for Which BDAT Standards arenot Promulgated in Today's Rule

K019 and K025 wastes were originallyscheduled to be examined as part of theSecond Third rulemaking. However,EPA promulgated treatment standardsfor these wastes in the First Third finalrule on August 8, 1988 (53 FR 31155,31156 and 31174 (August 17 1988)).Concentration-based treatmentstandards, based on the performance ofrotary kiln incineration, werepromulgated for the wastewater andnonwastewater forms of K019 and atreatment standard of "No LandDisposal Based on No Generation" waspromulgated for nonwastewater formsof K025. EPA recently amended thestandard for K025 nonwastewaters sothat it applies only to wastes generated

from the process description in thelisting of K025 wastes and that aredisposed after August 17 1988. See 54FR 18836 (May 2, 1989).

EPA did not promulgate treatmentstandards for the K025 wastewaters onAugust 8, 1988. The "soft hammer"provisions, however, did not applybecause K025 wastes were originallyscheduled in the Second Third. TheAgency is not promulgating treatmentstandards for these wastewaters intoday's rule (i.e., prior to their statutorydeadline); therefore, land disposal ofK025 wastewaters is now restrictedaccording to the "soft hammer"provisions in 40 CFR 268.8. EPA ispresenting this information in today'spreamble as a matter of convenience, morder to show treatment standards forall of the Second Third wastes. EPA didnot reopen the comment period on thepromulgated concentration-basedtreatment standards for K019 wastes oron the promulgated "No Land DisposalBased on No Generation" standards forK025 nonwastewaters.

The Agency has not completed itsevaluation of BDAT for Second Thirdwastes identified as K029 wastewaters,K095 wastewaters, K096 wastewaters,nonwastewater and wastewater formsof K041, K042, K097 K098, K105 as wellas certain other Second Third wastesidentified with a "U" or "P" waste code.Therefore, the Agency is notpromulgating treatment standards forthese wastes in today's rule. Since theAgency is not promulgating standardsfor these Second Third wastes by theirstatutory deadline, land disposal ofthese wastes is regulated by the "softhammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.The Agency believes that the majority ofthese "soft hammer" wastes, asgenerated, are nonwastewaterscontaining relatively highconcentrations of chlorinated organics.In addition, EPA believes that themajority of these wastes contain highenough concentrations of halogenatedorganics (greater than 0.1%), that theyare already restricted from land disposalas Halogenated Organic Compounds(HOCs] under the California List Rule.

Treatment standards for somewastewater or nonwastewater forms ofother Second Third wastes have notbeen promulgated in today's rule. Anexplanation of each can be found in thediscussion of treatment standards forthe appropriate treatability group in theensuing section (III.A.3.) of today'spreamble.

3. Treatment Standards and Responsesto Major Comments for All WastesProposed With the Second Third Wastes

This section of today's rule discussestreatment standards for all wastes andwaste treatability groups proposed inthe Second Third proposal. Thisincludes many of the Second Thirdwastes, some of the First Third wastesthat were, until today, regulated underthe "soft hammer" provisions, and someThird Third wastes for which theAgency decided to promulgaterestrictions ahead of schedule. A moredetailed explanation of the Agency'saction is found in relevant backgrounddocuments and response to commentdocuments which are part of theadministrative record to this rule.

a. Cyanide wastes. Today's rulepromulgates treatment standards formany wastewater and nonwastewaterforms of RCRA hazardous wastes thatcontain cyanides. Wastes containingcyanides are generated primarily byfacilities performing operations such aselectroplating (generating F006, F007FO08 and F009 wastes), heat treating(Fo0, Foil and F012), chemicalconversion coating of aluminum (F019),other metal finishing, and acrylonitrileproduction (Koll, K013 and K014).Facilities in these industries as well asothers can also generate cyanide wasteslisted as P013, P021, P029, P030, P063,P074, P098, P099, P104, P106 and/or P121.Wastes designated with these "P" codesare typically discarded, out-of-date, oroff-specification chemicals used bythese industries. Detailed technicaldescriptions of the specific productionprocesses generating these "F" and "K"wastes and background on the specificchemical represented by the "P" wastecodes can be found in the backgrounddocuments for the listing of thesewastes.

The same industries often generateother reactive cyanide wastes identifiedsimply as D003 wastes (as defined in 40CFR 261.23(a)(5)). Today's rule,however, does not promulgate treatmentstandards for these D003 wastes.

In the January 11, 1989 proposed rule,the Agency defined three subcategoriesof cyanide wastes from the metalfinishing industry: Metal FinishingAqueous Liquids, Metal FinishingOrganic Liquids, and Metal FinishingSludges. The Agency has re-examinedthe need for these subcategories andbelieves they are unnecessary for theestablishment of separate treatment.standards. Rather, the Agency hasdecided that presentation of thetreatment standards on a waste codebasis (according to the wastewater and

26606




nonwastewater forms of the waste)provides a significant distinction of thetreatability groups.

The treatment standards for all ofthese cyanide wastes are based ontesting performed by the Agency or ontesting performed by the commercialhazardous waste treatment industry.Additional performance data weresubmitted during the comment period.Analysis of these dates support thepositions of many of the commenters (aswell as the Agency). EPA hasdetermined that the use of these data topromulgate revised treatment standardsfor many of the cyanide wastes istechnically justified. The Agencyprovided notice of these additional data(that provide the basis for many of thefinal treatment standards for cyanides]by sending a letter to all personssubmitting initial comments on the issueof cyanide treatability. This letterincluded: (1) A copy of the additionaldata on the treatment of cyanide thatwas received by the Agency; (2) a noticeof the anticipated changes in theappropriate treatment standards; and (3)a request for additional comments. Allof this information, including theAgency's response to the additionalcomments, have been placed in theadministrative record for today's rule.

The treatment standards for totalcyanides, amenable cyanides, andorganics (i.e., those in K011, K013, andK014) were developed based on theperformance of destructive technologiessuch as alkaline chlorination,electrolytic oxidation, wet air oxidationand/or incineration. The treatmentstandards for metals are based on theperformance of technologies such ashexavalent chromium reduction, lime orsulfide precipitation, filtration, andstabilization. Other treatmenttechnologies that can achieve theseconcentration-based treatmentstandards are not precluded from use bythis rule (see the detailed discussion onthe use of alternative technologies insection III.A.1.(c) of today's rule). Thespecific regulated constituents andtreatment standards for each wastecode are listed in the tables at the end ofsuch section according to thewastewater and nonwastewater formsof the waste.

1. Comments with generalapplicability to cyanide wastes. Thissection discusses the Agency's responseto those comments that pertain to all ormany of the cyanide wastes. Thisincludes comments on the following:precision of the analytical methods foramenable and total cyanides;establishment of alkaline chlorinationversus electrolytic oxidation as BDAT,

the forcing of pretreatment by BDAT,effects of iron-cyanide complexes oncyanide treatability; potentialstabilization of cyanides: and use of theTCLP for development of alternativeleachable cyanide standards.

i. Precision of analytical methods.Several commenters had seriousreservations regarding the precision andaccuracy of the analysis for total andamenable cyamudes in nonwastewaters.They pointed out that the reproducibility(i.e., precison) of the analytical methodfor analyzing total cyanide innonwastewaters (using the official testmethods of the Office of Solid Wastei.e., EPA Publication SW-846) exceededthe proposed standard for amenablecyanides in nonwastewaters. Analysisof amenable cyanide involves twomeasurements of total cyanides, i.e,, oneanalysis of total cyanide before and oneafter a laboratory alkaline chlorinationstep. The Agency has re-examined thedata used to develop the treatmentstandards for amenable cyanides.Although the Agency maintains theoverall validity of these analyticalmethods, it agrees, in part, with thecommenters that at certain levels oftotal cyanides the reproducibility of theanalytical method may indeed exceedthe standards for amenable cyanide asoriginally proposed. Thus, the Agencyhas recalculated the standards foramenable cyanides, and in doing so hastaken into account the reproducibility ofthe analytical method for total cyanides.The standards presented in today's rulehave been developed based on thesecalculations. Details on the recalculationof the amenable cyanide standards foreach waste treatability group areprovided in the background documentfor cyanide wastes.

ii. Alkaline chlorination versuselectrolytic oxidation. Severalcommenters questioned whether anelectrolytic oxidation treatment system,typically a batch process, could beimplemented in a continuouswastewater treatment process Thecommenters explained that mostelectroplating job shops that generateF006, F007 F008, and F009 wastesemploy a continuous alkalinechlorination process as part of theirwastewater treatment process. Thecommenters further stated that theycould not possibly retrofit existingfacilities by June 8, 1989, thepromulgation date of this rule.

The commenters' point was addressedchiefly to F006 wastes. However, thecomment no longer has applicability forF0O6 wastes (nor for F007 F008 or FO09)because electrolytic oxidation is nolonger the technology basis for the final

cyanide standards for these wastecodes. Rather, for these wastes, thepromulgated BDAT treatment standardsare based on the performance ofalkaline chlorination, withoutelectrolytic oxidation.

The Agency has determined thatelectrolytic oxidation is applicableprimarily as a pretreatment step,particularly when cyanideconcentrations in the raw waste arequite high (several percent, at least). It ispart of the basis for final treatmentstandards only for waste codes F011 andF012 nonwastewaters and certaindiscarded commercial chemicalproducts (i.e., those cyanide wastesidentified with a "P").

In addition, the Agency reemphasizesthat where BDAT treatment standardsare expressed as concentration limits, itis not required to use technologiesidentified as BDAT. Other treatmenttechnologies that can achieve theseconcentration-based standards are notprecluded from use by this rule. Furtherdiscussion on the restrictions on the useof technologies identified as BDAT canbe found in section III.A.l.(c.) of thisrule.

iii. Pretreatment standards. Accordingto 40 CFR 261.31, F006, F012 and F019,wastes are specifically listed aswastewater treatment sludges (Note: atthis time the Agency is not promulgatingtreatment standards for F019 wastes asdiscussed in section III.A.l.(c.)(4.)).Many commenters stated that byestablishing treatment standards forcyanides in these wastes, the Agency isrequiring pretreatment (of the cyanides)before the listed waste is generated.They assert that the Agency lacks theauthority to take such action underRCRA.

EPA rejects the view that thestatutory language of HSWA precludesthe approach adopted today. The statuterequires EPA to establish treatmentstandards "which substantially diminishthe toxicity of the waste or substantiallyreduce the likelihood of migration ofhazardous constituents from the waste

" (section 3004(m)(1)). Alkalinechlorination of aqueous cyanide streamsis a standard method of treatment thatdestroys cyarudes, and thussubstantially diminishes the toxicity ofthe wastewater treatment sludge,thereby satisfying this statutoryrequirement. In addition, Congressfocused specifically on the treatment ofcyanides in promulgating the 1984amendments and indicated that"[d]estruction of total cyanides shouldbe required as a precondition to landdisposal. 130 Cong. Rec. S 9179 (dailyed. July 25, 1984) (Statement of Senator

26607




Chaffee explaining the amendmentwhich became section 3004(m)).Cyanides in these wastes arecustomarily destroyed by treatingaqueous wastestreams. Given theevident Congressional purpose of theland disposal restriction provisions, andthe specific Congressional intention(quoted above) that cyanides bedestroyed, EPA believes that Congresswas not concerned whether cyanideswere destroyed before or after the listedwaste technically is generated, butrather was concerned with the cyanidecontent in the waste when disposed,Consequently, it is reasonable for theAgency to develop a standard which isachievable by treating cyanides beforethe listed waste is generated. (EPAemphasizes, however, that cyanidetreatment does not require any changeto the manufacturing process. It may incertain cases involve changes intreatment of wastewaters from themanufactunng processes.)

Commenters also stated that theBDAT technology studied by the Agencywas not based on the treatment ofwastewater treatment.sludges and thatthe technology could not be applied toF006, F012 or F019after generationparticularly when the wastewatertreatment processes included adewatering step. They asserted thatafter dewatering, the wastewatertreatment sludges have high solidcontent (approximately 40-60%) and asa result, could not be processed throughthe systems EPA determined to beBDAT. The Agency maintains that theBDAT technologies can be applied priorto the dewatering step or can be appliedafter dewatering by slurrying the wastewith water. In this case, the dewateringstep would probably only be performedin order to reduce the volume of thesewastes prior to transportation to atreatment and disposal facility. Indeed,one of the commercial facilities thattreat cyanide wastes informed EPA thatsome solid cyanide wastes were beingdissolved and slurried prior to treatmentthrough the BDAT process (after whichtreatment they are able to meet thecyanide treatment standards). While theAgency does not believe that slurryingthese wastes is necessarily the mostcost-effective way to perform alkalinechlorination (or other cyanidetreatment), this treatment optionremains available. In addition,generators of these sludges need notdewater them but rather may send thehigh water content sludges to alkalinechlorination. In either of thesesituations, cyanide treatment would beperformed on the listed waste itself.

The Agency also points out that this"pretreatment" argument appearsacademic, in that many of the wastesand wastewaters entering thewastewater treatment process thatgenerate F006, F012 and F019 arealready RCRA hazardous wastes or aremixed with hazardous wastes (such asF007 F008, F009, F010, and/or Foil). Inthese situations, EPA would be applyingtreatment standards to a cyanide-containing hazardous waste alreadygenerated, and in most cases, thecyanide standard would be the same asfor F006.

In conclusion, the commenter'sarguments regarding "pretreatment"appear artificial, and may have nopractical consequences. The Agencymaintains that these BDAT technologiesare applicable to these wastes and thusis promulgating the appropriatetreatment standards for cyanides.

iv. Treatment of iron-cyanidecomplexes. As stated m the proposed-rule and the proposed cyanidebackground document, the Agencybelieved that the F011 and F012 wastesthat were treated by the Agency hadsimilar chemical characteristics as F006,F007 F008, F009, and F019 wastes, andtherefore believed that the performanceof the treatment system of electrolyticoxidation followed by alkalinechlorination could be transferred tothese wastes. Many commenters statedthat EPA's performance data forelectrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination for total andamenable cyanide constituents in 7011and F012 nonwastewaters could not betransferred to F006, F007 F008, F009 andF019 nonwastewaters because of thedifferences in the concentration of iron-cyanide complexes. They stated thatthese complexes are more difficult totreat by conventional cyanide oxidationprocesses.

Based on a re-examination of thechemical composition and wastecharacteristics of these wastes, theAgency agrees with the commenters thatthe F006, F007 F008, F009 and F019wastes have different waste treatabilitycharacteristics than the F011 and F012wastes because of the iron-cyanidecomplexes. The Agency believes thatthe source of the high iron concentrationin these wastes may be due to the factthat these wastes are generated from theelectroplating industry and that thematerial being plated is steel. The ironcontained in steel is replaced with themetal contained within theelectroplating baths (for example zinc inzinc cyanide plating baths). The ironthat is thus released is believed to thenreact with the cyanide to form

compounds that are referred to as iron-complex cyanides.

Some iron in these wastes results, notfrom the plating process itself, but ratherfrom other sources that are generatedsporadically. These sources include:other metal finishing operations such asacid cleaning, descaling and pickling;the degradation of process tank liningsor racks; or the intermingling ofelectroplating rinse water streams withother wastes with high iron content.) Itis possible that these sources of iron canbe avoided by implementing wasteaudits and by application of simplesource reduction techniques such asproper equipment maintenance,segregation of high iron waste streams,and substitution of pickling/descalingacids. Because the principal source ofiron appears to be the steel platingprocess itself, however, EPA views thisas an intrinsic characteristic of theelectroplating wastewaters that needs tobe taken into account in assessing thetreatability of F006, F007 F008 and F009wastes.

The Agency agrees that the highconcentrations of iron in the cyanidewastes (when present as iron-cyanidecomplexes) appear to effect the level ofcyanide destruction that is achievable(i.e., they appear to be more difficult totreat). Data also indicate that someF006, F007 F008 and F009 wastescontaining low concentrations of iron (orno iron) appear to be treatable to lowercyanide concentrations than those withhigh iron. At ihis time, however, theAgency has not determined a specificconcentration of iron in these wastesthat would indicate a difference intreatability for the cyanides (ie., a,separate treatability group for F006,F007 F008 and F009 wastes containinglow iron), and thus promulgated a highertotal cyanide treatment standard of 590mg/kg for all F006, F007 F008 and F009wastes based on the new data providedby industry (that included wastestreatment performance data on wasteswith high iron content).

Where the Agency could determinethat specific cyanide waste codes (i.e.,F011, F012, P013, P021, P029, P030, P063,P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121)normally contain relatively lowconcentrations of iron, the Agencypromulgated the proposed total cyanidetreatment standard of 110 mg/kg.

Other commenters further stated thatnot only are the F006, F007 F008, andF009 wastes and F011 and F012 wastesdifferent in waste characteristics (suchas iron content] but also in the type ofmetal finishing processes that generatethese wastes. The F006, F007 F008, andF009 wastes are generated from the

26608




electroplating process and the Foil andF012 wastes are generated from a heattreating process. The commenters statedthat electroplaters have pretreatmentrequirements for NPDES permits fortotal and amenable cyanides and thatheat treaters are not subject to the samerequirements. Since alkalinechlorination is also the technology basisfor most of the cyanide treatmentstandards in today's rule, there is noinconsistency in the approach betweenthe Clean Water Act limitations andstandards and the treatment standardsadopted in today's rule. (As notedelsewhere, existing data show that thegreat majority of generators are meetingthe F006 treatment standards forcyanides with their existing wastewatertreatment technology.)

Clean Water Act effluent limitationsand standards could technically beachieved by adding reagents such asferrous sulfate to the wastewaters. EPA,however, did not base the NPDES andpretreatment standards on precipitationwith ferrous sulfate but rather onalkaline chlorination to destroycyanides and hydroxide precipitation toremove metals. If a company chooses toprecipitate with ferrous sulfate, there isan increase in concentration of the iron-cyanide complexes that results in anincrease of the measured total cyanideconcentration in the sludge (i.e.,nonwastewaters) generated from thewastewater treatment. The Agencymaintains that, in most cases, this typeof addition of ferrous ions can beelinnated through proper design andoperation of the existing onsite cyanidedestruction technologies withoutsignificantly impacting the achievementof the NPDES effluent limitations oncyanides.

By reducing thq concentration of iron-cyanide complexes that end up in thewastewater treatment sludges, thepotential for release of toxic cyanidesfrom land disposal units is reduced. Thisis entirely consistent with theCongressional intent with respect to thedestruction of cyarude. (See furtherdiscussion in section Ill.A.3.(a.)(1.)(vi.)of today's rule.)

v. Stabilization of cyanides. Severalcommenters stated that the Agencyshould consider stabilization as aneffective technology for the treatment ofcyanides. Commenters also stated thatthe Agency did not provide anystabilization data in the backgrounddocument or the administrative record.At the time of proposal, the Agency hadnot reviewed any performance data forstabilization that meet the QA/QCrequirements for determining BDAT.During the comment period, the Agency

had an opportunity to review somestabilization data that was generated byboth the Agency and industry. (Thisdata appears in the final backgrounddocument for cyanide wastes and hasbeen placed in the administrativerecord.]

The Agency does not agree withcommenters that stabilization is anapplicable technology for the treatmentof the majority of cyanide wastes. Whilesome data may indicate thatstabilization processes appear to reducethe leachability of some forms ofcyanide, the Agency contends thatdestruction of cyanide is clearly apreferred treatment method (as furtherdiscussed in section III.A.3.a.l.vi. oftoday's rule). The Agency believes thatthe majority of commercially availableconventional stabilization technologiesare primarily designed to stabilizecationic species (such as many of theBDAT list metals) and are notspecifically designed for anionic species(such as cyanide). The Agency believesthat the presence of certain metalcomplex cyanides may appear to givethe effect of "stabilization" due to thelow solubility of these cyanidecomplexes. The Agency believes thatthe extrapolation of stabilization dataon wastes containing complexedcyanides could lead to erroneousassumptions on the ability of cyanidesthat are somewhat more soluble to be"stabilized" In addition, solitary use oftreatment processes that convert thesoluble cyanides present in the wastesto a less soluble state (i.e., complexedcyanides) for purposes of stabilizationdoes not provide an overall reduction intoxicity. (See following discussion ofleachable cyanides.)

vi. Use of-the TCLP for leachablecyanide. Many commenters stated thatthe Agency should develop treatmentstandards for cyanides based on aleachable level of cyanide as opposed toa total cyanide level. The Agency hasreviewed the data submitted bycommenters on the level of leachablecyanides and the analysis of the dataappears in the background document forcyanide wastes and in theadministrative record for today's rule.The Agency strongly disagrees with thecommenters that the cyanide treatmentstandards should be based on leachablelevels. The Agency believes that thelegislative history to RCRA section3004(m) indicates that Congressintended that the "destruction of totalcyanides would be required as aprecondition to land disposal" (130Congressional Record S9179, July 25,1984, statement of Senator Chafee).

The treatment standards for cyanidesare based on a total waste analysis fortwo reasons. First, the Agency believesthat by only regulating the leachablecyanide concentration, the complex-metal cyanides that are present in thewastes would not be regulated. Second,based on the review of the availabletreatment data, the Agency believes thatthe conventional cyanide treatmenttechnologies provide substantialtreatment of both the amenable andtotal cyanide concentration as measuredby the Cyanide Amenable toChlorination test in Method 9010 (EPAPublication SW-846).

Finally, the Agency believes that thereis a real potential for the complexedcyanides that are present in thesewastes to at least partially degrade intothe more toxic form of cyanides knownas "free"-cyanides. This process isanticipated to result from exposure toultraviolet light (from sunlight) when thewastes are placed into certain landdisposal units such as a surfaceimpoundment. This is consistent withthe Agency's approach to establishingeffluent guideline limitations for totalcyanides in wastewater discharges fromthese same metal finishing industries.

In today's rule, the Agency ispromulgating a total cyanide standardfor F006, F007 F008, and F009nonwastewaters as 590 mg/kg. Thisstandard is higher than the proposedstandard of 110 mg/kg and therebyallows for an overall higherconcentration of iron cyanide complexesto be present in the nonwastewaters. Atthe same time, based on the sameperformance data, the total cyanidestandard for wastewaters has beenreduced from 12 mg/l to 1.9 mg/l and theamenable cyanide standard forwastewaters has been reduced from 1.3mg/l to 0.10 mg/l. Since the complexedcyanides present in wastewaters aremore likely to be subject tophotodegradation to "free" cyanide thanthose in the nonwastewaters, theAgency believes that these revised totaland amenable cyanide standardspromulgated in today's rule provide asignificant overall reduction in potentialtoxicity from the photodegradation ofiron-cyanide complexes.

2. Wastes from electroplatingoperationsF006--Wastewater treatment sludges

from electroplating operations exceptfrom the following processes: (1)Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum;(2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zincplating (segregated basis) on carbonsteel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminumplating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and

26609




aluminum plating on carbon steel; and(6) chemical etching and milling ofaluminum.

F007-Spent cyanide plating bathsolutions from electroplatingoperations.

F008-Plating bath sludges from thebottom of plating baths from theelectroplating operations wherecyanides are used in the process.

F009-Spent stripping and cleaning bathsolutions from electroplatingoperations where cyanides are used mthe process.Today's rule promulgates treatment

standards for amenable and totalcyanides in F006 nonwastewaters, andfor amenable cyanides, total cyanides,and metal constituents in F007 F008,and F009 nonwastewaters andwastewaters. BDAT treatmentstandards for the nonwastewaters arebased on the performance of alkalinechlorination for the amenable and totalcyanides and stabilization for the metalconstituents. BDAT treatment standardsfor the wastewaters are based on theperformance of alkaline chlorination forthe amenable and total cyanides andchemical precipitation followed bysettling and filtration for the metals.

I. Nonwastewaters. In the January 11,1989 proposed rule (54 FR 1066-1071),the Agency proposed nonwastewatertreatmentstandards based on theperformance of electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination foramenable and total cyanides. TheAgency received comments thatquestioned whether the performance ofelectrolytic oxidation is considereddemonstrated because of the limitednumber of data points.-The Agencymaintains that the use of a small numberof data points from a single facility canbe representative of the treatmentachieved by any particular treatmentsystem (such as those data fromelectrolytic oxidation). However, theAgency has received a significantamount of new data on alkalinechlorination that form the basis for thecyanide treatment standards for F006,F007 F008 and F009 wastes promulgatedin today's rule.

The Agency also received extensivecomments that questioned thedevisability of the proposed standards.In particular, many commenters statedthat performance data for F011 and F012wastes (based on electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination)should not be transferred to F006, F007F008, F009 wastes because of thedifferences in concentration of iron-cyanide complexes in these wastes. (Seesection III.A.3.(a.)(1.)(iv.) for a morecomplete discussion of the Agency's

position on the treatment of iron-cyanide complexes). The Agency agreeswith the commenters that a sufficientnumber of F006, F007 F008 and F009electroplating wastes have differenttreatablity characteristics (i.e., high ironconcentration) than F011 and F012wastes, and that the proposed transferof the treatment standards is no longerwarranted. Therefore, the Agency ispromulgating revised cyanide treatmentstandards based on the new alkalinechlorination performance data receivedby the Agency during the commentperiod. (This data appeared as part ofthe record for the proposed rule and isalso part of the administrative record forthis final rule. See further discussion ofhow the Agency noticed this data andsolicited additional comment in theintroduction to section III.A.3.(a.) oftoday's preamble.)

In supplemental comments on thisnew data, certain commentersquestioned the devisability of therevised treatment standard of 590 mg/kgfor total cyanide m nonwastewaters.(The proposed standard was 110 mg/kg.)They reiterated their previous argumentthat this standard was onlyrepresentative of the treatment ofwastewaters and not representative ofthe treatment of FOO as generated. Inaddition, they stated that the revisedstandard was based on insufficientoperating data. Some commenters alsoindicated that some of their F006 wastes(as generated) would not be able tomeet even the revised standard for totalcyanides.

EPA is responding in detail to both theinitial comments to the proposed ruleand these additional comments in thebackground document for cyanidewastes and in the response to commentsbackground document, and will addressa few of the major points in today'spreamble. First, the treatment standardis based on one month of operating data(14 data points) which the Agency hasexamined carefully and believes (basedon detailed descriptions of the treatmentprocess plus descriptions of samplingand analysis data) represent a well-designed and well-operated treatmentprocess and that represent BDATtreatment for F006, F007 F008 and F009wastes.

Second, although not all of the datacame from treating F006 wastes (in fact,treatment was performed during a onemonth period on RCRA wastesidentified as F006, F007 F008, F009,F011, F012, D002, D003, P029, P030 andP106), the waste mixtures that weretreated should be more difficult to treatthan segregated F006 wastes. This isbecause the mixtures of these RCRAwastes contained roughly an order of

magnitude more iron and cyanide andgreater concentrations of the minorcomplexing metals, nickel, zinc, andcopper than typical F006 precursorwastewaters from electroplating (basedon a review of the data used to develop

'the effluent guidelines limitations forcyanides from the metal finishingindustries).

Third, with respect to the devisabilityof the revised standards, the Agencypoints out that most of the treatmentand waste characterization datasubmitted to the Agency corroboratesthat the 590 mg/kg standard for totalcyanide is achievable. Over 90 percentof the waste characterization data forF006 sludges reported to the Agency incomments to the proposed rule(submitted by both the affected industryand treatment facilities alike) meet thepromulgated standard for total cyanidesin F006 nonwastewaters. Not only dothese comments confirm the ultimatestandard's devisability, but also implygenerators do not need to makesignificant modifications m their currenttreatment processes in order to meet thestandard.

In addition, EPA reviewed treatmentand waste characterization datacontained in over 1500 individualfacility's responses submitted to theAgency as part of the 1986 TreatmentStorage, Disposal and Recycling Surveyand the 1986 Generator Survey (whichresponses were selected by EPA fromgenerators generating the largestvolumes of F006 wastes). Again, theseresponses corroborated the standard'sdevisability (plus the lack of need tomodify existing treatment processes).The responses EPA reviewed showedthat over 90 percent of the F006wastewater treatment sludges generatedcontained less than the 590 mg/kg totalcyanide treatment standard required asa result of today's rule. That is,treatment performed with existingtreatment technology before impositionof treatment standards for cyanides inwastewater treatment sludge indicatethat over 90 percent of facilities arealready achieving the standard. TheAgency believes that these data showthat most of the industry is capable ofmeeting the total cyanide standardthrough proper operation of thetreatment technology that is already inplace at the generators' facilities.

Further, for those few instances wherecommenters claimed to be unable tomeet the 590 mg/kg standard, theyprovided no information on thecircumstances of treatment orgeneration, leaving the Agency nomeans of ascertaining why the cyanidestandards promulgated in today's rule

26610




were not achievable. In short, EPAbelieves there is ample support forstating that the total cyanide standardfor F006, F007 F008 and F009nonwastewaters promulgated in today'srule is achievable.

The standards for amenable cyanidesin the nonwastewater forms of F006,F007 F008 and F009 reflect the limits ofprecision of the analytical method forcyanides amenable to chlorination (sothat the amenable cyanide isapproximately 5 percent of the standardfor total cyanides). EPA believes thatproperly conducted alkaline chlorinationactually destroys free cyanides to agreater extent, but that it is difficult tomeasure amenable cyanides innonwastewaters. No commentersuggested that a free cyanide standardof 30 mg/kg was not achievable forthese nonwastewaters.

The Agency is promulgating treatmentstandards for the metal constituents mF007 F008, and F009 nonwastewaters,based on the transfer of performancedata from the stabilization of F006wastes. (The metal standards for F006nonwastewaters were promulgated inthe First Third final rule (see 53 FR31152-31153) and are not being revisedin today's rule.) The Agency received nocomments or data refuting this transfer.

ii. Wastewaters. Today's rulepromulgates revised treatmentstandards for amenable and totalcyanides and metal constituents in F007F008, and F009 wastewaters. In theJanuary 11, 1989 proposed rule (54 FR1066-1071), EPA proposed treatmentstandards based on performance of wetair oxidation for cyanides, and chemicalprecipitation followed by settling andfiltration for metals.

Many commenters expressedconcerns that the data base used by theAgency to establish treatment standardsfor cyanide were limited. They thereforequestioned whether wet air oxidation isa demonstrated technology. However,the issue is essentially moot for thesewaste codes because during thecomment period the Agency receivedcyanide treatment data for F007 F008,and F009 wastewaters based on theperformance of alkaline chlorination.EPA performed a statistical comparisonof wet air oxidation and alkalinechlorination and found that there is astatistical difference between the twotechnologies for cyanides. The Agencydetermined that alkaline chlorinationtechnology performs better than wet airoxidation for these particular wastesbased on a comparison of the availabledata. Therefore, the Agency ispromulgating revised wastewatertreatment standards for cyanides to

reflect BDAT as alkaline chlorination.These data (which substantially

expand the treatment data base forthese wastewaters) also indicate thatthe standard for these wastewatersshould be decreased from the proposedlevel to 1.9 mg/l total cyanide and 0.10mg/l amenable cyanide (from 12 mg/land 1.3 mg/l respectively). Thesestandards are more similar to thepromulgated effluent guidelineslimitations and standards for the metalfinishing industries. Commenters, infact, raised no significant challenges toEPA's solicitation to lower thewastewater standard for these wastes.

The Agency is promulgating thewastewater treatment standards formetals in F007 FO08, and F009 based onthe transfer of the treatmentperformance data for chemicalprecipitation, settling, filtration andsludge dewatering for K062 wastes. TheAgency believes that the K062wastewaters are more difficult to treatthan F007 F008, and F009 wastewatersbased on the higher concentrations ofdissolved metals in K062 (up to 100,000mg/1).

The Agency is not promulgating thetreatment standards for total andamenable cyanide in F006 wastewatersat this time. Concentration-basedtreatment standards for cyanides andmetal constituents in the F006wastewaters will be promulgated byMay 8, 1990. It is likely that the total andamenable cyanide treatment standardfor the F006 wastewaters will be basedon a data transfer from the performanceof alkaline chlorination for the F007F008, and F009 wastewaters. It is likelythat the metal treatment standards willbe based upon information availablefrom EPA's effluent limitationsguidelines and standards program. Sinceno treatment standards are promulgatedin today's rule for F006 wastewaters,these wastes continue to be subject tothe "soft hammer" provisions of 40 CFR268.8.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for any singlegrab sample

Constituent Total TCLPcomposition (mg/I)

(mg/kg)

Cyanides (total) 590 (1)

Cyanides (amenable) 30 (')

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F007F008 AND F009[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for any single

grab sample

Constituent Total TCLP

composition (mg/I)(mg/kg)

Cyanides (total) .................. 590 (1)Cyanides (amenable) .......... 30 (1)Cadmium .............................. (1) 0.066Chromium ............................ (1) 5.2Lead ...................................... (1) 0.51Nickel ................................... (I) 0.32Silver .................................... (1) 0.072

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F007F008 AND F009

[Wastewaters]


grab sample


composition (mg/I)(rag/I)

Cyanides (total) ................... 1.9 (1)Cyanides (amenable) .......... 0.10 (1)Chromium ..... ............. 0.32 (1)Lead ..... .. ............... 0.04 (1)Nickel .................................... 0.44 (')

Not applicable.

3. Wastes from Metal Heat TreatingOperations.F010-Quenching bath sludge from oil

baths from metal heat treatingoperations where cyanides are used inthe process.

Foil-Spent cyanide solutions from saltbath pot cleaning from metal heattreating operations.

F012-Quenching wastewater treatmentsludges from metal heat treatingoperations where cyamdes are used tnthe process.Today's rule promulgates treatment

standards for F310, Foil, and F012wastewaters and nonwastewaters.Treatment standards for total cyanide inF010 nonwastewaters are based on theperformance of incineration. Treatmentstandards for Foil and F012nonwastewaters are based on theperformance of electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination foramenable and total cyanides, and basedon the performance of stabilization forthe metal constituents. Treatmentstandards for amenable and totalcyanide in F010, Foil and F012wastewaters are based on theperformance of alkaline chlorination.Treatment standards for metals in Foiland F012 wastewaters are based on theperformance of chemical precipitation,

26611



Federal Register _ Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

settling, and filtration. Othertechnologies that can achieve theseconcentration-based treatmentstandards are not precluded from use bythis rule.

EPA notes that the technology basisfor treating, cyanides in the wastewatersfrom F010, F0Il and F012 differ from thetechnology basis for treatment of thecorresponding nonwastewaters. EPA,however, expects that the technologyused to treat the cyanides m thenonwastewaters will achieve thestandards promulgated for thewastewaters.

Thus,, EPA expects that if an FO1waste is incinerated, then the F010scrubber water that may be generatedas a residue from incineration will notneed further treatment for cyanidesbecause they will already meet thepromulgated treatment standards. If anyF010 wastewaters are generated by aprocess other than incineration and theydo not meet the treatment standards,then it would be reasonable to treatthese wastewaters with alkalinechlorination rather than Incineration.

In a similar manner, wastewatersgenerated from the treatment of F011 orF012 nonwastewaters using electrolyticoxidation followed by alkalinechlorination are not expected to needfurther treatment for cyanides becausethe Agency believes that thesewastewaters will also already meet thepromulgated standards. However, if anyF011 or F012 wastewaters are generatedby another treatment technology and donot meet the treatment standards asgenerated, it would also be reasonableto treat these wastewaters with alkalinechlorination alone rather thanelectrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination. (Electrolyticoxidation is applicable primarily as apretreatment step, particularly whencyanide concentrations in the raw wasteare quite high.)

i. Standards for F010 wastes. In theJanuary 11, 1989 proposed rule, theAgency proposed a treatment standardfor total cyanide. in F010nonwastewaters based on BDAT asincineration. Also, EPA indicated thatthese wastes could contain up to apercent oil, and grease content and canexist as a bi-layered waste, i.e. organicand aqueous layer. Based onconversations with the treaters of thiswaste, the Agency believes that the Foiwastes can be separated into an organiclayer and an, aqueous layer. This F010organic layer is what is typicallyincinerated., while the FO() aqueouslayer can be treated by conventionalcyanide treatment rather thanincineration. At the time of the proposal,the Agency had not examined the

efficiency of this separation process,and so proposed standards for all FOIGnonwastewaters based on theincineration of the wastes.

Also, in the proposal, the Agency didnot clarify what the treatment standardswould be for F010 nonwastewaters thatcould be generated from the alkalinechlorination treatment of the separatedaqueous layer (an F010 wastewater).During the comment period, the Agencyreceived no comments (or data)indicating the efficiency of theseparation of the layers or whether theproposed treatment standard (based onincineration) could be met.

In this rule, the Agency is clarifying itsposition on the treatment standards forthe F010 nonwastewaters that might begenerated from treating a separatedF010 aqueous layer or other F010wastewaters. As a point of clarification.the Agency first notes that treatmentresidues from treating F010 wastewatersare listed under the F012 waste code(wastewater treatment sludge frommetal heat treating operation] andwould therefore be subject to thecyanide standards for F012nonwastewaters. Such sludges wouldtherefore not be subject to the standards,based on performance of incineration.With respect to F010 wastewaters, the,Agency believes that aqueous F010wastewaters have similar wastecharacteristics to F011 and F012wastewaters. The Agency is thereforetransferring the performance of thetreatment system of alkalinechlorination for the cyanide constituents(based on the new data obtained onalkaline chlorination during thecomment period). See the followingdiscussion of treatment standards forF011 and F012 wastewaters.. Therefore,the treatment standards for amenablecyanides and total cyanides in F0=Dwastewaters are 0.10 mg/I and 1.9 mg/lrespectively. The promulgated treatmentstandard for residues from theincineration of the F00 organic layer(i.e., F010 nonwastewaters high inorganics) is 1.5 mg/kg, the samestandard that EPA proposed. TheAgency notes that if a generator ortreater of a F010 wastes does notseparate the waste into the two layers,that facility would have to meet the 1.5mg/kg treatment standard for totalcyanides in the nonwastewaterresiduals (based on incineration].

The Agency did not propose treatmentstandards for any metals contained nF010 wastewaters or nonwastewaters.At the time, the Agency had no wastecharacterization data that indicated the.presence of hazardous metals in theuntreated wastes. In addition, theAgency received no comments or data

indicating that metals were present inthese wastes. As a result, the Agency ispromulgating only the treatmentstandards for cyanides contained mFol1 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.This does not preclude the Agency fromproposing the regulation of metals inthese wastes if any F010 wastecharacterization data or treatmentperformance data become available.if. Standards for F01i and F012

wastes. The treatment standardsproposed on January i1, i98g, for Falland F012 nonwastewaters were basedon the performance of electrolyticoxidation followed by alkalinechlorination for the cyanides (both totaland amenable) and stabilization for themetal constituents. The Agency is notbasing treatment standards for thesewastes on the new alkaline. chlorinationdata used to establish standards forF006, F007 F008 and F009 wastes Thetreatment standards for FOl1 and F012wastes are thus substantially lower thanthose for the other waste codes. TheAgency believes that this is appropiatenot only because of the. existingperformance data supporting the lowerstandard, but because these wastes donot have the treatability characteristics(i.e., high iron concentrations) thatjustify the higher standards for F00B,F007 F008, and F009 nonwastewaters.

The Agency is promulgating a totalcyanide standard of 100 mg/kg and anamenable cyanide standard of 9.1 mg/kg-for F011 and F012 nonwastewaters. Theamenable cyanide standard is based onmeasured concentrations of amenablecyanides in FLIl and F012 treatmentresiduals rather than based only on thereproducibility of the analytic methodfor total cyanides.

(Note.-The Agency used thereproducibility of the analysis for totalcyanides to establish the amenable eyanidestandards for F006, F007 Fo00 and F009nonwastewaters because the data indicatedthat the amenable cyanmdes could be reducedto below the reproducibility of the analysisfor total cyanides. The treatment dataindicated that this was not the case for Falland F012, wastes.)

Two commenters believed that thecalculation of the variability factor forthe total cyanide treatment standard(100 mg/kg) for these wastes wasincorrect. The Agency disagrees withthe commenters. The calculation of avariability factor for two data points isbased on the standard deviation and themean. EPA uses the two data points asthe limits on lognormal distribution.Based on this information, thecalculated variability factor is 1.5&Thus, the variability factor multiplied bythe mean of the two data points

26612




represents the treatment standard. Thecalculation of these standards is furtherclarified and presented in the finalbackground document for cyanidewastes and the administrative record forthis rule.

The Agency received extensivecomments on its use of only two datapoints to establish the treatmentstandards for cyanides based on theperformance of electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination. Asdiscussed previously in sectionlII.A.l.(f.) of today's rule and in theAugust 17 1989 final rule for First Thirdwastes, the Agency believes that the useof a small number of data sets from asingle facility can be representative ofthe treatment achieved by the particulartreatment system. EPA has a mandatoryduty to issue standards on a very tighttimetable, and automatic consequencesoccur should the Agency fail to act.Under these circumstances, EPA mustbase standards on the best dataavailable to it, even if the data islimited. If better sources of data weremade available, EPA would make everyeffort to use them (as has occurred witha number of wastes in this rulemaking,such as in the development of standardsfor the organophosphorus wastetreatability group as discussed insection II.A.3.(h.) of today's preamble).Therefore, the Agency is promulgatingthe final standard based on theinformation available.

For F012 nonwastewaters (as withF006), many commenters stated that theAgency is requiring a pretreatment forthe cyanides before the hazardouswaste (as listed) is actually generated.The Agency has responded to this issueon pretreatment in detail m sectionIII.A.3.(a.)(1.](a)(iii.) of today's preamble.

The proposed treatment standards forFoil and F012 wastewaters were basedon the performances of wet airoxidation for the cyanides and chemicalprecipitation, settling, and filtration forthe metal constituents. During thecomment period the Agency receivedperformance data for the treatment ofcyanides in wastewaters by alkalinechlorination. EPA performed a statisticalcomparison of the data from wet airoxidation and the new data fromalkaline chlorination and found thatalkaline chlorination performed better.Therefore, EPA is promulgating revisedtreatment standards for total andamenable cyanides for Foil and F012wastewaters based on these new dataand is transferring these standards toFo1 wastewaters as previouslydiscussed.

The Agency is promulgating the metalstandards for Foil and F012nonwastewaters based on the transfer

of the treatment performance data forchemical precipitation, settling, filtrationand sludge dewatering for K062 wastes.The Agency believes that the K062wastes are more difficult to treat thanthe residues from treatment of Foil andF012 based on the higher concentrationsof dissolved metals in K062 (up to100,000 mg/I).

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F010

[Nonwastewaters]


Constitutent Total TCLPcomposition (m/)

(mg/kg)

Cyanides (total) ................... 1.5 (1)

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F010

[Wastewaters)


Consitutent Total Ccomposition (m/)(mg/)

Cyanides (total) 1............. 9 (1)Cyanides (amenable) ...... 0.10 ()

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F01 1AND F012

[Nonwastewaters]


Constitutent Total TCLPcomposition (mg/I)(mg/k)

Cyanides (total) ............... 110 ()Cyanides (amenable) 9.1 ()Cadmium .............................. (1) 0.066

Chromium ............................ ( 2) 5.2Lead ..................................... ( ) 0.51Nickel ........................... ( 4) 0.32Silver ................................. (1) 0.072

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F01 1AND F01 2

[Nonwastewaters]


Constitutent Total T Lcomposition (ms/I)

(ms/I)

Cyanides (total) ................... 1.9 (1)Cyanides (amenable) .......... 0.10 (1)Chromium ............................. 0.32 (1)Lead ...................................... 0.04 (1)Nickel ............................ 0.44 (1)

Not applicable.

4. F019 wastes.

F019-Wastewater treatment sludgesfrom the chemical conversion coating ofaluminum.

Today's rule does not promulgatetreatment standards for the wastewateror nonwastewater forms of 1019. Thiswaste was originally scheduled forregulation in the First Third, with thestatutory deadline of August 8, 1988.Since the Agency did not promulgatestandards for the wastewater ornonwastewater forms of F019, landdisposal of these wastes shall continueto be regulated by the "soft hammer"provisions in 40 CFR 268.8. EPA intendsto promulgate concentration-basedtreatment standards for cyanides andmetals constituents in F019 wastes byMay 8, 1990.

The Agency believes that F019 wastesare in a different treatability group thanF006, F007 F008, and F009 electroplatingwastes or F010, Foil, and F012 heattreating wastes due to the very highconcentration of iron-cyanide complexesin both the wastewaters andnonwastewaters. These iron levels aresignificantly higher than those found inF006 wastewater precursors, and higherthan any of the wastes used to establishBDAT for the electroplating wastes. TheAgency believes that the source of theiron-cyanide complexes is the solubleferrocyanide compounds (such aspotassium ferrocyanide) that are used asconstituents in aluminum conversioncoating compounds or baths. Therefore,the cyanides present in these conversioncoating baths would be the iron-cyanidecomplexes which are used as acomponent of the coating. The Agencybelieves that F019 nonwastewaters orthe wastewater treated to generate thiswaste have substantial concentrationsof iron-cyanide complexes. The Agencybelieves that the source of iron for theF019 waste is a legitimate source of ironand that F019 wastes represent aseparate treatability group of cyanidewastes.

The Agency is investigatingultraviolet/ozonation, wet air oxidation,hydrolysis and incineration as potentialcandidates for BDAT. Recovery or reuseof the wastes containing iron-cyanidecomplexes is also being considered. Inthe interim, the "soft hammer"provisions continue to apply to the landdisposal of F019 wastes.

5. Wastes from Acrylonitrile Production.

KO11-Bottom stream from thewastewater stripper in the production ofacrylonitrile.

26613



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 t Friday June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

K013-Bottom stream from theacetonitrile column in the production ofacrylonitrile.

K014-Bottoms from the acetonitrilepurification column in the production ofacrylonitrife.

Wastes identified as K011, K013, andK014 are generated primarily in theorganic chemicals manufacturingindustry, specifically those engaged inthe production of acrylonitrile. Detailedtechnical descriptions of the specificproduction processes generating thesewastes can be found in the finalbackground document for these wastes.

Todav's rule promulgates treatmentstandards for K011, K'013, and K014nonwastewaters based on theperformance of incineration. Othertreatment technologies that can achievethese concentration-based standards,such as wet air oxidation, are notprecluded from use by this rule. EPA ispromulgating treatment standards forfour organic constituents and for totalcyanide. At this time the Agency is notpromulgating any standards for K011,K013, or K014 wastewaters. The specificregulated constituents and treatmentstandards for these wastes are listed in,tables at the end of this section.

i. Non wastewaters. In the January 11,1989 proposed rule (54 FR 1066-1071),the Agency proposed treatmentstandards for nonwastewaters based onthe performance of incineration for totalcyanide and organics and stabilizationfor the metal constituents, specificallynickel.

Several commenters argued againstdeveloping a treatment standard fornickel because, based on wastecharacterization data. nickel was notpresent in significant concentrations inthe raw waste. Commenters also statedthat the presence of certain constituents(e.g., sulfates and ammonia] wouldmake the removal of nickel fromwastewaters, and the stabilization ofnickel in the sludge and ash, much moredifficult than the Agency has estnated,thereby making the BDAT treatmentstandards unachievable.

The Agency has concluded, based onextensive review of existing data, thatnickel is not present in concentrationsthat would merit regulation as part ofthe K0I, K013, and K0114 treatmentstandards, and therefore is removingnickel from the list of regulatedconstituents for KO11, K013, and K014nonwastewaters. If additional treatmentperformance data for nickel becomesavailable, the Agency is not precludedfrom regulating nickel as anonwastewater treatment standard for

K011, K013, and K014 wastes. As a resultof this determination, the Agency isrevising its, BDAT treatment standardsfor K011, K013, and K014nonwastewaters to be based solely onthe performance of incineration.

ii. Wastewaters. In the January 11,1989 proposed rule (54 FR 1068-10711,the Agency proposed wastewatertreatment standards based on the.performance of wet air oxidationfollowed by biological treatment foramenable cyanides, total cyanides, andorganic constituents, and chemicalprecipitation, settling, and filtration formetal constituents.'The Agency receivedmany comments concerned with EPA'srationale for transferring performancedata for the cyanide constituents fromwet air oxidation of FO7 wastes, andfor organic constituents from the effluentlimitations for facilities in the OrgamcChemical Plastics and Synthetic Fibers(OCPSF) industry for biologicaltreatment. Because of these commentsand the additional treatment data thatare being compiled by the Ad HocAcrylonitrile Producers UIC Group, theAgency believes that additional datacollection and analysis is necessaryprior to promulgation of these treatmentstandards.

Therefore, today's rule does notpromulgate treatment standards for thewastewater forms of Kol, K013 and.K014. These wastes were originallyscheduled for regulation in the FirstThird, with a statutory deadline of'August 8, 1988. Since the Agency stillhas not promulgated standards for thewastewater forms of K011, K013 andK014, land disposal of thesewastewaters shall continue to beregulated by the "soft hammer"provisions in 40 CFR 268.8. EPA intendsto promulgate concentration-basedtreatment standards for cyarides,organics, and metals constituents forthese wastes prior to May 8, 1990.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FORK011, K013, AND K014

[Nonwastewaters]


Constituent Totalcomposition

(mg/kg) (mg/I)

Acetonitle .... .............. 1.8 (')Acryoni frile ........ . 1.4 ()Acrylamide ...... 23. ()Benzene... .... ..... . ... 3 (')Cyanides (Total) .................. 57- (t)

Not applicable.

6. Cyanide wastes designated with a"P" waste code.

P013--Barium cyanideP021--Caleium cyanideP029-Copper cyamdeP030-Sohlble cyanides salts (NOSjP063-Hydrogen cyanideP074-Nickel cyanideP098--Potassrum cyanideP099-Potassium silver cyanide,P104--Silver cyanideP106--Sodium cyanideP121-Zinc cyanide

Wastes identified as P013, P021,. P029,P030, P063, P074, P098, P099, P104, P108,and P12l are usually discarded, out-of-date, or off-specifica tion chemicals.Facilities in industries such aselectroplating, heat treating, chemicalconversion coating of aluminum, andacrylonitrile production typicallygenerate these wastes.

P013, P021, P099, and P121 and ThirdThird wastes that were originallyscheduled to be regulated no later thanMay 8, 1990. Several commentersopposed accelerating the schedule forthese wastes. However, the statute does.not preclude EPA from prohibiting theland disposal of a given waste ahead ofschedule (and the schedule in §§ 268.10through 26&12 itself says that wasteswill be evaluated by a given date,indicating that the specified date is thelatest time by which EPA must act). TheAgency believes that this is aparticularly prudent approach for P013,P021, P099, and P121 because thesewastes are not only generated, but aresimilar to Foil and FO1Z wastes from theheat treating industry.

Today's rule promulgatesconcentration-based treatmentstandards for wastewater andnonwastewater forms of these wastes.BDAT for the nonwastewater forms ofthese wastes is based on theperformance of electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination for thecyanide constituents, and stabilizationfor the metal constituents. BDAT for thewastewater forms of these wastes isbased on the performance of alkalinechlorination for the cyanide constituentsand chemical precipitation, settling, andfiltration for the metal constituents(where regulatedl. Treatment standardsfor these wastes were transferred fromthe performance of the BDAT for theF011 and F012 waste codes generatedfrom heat treating operations. Thesediscarded commercial chemicalproducts do not contain highconcentrations of iron and therefore theAgency believes that the treatmentstandards need not reflect thedifficulties of treating complex cyanides.

26614




The Agency is thus promulgating theseconcentration-based treatmentstandards in this section due to thesimilarity of these "P" wastes to thelisted metal heat treating wastes.

Treatment standards for nickel inP074 and silver in P099 and P104nonwastewaters are based on theperformance of stabilization of F00nonwastewaters. Treatment standardsfor nickel in P074 wastewaters arebased on the performance of chemicalprecipitation and filtration of K062wastewaters. The Agency believes thatthese wastes are more difficult to treatthan the corresponding P wastes basedon the higher concentrations of metalsand dissolved solids anticipated to bepresent in F006 and K062 as comparedto the P wastes (i.e., up to 100,000 ppm).The Agency is not promulgatingtreatment standards for barium in anyP013 wastes or for silver in P099 andP104 wastewaters due to the currentlack of treatment data for these metalsin their respective waste types. TheAgency is not precluded fromdeveloping standards for barium orsilver in these particular wastes iftreatment data becomes available.

One commenter argued that theAgency should not regulate copper orzinc, as EPA proposed to do, becausethey are not hazardous constituentsspecifically listed in Appendix VIII of 40CFR Part 261. The Agency does nottotally agree, in that both zinc andcopper are components of zinc cyanideand copper cyanide. EPA hasdetermined that both zinc and copperexhibit aquatic toxicity, and hasconsidered adding these constituents toAppendix VIII for that reason. However,EPA has decided to reserve thatdetermination for a later rulemaking,and is only regulating cyanides in thesewastes (P029 and P121).

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P013,P021, P029, P030, P063, P074, P098,P099, P104, P106, AND P121

(Nonwastewaters]


Constituent Total TCLPcomposition (rgP

(mg/kg) (mg/I)

Cyanides (total) ................. 110 .............. ()Cyanides (amenable) . 9.1 ............... (1).Nickel (P074 only) ............ ().................... 0.32Silver (P099 and P104 ( .................... 0.072

only).

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P013,P021, P029, P030, P063, P074, P098,P099, P104, P106, AND P121

[Wastewaters]


Constituent Total TCLPcomposition (mg/1(mg/) (mg-I

Cyanides (total) ....... 1 .............. (')Cyanides (amenable) ....... 0.10 ............. ()Nickel (P074 only) ............ 0.44 .................

Not applicable.

7 Cyanide Wastes Designated as D003Reactive.

Today's rule does not promulgatetreatment standards for wastesidentified as D003 wastes. In the January11, 1989 proposed rule, the Agencypresented a strategy for thedevelopment of treatment standards forcyanide wastes designated as D003 (see54 FR 1071) and proposed a subcategoryfor D003 identified as the ReactiveCyanides Subcategory. According to 40CFR 261.23(a)(5), a waste can beidentified as D003 when it is a cyanideor sulfide bearing waste which, whenexposed to pH conditions between 2 and12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors orfumes in quantities sufficient to presenta danger to human health or theenvironment. No specific commentswere received that challenged thedevelopment of this D003 Subcategory.

In general, the Agency received manycomments that supported thedevelopment of concentration-basedtreatment standards. However, somecommenters expressed concerns aboutwhat the treatment standard levelsshould be. The Agency believes thatsome of the general concerns about themeasurement of cyanides and theselection of technologies forelectroplating and heat treating cyanidewastes may also be applicable to D003cyanide wastes. The Agency willrespond to these comments and proposetreatment standards for D003 wastes inthe Reactive Cyanide Subcategory in afuture notice of proposed rulemaking forthe Third Third wastes.

b. Wastes from chlorinated aliphaticsproduction.F024-Wastes including but not limited

to, distillation residues, heavy ends,tars, and reactor clean-out wastesfrom the production of chlorinatedaliphatic hydrocarbons, having carboncontent from one to five, utilizing freeradical catalyzed processes. (Thislisting does not include light ends,spent filters and filter aids, spent

dessicants, wastewater, wastewatertreatment sludges, spent catalysts,and wastes listed in 261.32].Wastes identified as F024 are

generated primarily by facilities in theorganic chemicals manufacturingindustry, specifically those engaged inthe production of chlorinated aliphatichydrocarbons. Detailed technicaldescriptions of the specific productionprocesses generating these wastes canbe found in the background documentfor the listing of this waste code.

Today's rule promulgates treatmentstandards for F024 wastewaters andnonwastewaters as proposed for allconstituents except 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene, 3-chloropropene, di-n-octylphthalate, chromium and nickel. BDATtreatment standards for F024 are basedon rotary kiln incineration fornonwastewaters, and rotary kilnincineration followed by chemicalprecipitation and vacuum filtration forwastewaters. Other treatmenttechnologies that can achieve theseconcentration-based treatmentstandards are not precluded from use bythis rule. EPA is promulgating treatmentstandards for two metals in F024wastewaters and fourteen organicconstituents in F024 nonwastewatersand wastewaters. The specific regulatedconstituents and treatment standards forthese wastes are listed in the tables atthe end of this section.

Several commenters suggested thatthe Agency specify a method oftreatment as the BDAT treatmentstandard for the polychlorinated dioxins(PCDDs) and polychlorinated furans(PCDFs) instead of establishingconcentration-based treatmentstandards. Where treatmentperformance data are available, theAgency prefers to set concentration-based treatment standards rather thanspecifying a method of treatment as theBDAT treatment standard. Definingconcentration-based treatmentstandards in terms of concentrations ofhazardous constituents in the treatedwaste ensures that treatment standardsare achievable, in practice, usingavailable technologies, but does notspecifically mandate the use of anyparticular treatment technGlogy in orderto comply with the treatment standard.Because treatment performance datawere available for the constituentsregulated in F024, concentration-basedtreatment standards were established.

Several other commenters stated thatthe PCDDs and PCDFs should beregulated for the following reasons: (1)F024 is not listed for these constituents;(2) their levels in F024 were below thepractical quantitation limits (PQLs); (3)

26615




QA/QC data did not affirm theirpresence in F024; and. (4) a quantitationlevel below 10 ppb is difficult to achieveand standards should not be set anylower than the PQLs demonstrated inF024 incinerator ash.

In response to the first issue, theAgency points out the hazardousconstituents for which a waste is listedare considered by the Agency inselection of constituents for regulation.However, these constituents onlyprovide a minimum basis for listing awaste as hazardous. The Agencybelieves that it is not restricted toregulation of these constituents. Indeed,to do so would (at least in some cases)fail to substantially reduce toxicity ormobility of hazardous constituents inthe waste, as required by section3004(m). Moreover, the language of3004(m) applies to all "hazardousconstituents" not just those for whichthe waste is listed. The Agency useswaste characterization data andtreatment performance data collectedunder the BDAT program to determinethe constituents that should beregulated. A more detailed explanationof the selection of regulated constituentsin F024 is provided in the BDATbackground document for this wastecode.

With respect to the second issue, thecommenters were incorrect in statingthat PCDD and PCDF levels measured inthe F024 wastes were below the PQLs.In fact, these constituents were detectedin untreated F024 at levels of 0.3 to 50ppb (parts per billion), which were wellabove the PQLs (0.2 to 30 ppt (parts pertrillion)) for these constituents. SectionIII.A.1.(b.) of today's preamble providesa further discussion of the applicabilityof Appendix VII and the relationship ofPQLs to BDAT treatment standards.

The commenters were also incorrectwith respect to the third issue on theQA/QC. As evidenced in thebackground document for this waste, theavailable QA/QC data does confirm thepresence of dioxins and furans in F024.

The Agency also disagrees with thecommenters' fourth issue. A quantitationlevel below 10 ppb is not difficult toachieve. The Agency does not anticipateany difficulties in achieving detection atthe treatment standard of 1 ppb foreither the nonwastewater orwastewater. The treatment standardsfor all of the PCDDs and PCDFsregulated in F024 are greater than thePQLs demonstrated on F024 incineratorash (30 to 80 ppt). Finally, the Agencybelieves that these treatment standardsare analytically achievable on a routinebasis and points out that quantitationlevels for these PCDDs and PCDFs havebeen achieved by commercial

laboratory facilities at low ppt levels innonwastewaters and low ppq (parts perquadrillion) levels in wastewaters.

The treatment standards set for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate were opposed by onecommenter who argued that settingtreatment standards for theseconstituents was unnecessary becausethey were not detected in the F024 feedstreams at levels above their PQLs. Thiscommenter further stated that since thetreatment standards for these twoconstituents are below their PQLs, thetreatment standards are invalid andunreasonable. The commenter suggestedthat the low levels of these phthalatescould be a result of cross-contaminationand thus, recommended that the Agencyeither set a method of treatment as thetreatment standard instead ofestablishing a concentration-basedtreatment standard or reserve thestandards for these two phthalateconstituents until more completeinformation is available.

The premise to the commenter'sargument is incorrect in that both ofthese phthalate constituents werequantified above their respective PQLsin the F024 feed streams. The treatmentperformance data for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in F024 demonstrate thatsubstantial treatment was achieved byrotary kiln incineration. Because bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was not found ineither the laboratory blanks or thetreatment residuals, the commenter'sclaim that this constituent could bepresent as a result of cross-contamination does not appear to besupportable. Thus, the Agency has noreason to believe that the presence ofbis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in F024sampled by the Agency was due tocross-contamination. (See also theAgency's response to comments oncross-contamination of phthalates insection III.A.3.(e.) of today's preamble.)

The Agency's data indicated,however, that di-n-octyl phthalate wasidentified in only a few characterizationsamples at treatable concentrations.Further, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate wasalso found at treatable concentrations ineach of these samples. These twophthalate constituents have similaritiesin chemical properties and structuresuch that the Agency believes that theycan be treated to similar concentrationsby incineration. Due to the similarity intreatability of these constituents, any di-n-octyl phthalate present in F024 will beeffectively controlled by regulating thebis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (usingincineration as BDAT). Accordingly, theAgency is promulgating the treatmentstandards for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, but is not promulgating the

treatment standards for di-n-octylphthalate.

Several commenters stated that theconcentration-based treatmentstandards for F024 nonwastewatersshould be identical with treatmentstandards previously promulgated forthe same constituents in other wastecodes. The Agency disagrees with thesecommenters. BDAT treatment standardsfor a particular waste are developedbased on treatment performance datafor that waste or for a waste judged tobe similar. Constituents may be treatedto different levels depending on thewaste matrices in which they arepresent. Accordingly, treatmentstandards for a constituent may varyamong the waste codes in which theconstituent is regulated.

Another commenter suggested that thenonwastewater treatment standards beraised by two orders of magnitudebecause they believed the proposedtreatment standards could not beanalytically achieved on a routine basis.However, based on routine analysisperformed by contract laboratoriessupporting the Agency's variousprograms, the Agency does notanticipate any analytical difficulties inachieving the F024 treatment standardson a routine basis.

One commenter suggested that theAgency consider the composition ofF024 wastewater when it is comingledwith wastewater from other treatedlisted wastes. However, the Agencycannot take into account all of thepossible mixes of waste residuals. (Seealso the previous discussion of mixing insection III.A.l.(c.) in today's preamble.)For these cases, the regulatedcommunity must consider the treatmentstandards for each regulated wastestream and comply with the stricteststandards for each of the regulatedconstituents (or if mixing is part of alegitimate treatment process, seek atreatability variance).

One commenter felt that stabilizationof incinerator ash should not be requiredunless leachable metal levels werehigher than characteristic hazardouswaste levels. The Agency reminds thecommenter that F024 treated wasteresiduals are also considered to belisted hazardous wastes under the"derived-from" rule, regardless ofwhether or not the waste exhibits acharacteristic. The metal constituentsoriginally proposed for regulation(chromium and nickel) were found inF024 at treatable levels. Becauseincineration does not provide treatmentfor metals, the Agency chose to stabilizethe incinerator ash to immobilize theseand other metal constituents.

26616




One commenter felt that treatment ofchromium and nickel was notdemonstrated by the stabilizationtesting performed on K048 and K051wastes, thereby invalidating the transferof the treatment standards for chromiumand nickel from these waste codes toF024. This commenter suggestedtransferrng treatment performance datafrom FO06 instead.

The Agency has recently completedan analysis of TCLP extracts obtainedfrom the stabilization of F024 incineratorash residues. The results of this analysisshow substantial reduction of metals inTCLP extracts after stabilization.However, since this data was notavailable for public notice andcomment, and since the resultanttreatment standards are significantlydifferent from the proposed standards,the Agency has decided not topromulgate treatment standards formetals in F024 nonwastewaters intoday's rule. The Agency is reservingtreatment standards for metals in F024nonwastewaters in order to providenotice that revised standards will beproposed for restrictions in a futurerulemaking. No specific comments ordata were received disputing thevalidity of the proposed standards forthe metals in F024 wastewaters and thusthe Agency is promulgating thesestandards as proposed.

The Agency discovered an error in itscalculation of the proposed treatmentstandards for 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene and3-chloropropene for F024nonwastewater (i.e., 0.014 mg/kg foreach constituents). Because the dataused to calculate these standards werecorrect and in the public record, theAgency is promulgating the recalculatedstandards in today's rule (i.e., 0.28 mg/kg for each constituent).

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR F024[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum forgrab sa

Constituent Totalcomposition

(mg/kg)

2-Chtoro-1,3-butadiene.

3-Chloropropene .......1,1 -Dichloroethane ...........1,2-Dichloroethane ...........1,2-Dichloropropane.cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene...trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene.Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate.Hexachloroethane ............Hexachlorodibenzofur-

ans.

0.28 ................

0.28 .................0.014 .............0.014 ..............0.014 ..............0.014 ..............0.014 ..............

1.8 ..................

1.8 ..................0.001 .............

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR

F024-Continued

[Nonwastewaters]


Constituent Totalcomposition TCLP

(mg/kg) (mg/I)

Hexachlorodibenzo-p- 0.001 .............dioxins.

Pentachorodibenzofur- 0.001 ..............ans.

Pentachlorodibenzo-p- 0.001 ..............dioxins.

Tetrachlorodibenzofur- 0.001 .............ans.

Chromium (Total) .............. Not Reservedapplicable.

Nickel ................................. Reserved

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR F024

[Wastewaters]


grab sampleConstituent Total

composition (mg/I)(mg/I)

2-Chloro-1,3- 0.28 ................. Notbutadiene. applica-

ble3-Chloropropene ...... 0.28 .................

I,-Dichloroethane .......... 0.014 ...............1,2-Dichloroethane .......... 0.014 ...............1,2-Dichloropropane . 0.014 ...............cis-1,3-Dichloropropene... 0.014 ...............trans-1,3- 0.014 ...............

Dichloropropene.Bis(2- 0.036 ...............

ethylhexyl)phthalate.Hexachloroethane ........... 0.036 ...............Hexachlorodibenzofur- 0.001 ...............

ans.Hexachlorodibenzo-p- 0.001 ...............

dioxins.Pentachlorodibenzofur- 0.001 ...............ants.

'Pentachlorodibenzo-p- 0.001 ...............

dioxins.Tetrachlorodibenzofur- 0.001 ...............

ans.Chromium (Total) ............. 0.35 .................Nickel ................................ 0.47 .................

aprysingle c. Wastes from pigment production.

K002-Wastewater treatment sludgeTCLP from the production of chrome yellow(mg/I) and orange pigments.

K003-Wastewater treatment sludgeNot from the production of molybdate

applica-ble orange pigments.

K004-Wastewater treatment sludgefrom the production of zinc yellowpigments.

K005--Wastewater treatment sludgefrom the production of chrome greenpigments.

K006--Wastewater treatment sludgefrom the production of chrome oxidegreen pigments (anhydrous andhydrated).

K007-Wastewater treatment sludgefrom the production of iron bluepigments.

K008--Oven residues from theproduction of chrome oxide greenpigments.Wastes identified as K002, K003, K004,

K005, K006, K007 and K008 aregenerated primarily by facilities in theinorganic chemicals manufacturingindustry, specifically those engaged inthe production of pigments. Detailedtechnical descriptions of the specificproduction processes generating thesewastes can be found in the backgrounddocument for the listing of these wastes.

1. Nonwastewaters. Today's rulepromulgates a "No Land Disposal Basedon No Generation" treatment standardfor K005 and K007 nonwastewaters asproposed-applicable only to wastesgenerated from the process described inthe listing description and disposed afterJune 8, 1989. Many commenters opposedany standard that specifies "No LandDisposal" for a particular waste. TheAgency maintains that for certainwastes, this standard is appropriate.The Agency believes that the followingclarification of the applicability of thisstandard to K005 and K007 wastes mayremove the majority of the commenters'concerns.

Based on conversations withrepresentatives of manufacturers ofinorganic pigments and responses toEPA s RCRA section 3007questionnaires, the Agency believes thatthe last company producing chrome-green and iron blue pigments (fromwhich K005 and K007 wastes aregenerated), shut down production in1987 Thus, the proposed "No LandDisposal" standard is appropriate forthese wastes, with one importantcaveat. This standard applies only towastes generated from the processdescribed in the listing description forthese wastes (in 40 CFR 261.32) that aredisposed after June 8, 1989 (the effectivedate of this standard). The Agencyrecently modified existing regulatorystandards for most of the "No LandDisposal" treatment standardspromulgated with the First Third wastesto adopt this distinction. See 53 FR 31174(August 17 1988) promulgating thesestandards, and the subsequent revisionin 54 FR 18836 (May 2, 1989). TheAgency adopts the explanation in theMay 2, 1989 notice for its action herewith respect to the waste from pigmentproduction that are no longer beinggenerated (i.e., K005 and K007).

K005 and K007 are Third ThirdWastes that were originally scheduledto be promulgated by May 8, 1990.Several commenters opposed the

26617




proposed accelerated schedule for thesewastes as well as other wastes.However, the statute does not precludeEPA from prohibiting the land disposalof a given waste ahead of schedule (andthe schedule in 40 CFR268.10-268.12itself says that wastes will be evaluatedby a given date, indicating that thespecified date is the latest time bywhich EPA must act), and in factcompels the Agency to prohibit the landdisposal of hazardous wastes as soon aspossible. The Agency believes that thisis a particularly prudent approach forK005 and K007 nonwastewaters, sincethe basis of the treatment standard forthese wastes is that they are not beinggenerated and since no comments werereceived disputing this premisespecifically for K005 and K007

In the January 11, 1989, proposed rulefor Second Third Wastes (54 FR 1072-74), EPA proposed a treatment standardof "No Land Disposal Based onRecycling" for K002, K003 and K006nonwastewaters and proposed to revisethe promulgated treatment standard (53FR 31174) for K004 and K008nonwastewaters from "No LandDisposal Based on No Generation to"No Land Disposal Based on Recycling"EPA received comments, however,suggesting that there may be wastesgenerated as part of the recyclingprocess that could remain subject to theland disposal prohibitions, and whichotherwise called into question thecircumstances of recycling. AlthoughEPA does not necessarily endorse thesecomments, the Agency believes thatthese issues warrant further study and,therefore, has decided that K002, K003and K006 wastes will remain in theThird Third of the schedule. Thus, theAgency is not promulgating thetreatment standard of "No LandDisposal Based on Recycling" for K002,K003, and K006 nonwastewaters.

The methods of recycling, which EPAhas determined require furtherevaluation, also apply to K004 and K008wastes; therefore, since EPA s initialpremise of no generation has not provencorrect, EPA has decided to revoke thepromulgated treatment standard of "NoLand Disposal Based on No Generation"for K004 and K008 nonwastewaters, andto reschedule the development oftreatment standards for thenonwastewater forms of K004 and K008wastes to the Third Third of theschedule. The Agency will study thesewastes along with K002, K003 and K006nonwastewaters.

2. Wastewaters. In today's rule, theAgency is not promulgating treatmentstandards for the wastewater forms ofK002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007 or

K008. Since K004 and K008 were FirstThird wastes, land disposal of thesewastewaters Continues to be subject tothe "soft hammer" provisions in 40 CFR268.8. Because K002. K003, K005, K006 orK007 wastes were originally scheduledfor development of BDAT treatmentstandards with the Third Third Wastes,land disposal of these wastewaters isnot subject to the "soft-hammerrestrictions.

The Agency may developconcentration-based treatmentstandards for all of these wastewatersprior to May 8, 1990, if there is anidentified need for such standards (i.e. ifwastewater forms of the listed wasteare proven to be generated).Wastewater forms of these wastes areexpected to be generated from only afew sources. The Agency is currentlyevaluating the possibility of transferringtreatment performance data fromwastes having similar physical andchemical characteristics. The Agencyhas identified several sources ofchromium reduction, cyanidedestruction, and metals precipitation/stabilization performance data whichmay be applicable.

As a point of clarification,nonwastewater residuals generatedfrom treatment of K005 or K007wastewaters are also considered to bethe listed wastes (based on the derived-from rule) and would be required tomeet the treatment standards fornonwastewaters when EPA developsthem. However, as noted above, the "NoLand Disposal Based on No Generation"standard does not apply to thesewastes. It only applies to the waste asoriginally generated, according to thedescription of the waste in the listing (aslisted in 40 CFR 261.32).

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K005AND K007

[Nonwastewater forms of these wastes generatedby the process described in the waste listingdescription and disposed after June 8, 1989, andnot generated in the course of treating wastewaterforms of these wastes]

No Land Disposal Based on No Generation

d. Wastes from acetaldehydeproduction.K009-Distillation bottoms from the

production of acetaldehyde fromethylene.

K010-Distillation side cuts from theproduction of acetaldehyde fromethylene.

Wastes identified as K009 and K010are generated primarily by facilities inthe organic chemicals manufacturingindustry, specifically those engaged inthe production of acetaldehyde. Detailedtechnical descriptions of the specificproduction processes generating thesewastes can be found in the backgrounddocument for the listing of these wastes.

Today s rule promulgates treatmentstandards for organic constituents innonwastewater and wastewater formsof wastes identified as K009 and K010.Standards applicable tononwastewaters are based on theperformance achieved by rotary kilnincineration and the concentration oforganics measured in ash residuals.Standards applicable to wastewatersare based on the performance achievedby steam stripping followed bybiological treatment and theconcentration of organics measured inthe resultant effluent wastewaters.Other treatment technologies that canachieve these concentration-basedtreatment standards are not precludedfrom use by this rule. The regulatedconstituents and treatment standards forthese wastes are listed in the tables atthe end of this section.

In comments to the proposed rule, oneof the two generators of K009 and K010wastes indicated to the Agency thatsome of the organic constituentsproposed for regulation were extraneousto the manufacturing process ofacetaldehyde and that another of theproposed constituents could beeffectively controlled by the proposedregulation of chloroform. Afterreviewing the commenter's rationaleand the available data on themanufacturing of acetaldehyde, theAgency has determined that theproposed standards for 1,1-dichloroethane, acrolein, methylenechloride, and/or ethyl methacrylate inwastewaters are unnecessary and istherefore not promulgating the proposedstandards for these constituents.However, the Agency is promulgatingtreatment standards for chloroform inboth nonwastewater and wastewaterforms of K009 and K010.

The same commenter questionedEPA's legal authority to regulateconstituents that were not explicitlyidentified by the Agency as toxicconstituents of concern when K009 andK010 were listed as hazardous wastesunder Subtitle C of RCRA.

The Agency strongly disagrees withthe commenter's interpretation ofsection 3004(m) and its interpretation oftoxicity. RCRA section 3004(m)mandates EPA to promulgate treatmentstandards that sustantially reduce the

26618




toxicity of the waste or thatsubstantially reduce the likelihood ofmigration of hazardous constituentsfrom the wastes. Section 3004(m) appliesto all hazardous constituents and doesnot limit the concern to thoseconstituents for which the waste islisted. The Agency has thus interpretedthe intent of the statutory language tomeasure reduction of toxicity in terms ofthe amount and types of constituentsthat define the chemical composition ofthe waste. Thus, the Agency believesthat in the development of treatmentstandards, the Agency can regulate anyof the Appendix VII and VIII (40 CFRPart 261) constituents.

Further, the Agency has interpretedthis statutory mandate as authorizingthe Agency to develop treatmentstandards for constituents that serve asindicators of performance, therebyaccounting for the reduction in either theamount or mobility of Appendix VII andVIII constituents contained in thewastes. The Agency believes that theuse of surrogate or indicatorconstituents fully responds to the intentof section 3004(m) because there couldbe instances that available analyticalmethods cannot satisfactorily analyzefor Appendix VII and VIII constituentsin complex waste matrices and thus, theAgency would be unable to developconcentration-based treatmentstandards for the waste.

In addition, Appendix VII constituentssupporting the listing of K009 and K010were intended to support theAdministrative Record of EPA inassessing the need to regulate K009 andK010 as hazardous wastes under RCRA.These constituents were by no means anexhaustive list of hazardousconstituents contained in the waste, butmerely provided a minimum basis forlisting a waste as hazardous. Therefore,the Agency believes that it is notrestricted to regulation of only theseconstituents. See further clarification ofthe use of Appendix VII constituents insection III.A.1.(b.) of today's preamble.

As noted in the proposal, performancedata supporting the development oftreatment standards were not generatedfrom the direct treatment of K009 andK010 wastes. Instead, these performancedata are from the treatment of wasteseither judged to be as difficult to treat asthe wastes of concern or containingtreatable concentrations of theconstituents that are candidates forregulation in the wastes of concern.

For wastewaters, these performancedata were originally developedspecifically to support the effluentguidelines limitations for facilities in theOrganic Chemical Plastics and SyntheticFibers (OCPSF) industry and represent

the performance of Best PracticalTechnologies and Best AvailableTechnologies for treatment ofwastewaters. The Agency hasdetermined that it is technically feasibleto transfer the OCPSF performance datato K009 and K010, and thus ispromulgating treatment standardsdeveloped from these data. Furtherdetails of the Agency's evaluation ofperformance data and determinations ofBDAT are found in the BDATbackground document for K009 andK010 wastes.

Also, this commenter pointed out thatthe data used by the Agency insupporting the wastewater standardsmay not have been adjusted foranalytical spiked recoveries. Theadjustment that the commenter isreferring to is known as a "correctionfactor" which may be obtained byinjecting a known quantity of a pollutantinto water and determining the percentof known amount measured. Duringpreliminary stages of the OCPSFrulemaking, EPA in fact used thisadjustment technique for a variety ofdata, including the chloroform datadiscussed by the commenter in thepresent rulemaking. However, theChemical Manufacturers Associationsubmitted comments in the OCPSFrulemaking arguing that the use ofcorrection factors for these data aretechnically unsound. EPA agreed thatthese data are "better represented asunadjusted for recovery" and decidedto present the data in unadjusted form(48 FR 11856, March 21, 1983).

For purposes of the currentrulemaking under RCRA section3004(m), however, EPA believes that it isappropriate to apply a correction factorto the chloroform data to ensureconsistency with the BDAT GenericQuality Assurance Project Plan (EPA/530-SW-87-011, March 1987). This Planpresents data and uses it to establishstandards in a conservative manner thatassures that variability in calculatingcorrection factors is accounted for.

Thus, EPA has recalculated thewastewater standard for chloroform. Atproposal, the chloroform standard forwastewaters was 0.09 mg/l. Today's rulepromulgates a revised chloroformstandard of 0.10 mg/l. Although thisrevision is minimal, the Agency believesthis recalculation of the chloroformstandard was necessary and fullycomplies with Agency methodology fordeveloping treatment standards.Detailed information of the Agency'srevisions to this standard are providedin the BDAT background document forK009 and K010 wastes.

The proposed treatment standards forwastewaters were originally presented

as based on analysis of grab samples.The Agency received comments thatpointed out that the data used todetermine the treatment standardsrepresented analysis of composite ratherthan grab samples. At the time ofproposal, the Agency believed that sincethe standards were for volatile organicconstituents, analysis of grab sampleshad been performed due to potentiallosses of volatiles during a compositesampling. However, the Agency hassince determined that while grabsamples are indeed used duringsampling, the analysis of the samples isperformed by careful compositing of thegrab samples in the analyticallaboratory immediately prior toanalysis. Therefore, the treatmentstandard for methylene chloride In K009and K010 wastewaters promulgated intoday's rule are corrected and expressedas based on a composite sample. Seefurther discussion of issues concerninggrab versus composite sampling insection III.A.1.(f.) of today's preamble.

The Agency also solicited commentson the need for regulating otherchlorinated organic constituents that arenot on the BDAT list but were found attreatable concentrations. The onlycommenter supported the Agency'sapproach that no regulation isnecessary, indicating that available dataappear to indicate that theseconstituents are unlikely to interferewith the treatment of the regulatedconstituents. As a result, EPA is notpromulgating, at this time, additionalrequirements for these other organicconstituents present in K009 and K010wastewaters.

BDAT Treatment Standards for K009 andK010

[Nonwastewaters]


Constituent Total TCLPcomposition (mg/I)

(mg/kg)

Chloroform .......................... 6.0 (')

Not applicable.

BDAT Treatment Standards for K009 andK010

[Wastewaters]

Maximum for anycomposite sample

Constituent Total TCLPcomposition (m/P(rag/I) (rag/1)

Chloroform ........................... 0.10 (1)

Not applicable.

26619




e. Phthalates. and phthalic anhydrideproduction wastes.K023-Distillation light ends from the

production of phthalic anhydride fromnaphthalene.

K093-Distillation light ends from theproduction of phithalic anhydride fromortho-xylene.

K094-Distillation bottoms from theproduction of phthalic anhydride fromortho-xylene.

U02--Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateU069-Di-n-butyl phthalateU088-Diethyl phthalateU102-Dimethyl phthalateU107-Di-n-octyl phthalateU190-Phthalic anhydride

Wastes identified as K023, K093, andK094 are wastes generated primarily byfacilities in the organic chemicalsmanufacturing industry, specificallythose engaged in the production ofphthalic anhydride. Detailed technicaldescriptions of the specific productionprocesses generating these three wastescan be found in the backgrounddocument for the listing of these wastes.Phthalic anhydride, when discarded,out-of-date, off-specification, or spilledoften becomes the waste identified asU190. In contact with water, phthalicanhydride reacts readily to becomephthalic acid. Phthalic anhydride andphthalic acid can be reacted with othersimple compounds to form a class ofchemicals known as phthalic acidesters. Generally, these esters aresimply referred to as phthalates. Thechemicals for which wastes identified asU028, U069, U088, U102, and U107 arelisted are all phthalates.

All of these compounds are verysimilar in chemical composition andstructure (i.e., they contain one aromaticring and are comprised of only carbon,hydrogen and oxygen). For the purposesof determining BDAT, all of thesewastes have been grouped together intoone treatability group identified as"phthalates and phthalic anhydrideproduction wastes" or "phthalates" (forshort).

Treatment standards for the majorityof these wastes were originallyscheduled to be promulgated as part ofthe Third Third wastes (i.e.,promulgation by May 8, 1990). OnlyU028 and U107 wastes were originallyscheduled for promulgation with theSecond Third wastes. However, in theJanuary 11, 1989, proposed rule forSecond Third wastes, the Agencyproposed standards for all nine of thesephthalate and phthalic anhydrideproduction wastes based on a transferof treatment standards from similarwastes identified as K024 (distillationbottoms from the production of phthalic

anhdride from naphthalene). Standardsfor K024 wastewaters andnonwastewaters were promulgated withthe-First Third wastes on August 8, 1988,based on the performance ofincineration of K024 nonwastewaters ina rotary kiln as measured by theconcentrations of hazardousconstituents found in the ash andscrubber water residuals.

Several commenters opposed theaccelerated schedule for these wastes.However, the statute (i.e., HSWA) doesnot preclude EPA from prohibiting theland disposal of a given waste ahead ofschedule (and the schedule in § § 268.10through 268.12 itself says that wasteswill be evaluated by a given date,indicating that the specified date is thelatest time by which EPA must act). TheAgency believes that setting thetreatment standards and restrictions asearly as possible is consistent withCongressional intent to move away fromland disposal and towards treatment.Moreover, Congress created thecapacity variance in section 3004(h) toaddress the concerns of providingadditional time (where necessary) todevelop protective treatment or disposalcapacity. Thus, in today's rule, theAgency is promulgating treatmentstandards as proposed for K023, K093,K094, U028, U069, U088, U102, U107 andU190 based on the direct transfer ofstandards for K024.

While the treatment standards arebased on the performance ofincineration of K024 in a rotary kiln,other treatment technologies such asfluidized bed incineration, fuelsubstitution, biodegradation, andsolvent extraction, that can achievethese standards are not precluded fromuse by this rule. The treatmentstandards in today's rule for all of thesewastes are listed in the tables at the endof this section.

1. K023, K093 and K094 wastes. TheAgency has data that indicate that thereare relatively few generators of K023,K093 and K094. Information alsosuggests that many of these wastes, asgenerated, are not typically landdisposed. The Agency consideredpromulgating a treatment standard of"No Land Disposal Based on NoGeneration" for the nonwastewaterforms of K023, K093 and K094. However,several commenters providedinformation that these wastes areindeed being generated. Since thepremise of no generation is not valid, theAgency decided to promulgate theproposed concentration-basedstandards.

The Agency determined that thetreatment standards for K024 may betransferred to K023, K093 and K094

wastes because: (1) All of these wastesare generated from the production ofphthalic anhydride; (2) distillationresidues generated from productionprocesses using naphthalene(corresponding to K023 and K024wastes) are expected to contain higherconcentrations of less volatileconstituents than distillation residuesgenerated from production processesusing ortho-xylene (corresponding toK093 and K094 wastes). Since theseconstituents in K023 and K024 havelower volatility, they are more difficultto vaporize and subsequently bedestroyed in a rotary kiln. K023 andK024 are thus more difficult to treat thanK093 and K094; and (3) distillationbottoms (K024) are expected to containlower concentrations of volatileconstituents than the distillation lightends (K023) and thus would be moredifficult to treat than K023. Based on thisanalysis, the Agency has determinedthat K024 represents the most difficult totreat of the four wastes generated fromthe production of phthalic anhydride. Inaddition, since K023, K024, K093 andK094 are all wastes from the productionof phthalic anhydride, they are expectedto contain a greater concentration ofinterfering constituents than off-spec ordiscarded phthalic anhydride (U190) andthus would be more difficult to treatthan U190. Therefore, the Agency isdirectly transferring the concentration-based standards for phthalic anhydride(as measured by the analysis forphthalic acid) in K024 wastewaters andnonwastewaters to K023, K093, K094and U190 wastewaters andnonwastewaters respectively.

One commenter questioned why theAgency did not simply establishtreatment standards for K023, K024,K093, K094 and U190 measuring forphthalic anhydride rather than phthalicacid. The commenter reasoned that: (1)Analytical methods for the directmeasurement of phthalic anhydrideexist and are available; (2) measurementshould be for phthalic anhydridebecause it has a significantly highertoxicity than phthalic acid; and (3)treatment standards for phthalicanhydride would allow treatmentbyhydrolysis and hydrolysis significantlyreduces the toxicity of the waste.

The Agency's response to these issuesis twofold: (1) Although methods for themeasurement of phthalic anhydrideexist, the measurement of phthalic acidas a surrogate provides a more effectivemeans of measuring treatment, due tothe instability of phthalic anhydride inwater (i.e., hydrolysis of the anhydridein the wastes prior to analysis oftreatment residuals could result in false

26620



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 1 Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

positive measurements of treatmentefficiency if analysis were performedonly for the anhydride); and'(2)destruction of phthalic anhydride byincineration provides a more completereduction in total toxicity than simplehydrolysis (i.e., incineration completelydestroys both the phthalic anhydrideand the phthalic acid to carbon dioxideand water, while hydrolysis does notprovide any significant destruction ofthe organics, but rather enlarges thephthalic anhydride molecule to the acidform).

Several commenters pointed out that,as initially generated, K023, K024, K093,K094 and U190 nonwastewaters arecomprised primarily of phthalicanhydride and would contai practicallyno phthalic acid. Thus, the wasteswould probably meet the treatmentstandard based on analysis for phthalicacid without any treatment.Commenters suggested that thetreatment standard should include ahydrolysis step prior to analysis forphthalic acid.

The Agency never intended, byestablishing the standard only forphthalic acid, that these wastes shouldavoid treatment. In the proposed rule (54FR 1088 (anuary 11, 1989)), thestandards for U190 were correctlyexpressed as "phthalic anhydride (U190)reported as phthalic acid" The Agencythus clearly intended that the phthalicanhydride be converted to phthalic acidprior to analysis. The Agency recognizesthat the standards for K023, K093 andK094 were expressed in the proposedrule (54 FR 1078 (January 11, 1989)] onlyas "phthalic acid" However, today'srule corrects this inconsistency byexpressing all of the wastewater andnonwastewater standards for K023,K093, and K094 and Ul0 as "phthalicanhydride (measured as pthalicacid)" Thus, the Agency is specificallyrequiring analysis for phthalic acid afterhydrolysis of K023, K093, K094 and U190nonwastewaters.

For the same reason, EPA is alsomaking this same clarifying change as atechnical correction to the standards forK024 wastewaters and nonwastewatersthat were adopted in the First Third rule.Thus, these standards are nowexpressed as "phthalic anhydride(measured as phthalic acid)" (EPA isnot altering the numerical standards forthese K024 wastes.)

For the wastewater forms of thesewastes, the Agency is not requiring anadditional hydrolysis step provided thatcomplete hydrolysis of the anhydridecan be reasonably assumed to haveoccurred (such as in cases where thephthalic anhydride in the waste hasbeen in prolonged contact with water in

the waste, been sufficiently mixed withthe water, or suspected to have beenpresent in low concentrations in thewater).

2. Standards for U028, U069, U088,U102, and U107. EPA proposedconcentration-based treatmentstandards for U028, U069, U088, U102,and U107 based on the transfer of dataon the performance of rotary kilnincineration for K024 nonwastewaters.Standards for these wastes are derivedfrom a direct transfer of the numericalvalues for phthalic acid to each of theindividual phthalate esters (i.e., 28 mg/kg for all nonwastewaters and 0.54 mg/lfor all wastewaters as measured byeach phthalate).

One commeniter argued that theAgency has not adequatelydemonstrated the transferability of thetreatment standards for K024 wastes tothese phthalate esters. The commenterstated that it had found no support forEPA's statement that all cf thesecompounds are anticipated to be easierto burn than plthalic acid. At the sametime, the commenter clauned thefollowing information as support to theirposition: (1) The K024 phthalicanhydride residue is a solid and thephthalates are typically liquds; :and (2)the autoignition temperature (a measureof the ease of ignition) for phthalicanhydride is 1083'F; 1032'F for dimethylphthalate; 950'F for phthalic acid; and735°F for bis-(2-ethylhexyl)pht*alate.

The Agency recognizes that there aremany factors that affect how easily acompound can be burned, such asboiling point, activation energy, bonddissociation energy, beat of oombustion,heat of formation, and general structuralclass. However, the wnformatioiprovided by the commenter appears tosupport the Agency's position ratherthan the commenter's. In general, solidsshould be more difficult to burn thanliquids. In addition, phthalic anhydridewith the highest autoignitiontemperature appears to be more difficultto burn than the phthalic acid or theother identified phtlialates.

Moreover, these data support thatthese phthalates pose relatively thesame difficulty in burning because theirautoignition temperatures are withln thesame order of magnitude. Moreimportant, the Agency maintains thatthe performance data available to theAgency support that the treatmentstandards for the incineration of K024are not only transferable to thesewastes but also achievable on a routinebasis.

Incineration data for K024 indiate thatuntreated K024 wastes contained from1.3 to 22% phthalic anhydride,approximately 10% ash, and up to 83%

polymeric materials. Analysis of theincinerator residues for phthalic acid,the surrogate for phthalic anhydride (seeprevious discussion for K023, K093 andK094 wastes above), indicateddestruction to detection limits of 8.2 mg/kg in the ash and 0.16 mg/I in thescrubber water. Thus, if phthalicanhydride is, as the commenters' dataindicates, one of the more difficultphthalates to burn, then the otherphthalates and phthalic acid should beable to be destroyed to these levels. TheAgency points out that the ash and thepolymeric materials present in theuntreated K024 waters also contribute tothe difficulty in incineration of thiswaste. Thus, the Agency concluded thatthe K024 wastes are the most difficult totreat of these wastes.

The commenters expressed concernabout several other issues that led themto believe that the standards could notbe achieved. These include the potentialfor false positives due to cross-contamination from: 1) The co-incineration of nonhazardous materialscontaining phthalates; (2) plasticmaterials used during sampling andanalysis; (3) nonhazardous materials co-disposed with treatment residuals; (4)liners and covers used in a roU-offcontainers used to transport ash(containing 35 mg/kg of phthalates); and(5) plastic materials used in the scrubberwater systems. They also argued thathousehold garbage {containing 22 mg/kgof phthalates) and landfill liners wouldexceed -the treatment standards. Thus,they concluded that the treatmentstandards were not meaningful norcould they possibly be met. Severalcommenters further concluded that sincethe treatment standards could not bemet, the Agency should simply establishincineration as a technology, rather thanset concentration-based standards.Finally, one commenter also stated thatthe Agency has an insufficient numberof data points on which to base thestandards.

In response to the majority of thesecomments, the Agency points to the dataon phthalate concentrations in theresiduals from the test bums of fourdifferent waste types that support theAgency's key positions. The wastesinclude: (1) K019 (heavy ends from thedistillation of ethylene dichloride inethylene dichloride production); ,(2) K037(wastewater treatment sludges from theproduction of Disulfoton); ,(3) F024(various wastes from the production ofchlorinated aliphatics such distillationresidues, heavy ends, tars, and reactorclean-out wastes); and (4) K101/K102(distillation tar residues from thedistillation of aniline-based compounds

26621




and residue from activated carbon in theproduction of veterinarypharmaceuticals). These wastesrepresent a myriad of differenthazardous waste types and these dataare from more than one differentincineration facility.

EPA analyzed for various phthalatesin the incineration residues from thesetest burns as follows: (1) Six data setsfor di-n-butyl and bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in K019 ash residues and sixdata sets for di-n-octyl, di-n-butyl, andbis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in K019scrubber waters; (2) six data sets for bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in K037 ash andscrubber waters; (3) six data sets fordiethyl and bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatein F024 ash and scrubber waters; and (4)six data sets for bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in K101 and K102 ash andscrubber waters.

In general, the majority of themeasured values for phthalates wereapproximately at the detection limit forthe majority of phthalates that wereanalyzed. In kiln ash the measuredvalues or detection limits ranged from<0.42 to <2.0 mg/kg. This is consistentwith the estimated PQLs for thesephthalates in ash residues (as calculatedby multiplying the detection limits forthe individual phthalates as measuredby SW-846 Method 8250 by thecorrection factor of 670 for low-levelcontaminated soil) ranging from 1.6 mg/kg for dimethyl phthalate to a maximumof 2.5 mg/kg for di-n-butyl, di-n-octyl,and bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Thedata from these four test burns alsoindicated that in the scrubber waters themeasured values for these phthalates (ortheir detection limits) ranged from<0.002 to <0.050 mg/l. Theconcentrations of phthalates in theuntreated wastes ranged from 0.05 to 500mg/kg.

The concentrations of phthalates inthe untreated wastes (for theaforementioned data) were relativelylow. Accordingly, EPA did not attemptto transfer standards for phthalates fromthese wastes. However, these dataillustrate several important points withregard to cross-contamination and theachievability of the standards. For fourdifferent test burns on four completelydifferent waste types, analysis oftreatment residuals indicatedconcentrations or achievable detectionlimits well below the promulgatedtreatment standards (typically an orderof magnitude less). Thus the

commenters' cross-contaminationconcerns during incineration, scrubberwater processing, sample collection,transport of analytical samples, andlaboratory preparation and analysis ofthe samples are not supported by thesedata. In addition, the proper use ofanalytical techniques in accordancewith standard QA/QC in theirlaboratories can also reduce thepotential for incidental cross-contamination.

With respect to cross-contaminationconcerns from incineration ofnonhazardous wastes, the Agency notesthat in general, a facility operator mayneed to segregate wastes to meettreatment standards and that need isfully consistent with the intent of theland disposal restrictions. However,based on the demonstration ofincinerability of the high concentrationsof phthalic anhydride in K024 wastes,the demonstration of achievability oflow detection limits for ash andscrubber waters, and the basic highefficiency of destruction inherent tohazardous waste incinerators, theAgency believes that segregation ofother wastes from these phthalatewastes is unnecessary and thatcompliance with the treatmentstandards for phthalate wastes wouldnot be mitigated by co-incineration withother wastes containing phthalates.

With respect to cross-contaminationconcerns from co-disposal withnonhazardous wastes, from liners andcovers of roll-off containers, or from thelandfill liners, the Agency notes thatcontamination from these materials (asevidenced in the commenters' datareferenced above) would be expected tobe small compared to the standards. Itappears unlikely that an ash residuethat typically contains <2.0 mg/kg ofphthalates would be significantlycontaminated to a level above thetreatment standard of 28 mg/kg bywastes containing only 22 mg/kg or 35mg/kg. The fact that these materialscontain phthalate levels at or near thetreatment standards has no relevance tothe achievability of the treatmentstandards. The fact that incineration candestroy hazardous wastes to a level thatmay be deemed nonhazardous is exactlythe goal of incineration treatment.

One commenter suggested that theAgency set technology-based treatmentstandards for these wastes instead ofconcentration-based standards. Thiscommenter felt that setting technology-

based standards would eliminate theconcerns of achievability of thetreatment standards due to cross-contamination. Though section 3004(m)specifies that BDAT treatmentstandards may be expressed as eitherconcentration-based levels or as amethod of treatment (technology-based),the Agency maintains that wheretreatment performance data areavailable concentration-based treatmentstandards should be established ratherthan specifying a method of treatment.Concentration-based standards allowindustry the flexibility to use anytreatment technology or combination oftechnologies to treat the wastes as longas land disposed residuals produced.have concentrations of the regulatedconstituents less than or equal to thetreatment standards.

Moreover, none of the commenterssupported their claims (that thetreatment standards could not beachieved) with data on the measurementof phthalates in treatment residuals.Because acceptable treatmentperformance data were available fortreatment of K024 and since the datasupport that cross-contamination is notanticipated to affect the achievability ofthe standards, the Agency ispromulgating the concentration-basedtreatment standards for U028, U069,U088, U102, and U107

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FORK023, K024, K093, K094, AND U190

(Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for any single grabsample

Constituent Totalcomposition TCLP (mg/I)

(mg/kg)

Phthalic anhydride 2 Not(measured as applicable

Phthalic acid).

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR

K023, K024, K093, K094, AND U190

(Wastewaters]

Maximum for any single grabsample

Constituent Totalcomposition ITCLP (mg/l)

Phthalic anhydride 0mg/5g Not

(measured as 0.4 applicable

Phthalic ac d). I

26622

28R22



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989./ Rules and Regulations

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PHTHALATES U028, U069, U088, U 102, AND U107

(Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for any single grab sampleWaste code Regulated constituent Total composition TCLP (rg/I)

(mg/kg)

U028 ...................... Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .................................................................................................................................... 28 Not ApplicableU069 ................. Di-n-butyl phthalate .......................................................................................................................................... 28U088 ...................... Diethyl phthaltate ..................................................................................................................................................... 28U102 ....... ... Dimethyl phthalate ................................................................................................................................................. . 28U 07 ...................... Di-n-octyl phthalate ................................................................................................................................................ .28

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PHTHALATES U028, U069, U088, U102, AND U 107 [WASTEWATERS]

Maximum for any single grab sampleWaste code Regulated constituent Total compositionTCLP (mg)

(mg/kg) T L rg I

UOO.28 ................... Bis-(2-ethylhexyt) phthalate .................................................................................................................................... 0.54 Not ApplicableU069 ...................... Di-n-butyl phthalate ................................................................................................................................................. 0.54U088 ...................... Diethyl phthalate ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.54U102 ...................... Dimethyl phthalate .................................................................................................................................................. 0.54U107 ..................... Di-n-octyl phthalate ................................................................................................................................................. 0.54

f. Wastes from the production ofdinitrotoluene, toluene diamine andtoluene diisocyanate.K027-Centrifuge and distillation

residues from toluene diisocyanateproduction.

Kill-Product washwasters from theproduction of dinitrotoluene vianitration of toluene.

K112-Reaction by-product water fromthe drying column in the production oftoluenediamme via hydrogenation ofdinitrotoluene.

K113-Condensed liquid light ends fromthe production of toluenediamine viahydrogenation of dinitrotoluene.

K114-Vicinals from the purification oftoluenediamine in the production oftoluenediamine via hydrogenation ofdinitrotoluene.

K115-Heavy ends from the purificationof toluenediamine in the production oftoluenediamine via hydrogenation ofdinitrotoluene.

K116-Organic condensate from thesolvent recovery column in theproduction of toluene diisocyanate viaphosgenation of toluenediamine.

U221-Toluenediamine (TDA).U223-Toluene diisocyanate (TDI).

Today's rule promulgates treatmentstandards for nonwastewater andwasterwater forms of K027 K113, Kl14,Kl15, K116, U221, and U223 wastes.Detailed technical descriptions of thespecific production processes generatingthese wastes can be found in thebackground document for the listing ofthese wastes. The treatment standardsfor the.organic hazardous constituentsare expressed as specific methods oftreatment. For the nonwastewater formsof these wastes, the treatment methods

are either incineration or fuelsubstitution. For the wastewater formsof these wastes, the methods are eithercarbon adsorption followed byincineration or fuel substitution of thespent carbon, or direct incineration ofthe wastewaters. In addition, for Kl15wastes, the Agency is promulgatingconcentration-based treatmentstandards for nickel. The Agency did notpropose treatment standards for Kllland Kl12 wastes, and therefore is notpromulgating treatment standards intoday's rule. At this tme, Klll and Kl12wastes are not prohibited from landdisposal.

The Agency determined that theanalytical methods available during thedevelopment of today's rule could notsatisfactorily measure the principalhazardous organic constituentscontained in K027 K113-K116, U221,and U223 wastes and treatmentresiduals. One commenter identified apreliminary method of analysis for atleast one constituent and urged theAgency to establish concentration-based standards based on the use of thismethod. However, since the Agency hasnot finalized this or any other analyticalmethod for the major constituents inthese wastes, performance data couldnot be obtained using this method thatwould allow the Agency to developconcentration-based treatmentstandards for today's rule. The Agencyhas also been unable to identify anysurrogate constituents or grossparameters that could be used to assurereduction of the hazardous organicconstituents of concern. Thus, theAgency is unable to promulgate

concentration-based treatmentstandards for organics in these wastes.

EPA prefers concentration-basedtreatment standards due to the greaterflexibility in choice of technology usedto achieve the standard, and to thegreater control afforded in ensuringefficient design and operation of thechosen technology. However, in theabsence of analytical methods theAgency believes that the only logicalalternative to a concentration-basedstandard is to establish a method oftreatment as the BDAT treatmentstandard.

It should be noted that promulgatingstandards expressed as specifiedmethods of treatment does not precludethe Agency from establishingconcentration-based standards in thefuture, should an analytical method bedeveloped with sufficient QA/QC thatwill measure the hazardousconstituents, or should an adequatesurrogate or indicator constituent beidentified.

The majority of commentersaddressing this issue supported thisapproach. Further, EPA believes thatthis approach is consistent with theBDAT methodology and with RCRAsection 3004(m) which authorizes theAgency to establish either levels ormethods of treatment. Therefore, today'srule promulgates treatment standardsexpressed as required methods for thesewastes.

The Agency also points out thdt whentreatment standards are expressed as aspecific technology rather than asconcentration-based standards, it ispossible for a generator or treater to

26623



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 /.Rules and Regulations

demonstrate that an alternativetechnology can achieve an equivalentlevel of performance as that specifiedtreatment method (40 CFR 268.42(b)).This demonstration could be based on:(1) A newly developed analyticalmethod for the primary hazardousconstituent; (2) a concentration-basedstandard utilizing a surrogate orindicator compound; or (3) otherdemonstrations of equivalence for analternative method of treatment. Theresultant treatment standard, as well asany analytical methodology used in thedemonstration, could then be proposedby the Agency to be applicable to allwastes in this group.

EPA's full rationale for finalizing thetreatment standards promulgated todayis contained in the BDAT backgrounddocument for these wastes. Thetreatment standards promulgated todayfor nonwastewaters and wastewaterforms of K027 K113-K116, U221, andU223 are summarized in the set of tablesat the end of this section.

1. Nonwastewaters. The Agencybelieves that incineration and fuelsubstitution represents BDAT for theorganics in nonwastewater forms ofthese wastes. The Agency ispromulgating a treatment standard of"Incineration or Fuel Substitution as aMethod of Treatment" for thenonwastewater forms of K027 K113-Kl16, U221, and U223. Incinerators mustcomply with the requirements of 40 CFRPart 264 Subaprt 0, or Part 265 Subpart0. Similarly, fuel substitution units mustcomply with the requirements of 40 CFRPart 266, Subpart D.

The majority of commentersaddressing the nonwastewatertreatment standards agreed with theAgency's rationale for requiring thatthese hazardous wastes be burned inincinerators regulated under 40 CFR Part264 Subpart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0, orin'fuel substitution units burning forenergy recovery under requirements setout in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart D (see 54FR 1078-1080).

There were a number of commentsconcerning the regulatory status ofresidues resulting after burning thesewastes. In the January 11, 1989 proposal,the Agency limited its discussion ofresidues from incineration/fuelsubstitution to those that are routinelygenerated during the burning of therestricted wastes (e.g., ashes,incineration/fuel substitution scrubberwaters, spent filters and/or sludges fromthe treatment of scrubber waters). WhenEPA specifies a treatment method as thetreatment standard, residues resultingfrom the required treatment method areno longer prohibited from land disposal(unless EPA should otherwise specify

other requirements, as it is doing in thisproceeding for nickel in Kl15 wastesand for organics concentrated in thespent carbon from the treatment of K027K113-K116, U221, or U223 wastewaters).

However, some commenters asked theAgency to clarify the regulatory statusof wastes that are generatedsporadically (e.g., aging equipmentwhich have been exposed to the treatedwastes). In response to the commenterswho pointed out that wastes resultingfrom maintenance operations (e.g.,replacing of aging materials in thecombustion chambers, descaling ofboiler soot, or debris equipment) as wellas post treatment residues (e.g., filtercakes from water discharges ofincineration scrubber waters andwashes from the rinsing of incinerationequipment) were not addressed by theAgency in the proposed rule, EPA notesthat none of these sporadicallygenerated residues are prohibited fromland disposal so long as they originatefrom the treatment method specified inthis rule. See further discussionclarifying the applicability of thetreatment standards to incineratorequipment and other treatment residueswhere the treatment standards arepromulgated as a specific method ormethod(s) of treatment in sectionIII.A.3.(h.)(2.) of today's preamble.

For K115, the concentration-basedstandard for nickel is based on theperformance achieved by stabilizationof F006 sludges as measured by analysisof the TCLP extract. The Agency hasdetermined that it is technically feasibleto transfer the F006 performance data tothe K115 incinerator residues becausethese residues are believed to showsimilar treatability characteristics toF006 wastes (high concentrations ofnickel), and none of the constituents inKl15 residuals are likely to interferewith the treatability of nickel. K115wastes and its incineration/fuelsubstitution treatment residuals mustcomply with the concentration-basedtreatment standards promulgated fornickel.

2. Wastewaters. For organics in thewastewater forms of K027 K113-K116,U221 and U223 wastes, the Agencyproposed as the BDAT treatmentmethod carbon adsorption followed byincineration of spent carbon. Based onanalysis of the comments received,today's rule promulgates treatmentstandards for these requiring the use ofeither: (1) Carbon adsorption ofwastewaters followed by incineration ofthe spent carbon, or (2) directincineration of wastewaters as a methodof treatment. For K115 wastewaters, theAgency is also promulgatingconcentration-based treatment

standards for nickel. The totalconcentration level for nickel is basedon the transfer of performance data thatEPA has for metal bearing wastewaterscontaining nickel. K115 must complywith both the organic and metalstandards.

Most of the commenters supportedEPA's proposal specifying carbonadsorption followed by incineration ofthe spent carbon as the method oftreatment for K027 K113-K116, U221,and U223 wastewaters. The commentersagreed that this treatment trainsubstantially reduces the amount ofsoluble organics in wastewaters byconcentrating the soluble organics in theactivated carbon. The spent carbon isgenerated by a nondestructive treatmentprocess and thus, the spent carbon mustundergo further treatment in order todestroy the amount of organicsconcentrated in the spent carbon. As aresult, spent carbon treatment residuesmust comply with the nonwastewatertreatment standards being promulgatedin today's rule for the organics in thenonwastewater form of these wastes(i.e., incineration or fuel substitution).

Carbon adsorption is often used at theend of a treatment train, after theconstituent concentrations are reducedby technologies such as chemicaloxidation, hydrolysis or biodegradation.It should be noted that the use of suchother treatment technologies prior tocarbon adsorption is not prohibited bythis rule provided that the activatedcarbon is utilized at a point prior toplacing the* treated wastewaters in asurface impoundment and that the otherforms of treatment do not involve landdisposal. (Treatment in an impoundmentthat meets the requirements of RCRAsection 3005(j)(11) (implemented by 40CFR 261.4) is also not prohibited). Forexample, biological treatment in a tankfollowed by activated carbon treatment,followed by discharge of treatedwastewaters to a suriace impoundmentis not precluded.

Any nonwastewater residues fromtreatment technologies prior to carbonadsorption must meet the sametreatment standards applicable to thespent carbon (i.e., they would have to beincinerated in order to meet BDAT). Thewastewater effluent from carbonadsorption is considered to meet thetreatment standard. See furtherdiscussion on the applicability of theland disposal restrictions on theresidues from carbon adsorption insection IlI.A.3.(h.)(2.) of today'spreamble.

EPA is further specifying that, toavoid ineffective treatment, effluentwastewaters must be treated by well-

26624




designed and well-operated activatedcarbon unit. This is a unit that isdesigned and operated in a mannerwhere operating parameters areconsistent with the range of operationalparameters for which the units weredesigned.

For instance. wastewaterscontaminated with K027 generateinsoluble organics (polymers) that mayupset the operation of the carbon-adsorption unit and thus, these insolubleorganics (typically measured as totalsuspended solids, TSS) must beremoved from the wastewaters prior tocarbon adsorption. Pretreatment ofwastewaters will minimize operatingproblems such as plugging of the carbonbed by keeping the TSS of influentwastewaters to the carbon adsorptionunit at levels that allow the unit tooperate properly. Carbon adsorptionunits thus must be operated such thatbreakthrough of TDI and TDA does notoccur. Selection of an indicator grossparameter or indicator constituent thatcan account for the performance of thistechnology should be made on a case-by-case basis (for example, as part of afacility's waste analysis plan). (See alsothe discussion of waste analysis plans insection IlI.A.1.(f.) of today's preamble.)The BDAT background document forK027 Kl11-K116, U221, and U223wastes provides additional informationof these and other parameters that aretypically monitored and considered forthe design and operation of carbonadsorption units.

EPA emphasizes that the specifiedmethod of treatment includesincineration or fuel substitution of thespent carbon and any othernonwastewater forms of the wastes thatare generated up-stream from theeffluent discharge of the carbonadsorption column (e.g., spent filters orbiotreatment sludges). The spent carbonand other nonwastewaters generatedprior to carbon adsorption couldpresumably be burned for energyrecovery in a boiler or industrialfurnace. Such additional treatment isnecessary to thermally destroy theorganic constituents left behind in thespent carbon or nonwastewaters.Without these treatment steps, thehazardous constituents would be merelytransferred from one environmentalmedia (water), to another (the carbon orother solid waste).

Commenters also urged the Agency toconsider direct incineration of thesewastewaters either as the BDAT or asan alternative BDAT method oftreatment. The Agency believes thatincineration of these restricted

wastewaters is a treatment equivalentto carbon adsorption followed byincineration of spent carbon because theamount of organics concentrated in thespent carbon undergo further treatmentby incineration prior to land disposal(i.e., incineration or fuel substitution ofspent carbon and spent filters). Further,incineration/fuel substitution alone iscapable of substantially reducing theorganics in these restrictedwastewaters. Therefore, EPA ispromulgating incineration or fuelsubstitution as an equivalent BDATmethod for these wastewaters.Treatment residues from incineration orfuel substitution of these wastewatersare not prohibited from land disposal.

One commenter indicated that itthermally regenerates the spent carbonused to treat wastewaters contaminatedwith TDI wastes. Thermal regenerationof the spent carbon is not prohibitedproviding that the nonwastewaterresidues resulting from thermalregeneration of the spent carbonundergo incineration or fuel substitution(i.e., meet the K027 K113-KI16, U221,and U223 nonwastewater standardspromulgated today). The regeneratedcarbon is no longer a solid wasteprovided that it is further reused ormarketed (See 40 CFR 261.3(c](2)(i)).

Several commenters urged the Agencyto consider currently availabletreatment methods that deactivate thereactivity of wastewaters containingTDI constituents (K027 and/or U223).The methods of treatment consist ofadding large amounts of water with orwithout chemical reagents, in order topolymerize most of the free TDI to ureasand/or polyurethanes. Commentersargued that these deactivated TDIwastewaters could be land disposedwithout causing any harm to the humanhealth and the environment.

The Agency disagrees with thecommenters because deactivationmethods alone cannot be deemed BDAT.For instance, the addition of largeamounts of water may successfullyremove the reactivity of TDI. Thistechnology, however, leaves behindresidues of aromatic organic ringscontaining nitrogen constituents such asTDA. Since this method of treatment,alone, neither removes the long termtoxicity of the organic constituents inthe waste nor reduces the potential formigration of organics, the Agency hasruled out this method of treatment as apotential candidate for BDAT.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FORK027 K113-K116, U221 AND U223

[Nonwastewaters]

Incineration or fuel substitution as a method oftreatment

Incinerators must comply with 40 CFR 264 Sub-part 0 or 265 Subpart 0. Fuel substitution unitsmust be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 266 Sub-part D.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FORK027 K113-K116, U221 AND U223

[Wastewaters]

Carbon adsorption or incineration as a method oftreatment

Incinerators must comply with 40 CFR 264 Sub.part 0 or 265 Subpart 0. Fuel substitution unitsmust be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 266 Sub-part D.

Spent carbon and any other nonwastewater re-siduals generated upstream from a carbon adsorp-tion unit must meet the nonwastewater standardsapplicable to these wastes prior to land disposal.Carbon adsorption units must be operated such thatbreakthrough of TDI and TDA does not occur. Selec-tion of a surrogate or indicator compound as ameasure of breakthrough should be considered on acase-by-case situation.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KI 15(Nonwastewaters]


Constituent TotaliIt TCLP____________ composi in (mg/I)_ (mg/kg)

Nickel ................................ (i) 0.32

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K1 15

(Wastewaters]

Maxmum for any singlegrab sample

Constituent Total TCLPcompositionp (mg/)I (rag/I)

Nickel .................................... 0.47 ( )

Not applicable.

g. Wastes front 1,1,1-trichloroethaneproduction.

K028-Spent catalyst from thehydrochlorinator reactor in theproduction of 1,1,1-trichloroethane

K029-Waste from the product steamstripper in the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

K095-Distillation bottoms from theproduction of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

K096---leavy ends from the heavy endcolumn from the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.Wastes identified as K028, K029, K095

and K096 are generated primarily byfacilities in the organic chemicalsmanufacturing industry, specificallythose engaged in the production of 1,1,1-

I I II I . ii ,,.

26625




trichloroethane.'Detailed technicaldescriptions of the specific productionprocesses generating these wastes canbe found in the background documentfor the listing of these wastes, Today'srule promulgates treatment standardsfor nonwastewater forms of K028, K029,K095 andK096 and wastewater forms ofK028. The regulated constituents andtreatment standards for these wastesare listed in the tables at the end of thissection.

1. Revision of the "No Land Disposal"standards. At the time of the proposedrule,'information available to theAgency indicated that K029 wastes wereno longer being generated and that K095and K096 wastes were being completelyrecycled. According to available wastecharacterization data, all three of thesewastes would be classified asnonwastewaters for the purposes ofBDAT. Therefore, the Agency proposeda treatment standard of "No LandDisposal Based on No Generation" forK029 nonwastewaters and "No LandDisposal Based on Recycling" for K095and K096 nonwastewaters. The Agencysimultaneously proposed thatconcentration-based standards for thenonwastewaters could be transferredfrom treatment performance data forincineration of either K019 or F024nonwastewaters. This data transferwould be possible because these twowastes were more difficult to treat thanK029, K095 and K096.

Many commenters opposed anystandard that specified "No LandDisposal" for a particular waste becauseof complications arising from EPA'sapplication of the "derived-from" and"mixture" rules. The commenters wereconcerned that during the process ofrecycling their K095 and K096 wastes,an accidental spill may occur. thuscreating a nonrecyclable K095 or K096nonwastewater based on either the"derived-from" or the "mixture" rule.The commenters also pointed out thatpotential fluctuations in the generationprocesses, or modifications to thegeneration process may result in thegeneration of a waste that could nolonger be recycled. They indicated thatthese wastes, if generated, wouldprobably require incineration and mayproduce an ash that would most likelyrequire land disposal. Thus, a genuineneed for a concentration-basedtreatment standard would arise.

The Agency maintains that for certainwastes, the "No Land Disposal"standard is appropriate. The Agencybelieves that the clarification of theapplicability of this standard mayremove the majority of the commenters'concerns. Such a standard is

appropriate, provided that it applies towastes generated from the processdescribed in the listing description forthis waste that appears in 40 CFR Part261, and is disposed after the date of theapplicable land disposal prohibition forthat waste. A final rule published onMay 2, 1989 provides a completeexplanation of the basis for limiting the"No Land Disposal Based on NoGeneration" standard in this way (54 FR18836).

However, most commenters supportedthe Agency's proposed alternative (i.e.,the transfer of concentration-basedtreatment standards for K019 wastes toK029, K095 and K096]. Thus, the Agencyis not promulgating the "No LandDisposal Based on No Generation"standard for K029 nonwastewaters noris it promulgating the "No Land DisposalBased on Recycling" standard for K095and K096 nonwastewaters.

2. Standards for organic constituents.Commenters pointed out that K019wastes were more similar to K028, K029,K095 and K096 nonwastewaters thanF024 wastes. The Agency reexaminedthe data and agrees with thecommenters. Waste characterizationdata on K019 nonwastewaters indicatethat the K019 wastes do contain higherconcentrations of chlorinated organiccompounds than the F024 wastes andare more difficult to treat than K028,K029, K095 and K096 nonwastewaters.The Agency is therefore promulgatingtreatment standards for the organicconstituents present in thesenonwastewaters based on the transferof performance data from rotary kilnincineration in K019 wastes rather thanF024 wastes.

Because characterization data onK029, K095, and K096 show the presenceof treatable concentrations of severalorganic constituents that the Agencyhad not found present in K028, theAgency developed standards for theseother organic constituents based on atransfer of performance data andexisting concentration-based standardsfor K019 wastes. Details on the rationalefor the transfer of performance data andthe development of treatment standardsfor these organic constituents can befound in the BDAT backgrounddocument for these wastes.

One commenter stated that theproposed organic constituent treatmentstandards fall below PQLs achievable mthe commenter's analytical laboratories.However, the background documents forK019 and for F024 demonstrate thatdetection levels in ash and scrubberwater residuals can be achieved inlaboratories. In fact, the limits achievedby the laboratories used in the BDAT

studies are well below the proposed orfinal standards for all regulated organicconstituents. The Agency believes thisevidence verifies that analyticallaboratories that are in compliance withEPA's QA/QC requirements canquantify these regulated constituents atthe treatment standard lev.els. See also amore complete discussion of therelationship of PQLs to BDAT treatmentstandards in section III.A.1.(b.) oftoday's preamble.

Several commenters stated that thetreatment standards for the organicconstituents should be consistent withtreatment standards previouslypromulgated for the same constituents inother waste codes. The Agencydisagrees with these commenters.Treatment standards for a particularwaste are developed based on BDATperformance data for that waste or for awaste judged to be similar. Treatmentstandards for particular constituentsmay vary for different wastes due todifferences in the waste matrices whichmay alter the constituent treatability.The Agency also believes that thesecommenters concerns may be moot bythe Agency's decision to transfertreatment standards from K019 wastesto K028, K029, K095 and K096nonwastewaters.

3. Standards for metal constituents. Intoday's rule, only the proposedtreatment standards for cadmium,chromium, lead and mckel im K028wastewaters are being promulgated.These wastewater standards are beingtransferred based on the reanalysis ofthe performance data from the lime andsulfide precipitation treatment of metalsfrom K062 wastewaters. The Agency hasdetermined that these metals present inK062 wastewaters are more difficult totreat than when present in K028wastewaters. K062 wastewaterstypically contain much higher levels ofthese metals as well as other metals(such as iron) and much higher levels ofdissolved solids (such as sulfates orchlorides). These higher concentrationof metals and dissolved solids interferewith the effectiveness of theprecipitation reactions which areintended to remove the metals ofinterest. Thus, the K062 wastewaters aremore difficult to treqt than K028wastewaters. A more detailedexplanation of the transfer of these datafor metal constituents in K028 isprovided in the BDAT backgrounddocument for these wastes. The Agencydid not receive any comments opposingthe transfer of these K062 treatmentperformance data specifically to K028wastewaters nor were any comments ordata received indicating that these

26626




standards could not be achieved.Therefore, the Agency is promulgatingthese standards as proposed.

Standards for nickel and chromium inK028 nonwastewaters were originallyproposed based on performance data forthese metal constituents from thestabilization of K048 and K051incinerator ash. One commenter felt thatthese data were not demonstrated bythe -stabilization testing performed,thereby invalidating the transfer of thetreatment standards. This commentersuggested transferring treatmentperformance data from F006 instead.

Meanwhile, the Agency has recentlycompleted an analysis of TCLP extractsobtained from the stabilization of F024incinerator ash residues. The results ofthis analysis show substantial reductionof metals in TCLP extracts afterstabilization. At the same time, theAgency reexamined the data for thestabilization of F006, K048, and K051nonwastewaters and concluded thatthese new stabilization data for F024wastes may better represent the levelsof treatment obtainable for the metalsexpected to be contained in K028 ashresidues (as well as those for K029,K095, and K090). However, since thesedata were not available for public noticeand comment, and since the resultanttreatment standards are significantlydifferent from the proposed standards,the Agency has decided not topromulgate treatment standards forthese metals in K028 nonwastewaters intoday's rule. The Agency is reservingstandards for nickel and chrormum in(026 nonwastewaters in order to

provide notice that these constituentswill be proposed for restrictions in afuture rulemakmg.

Another commenter challengedtransferring stabilization data in orderto regulate inorganic constituents intreatment residues from K028 wastesbecause the commenter believed that ifthe concentrations for metals fall belowthe levels which define a characteristicwaste (40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C), notreatment should be required. TheAgency reminds the commenter that thetreatment residuals are also consideredto be listed hazardous wastes under the"derived-from" rule, regardless ofwhether or not the waste exhibits acharacteristic. See further discussion ofthe relationship of BDAT to the"derived-from rule in section III.A.1.(d.)of today's preamble.

In a similar manner, one commenterquestioned the need to regulate metalsconstituents in residues derived from apredominantly organic waste. Becauseincineration is designed specifically to

destroy organics and because it does notprovide treatment for metals (which endup in the ash), the Agency believes thatstabilization of the ash to immobilizemetal constituents is a technically validapproach.

Other commenters stated that thesemetals should not be regulated becausethese wastes are not listed for theseconstituents. The hazardousconstituents for which a waste is listedare considered by the Agency isselection of constituents for regulation.However, these constituents are by nomeans an exhaustive list, but merelyprovide a minimum basis for listing awaste as hazardous. As discussed insection III.A.1.(b.) of today's preamble,the Agency therefore believes that it isnot restricted to regulation of only theseconstituents. The Agency uses wastecharacterization and treatmentperformance data collected under theBDAT program to determine theconstituents that should be regulated.

At the time of proposal, there wasapparently no need for metals standardsin K029, K095 and K096nonwastewaters, because K095 andK096 nonwastewaters were being totallyrecycled and because K029nonwastewaters were identified as nolonger being generated. The Agencyintends to develop standards for metalsin nonwastewaters forms of K029, K095,and (096 and propose them with theThird Third wastes prior topromulgation by May 8, 1990.

4. Standards for K029, K095 and K096wastewaters. The Agency also did notpropose treatment standards for thewastewater forms of K029, K095 andK096. The Agency stated that it believedthat there was no need for theirdevelopment because it was unlikelythat these wastewaters were beinggenerated nor could be generated.Commenters indicated that they believethat the likelihood for generation ofthese wastewaters is reasonably good,and thus a need exists for standards. Inparticular, wastewaters may begenerated during the recycling of K095and K096 (e.g., wash waters,contaminated cooling water, and spillrinsings). (However, if K095 and/or K096wastes are used as intermediates andthus not discarded, these materialswould not be solid wastes, and anyresidues from their use would thereforenot be deemed to be derived frommanagement of a listed hazardouswaste.)

The Agency agrees with thesecommenters that wastewater forms ofK029, K095 and K096 may be generatedand thus treatment standards are

needed. However, today's rule cannotpromulgate any treatment standardsbecause no standards were previouslyproposed. The Agency intends todevelop standards for wastewater formsof K029, K095, and K096 and proposethem with the Third Third wastes priorto promulgation by May 8, 1990.

K029, K095, and K096 are allconsidered Second Third wastes forwhich treatment standards were to beestablished by the statutory deadline ofJune 8, 1989. Since the Agency is notpromulgating standards for thewastewater forms of K029, K095 andK096 by their statutory deadline, landdisposal of these wastewaters shall beregulated by the "soft hammer"provisions in 40 CFR Part 268.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K028

[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for anysingle grab sample

Constituent Totalcompo- TCLP

sition (mg/I)(mg/kg) _

1,1-Dichloroethane ................... 6.0 (')trans-1,2-Dichloroethene .......... 6.0 ()Hexachlorobutadiene ................ 5.6 (')Hexachloroethane ..................... 6. 2 (1)Pentachloroethane ................... 5.6 (')1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 5.6 ()1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ........ 5.6 ()1,1,1-Trichloroethane ............... 6.0 1()1,1.2-Tnchloroethane ............... 6.0 (')Tetrachloroethylene ................. 6.0 (')Chromium (Total) ...................... (1) Reserved.Nickel ........................................ (1) Reserved.

Not applicable.


[Wastewaters]



composition (rg/I)(rag/1)

1,1-Dichloroethane ........... 0.007 ..............trans-1,2- 0.033 ..............

Dichloroethene.Hexachlorobutadiene . 0.007 .............Hexachloroethane............ 0,033 ..............Pentachloroethane ........... 0.033 ..............1,1,1,2- 0.007 ..............

Tetrachloroethane.1,1,2,2- 0.007 ..............

Tetrachloroethane.Tetrachloroethylene. 0007 ..............1,1,1-Tnchloroethane . 0.007 ..............1,1,2-Trichloroethane ....... 0.007 ..............Cadm ium ........................... 6.4 ...................Chromium (Total) ............. 0.35 .................Lead ................................... 0.037 ..............N ickel ................................. 0.47 ................

26627




BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K029[Nonwastewaters]



(mg/kg) (mg/I)

Chloroform ....................... 6.0 .................. Notapplica-ble

1,2-Dichloroethane .......... 6.0 ..................1,1-Dichloroethylene . 6.0 ...................1. ,1 -Trichloroethane . 6.0 ...................Vinyl chloride ................... 6.0 ...................


[Nonwastewaters]



(mg/kg) (mg/I)

1.1,1,2- 5.6 ...................Tetrachloroethane.

1,1,2,2- 5.6 ...................Tetrachloroethane.

Tetrachloroethene ............ 6.0 ..................1,1,2-Tnchloroethane . 6.0 ...................Tnchloroethylene .............. 5.6 ...................Hexachloroethane ............ 28.0 .................Pentachtoroethane ........... 5.6 ...................

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K096(Nonwastewaters]


Constituent Totalcomposition (Tg/)

(mg/kg)

1,3-Dichlorobenzene . 5.6 ..................Pentachloroethane ......... 5.6 ..................1,1,1,2- 5.6 ..................

Tetrachloroethane.1,1,2,2- 5.6 ...................

Tetrachloroethane.Tetrachloroethylene . 6.0 ...................1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.... 19 .............Trichloroethylene .............. 5.6 .................1,1,2-Tnchloroethane. 6.0 ..................

h. Organophosphorus pesticidewastes.K036--Still bottoms from toluene

reclamation distillation in theproduction of Disulfoton.

K038-Wastewater from the washingand stripping of Phorate production.

K039-Filter cake from the filtration ofdiethyl phosphorodithioic acid in theproduction of Phorate.

K040-Wastewater treatment sludgefrom the production of Phorate.

P039-DisulfotonP040-Diethyl 2-pyrazinyl

phosphorothioateP041-Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate

P043-DiisopropylfluorophosphateP044-DimethoateP062-Hexaethyl tetraphosphateP071-Methyl parathionP085-Octamethyl pyrophosphoramideP089-ParathionP094-PhorateP097-FamphurP109-Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphateP1i1-Tetraethyl pyrophosphateU058-CyclophosphamideU087--O,O-Diethyl S-methyl

dithiophosphateU235-trs-2,3-Dibromopropyl)

phosphateToday's rule promulgates treatment

standards for wastewater andnonwastewater forms of K038, K039,K040, P039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062,P071, P085, P089, P094, P097 P109, Pl11,U058, U087 and U235. It alsopromulgates standards for wastewaterforms of K036. Detailed technicaldescriptions of the specific productionprocesses generating these wastes canbe found in the background documentfor the listing of these wastes.

The principal constituents of concernin each of these wastes are members ofa group of organic compounds known asorganophosphorus compounds. Themajority of these constituents alsocontain sulfur and are often referred toas phosphorothioates. All of thesecompounds are somewhat similar instructure and elemental content. Mostare typically manufactured for use aspesticides. Therefore, the Agency hasclassified all of these compounds as onetreatability group identified as theorganophosphorus pesticides.

In the January 11, 1989 proposed rulefor Second Third wastes, the Agencyproposed a direct transfer of theconcentration-based standards from theincineration of K037 wastes (wastewatertreatment sludge from the production ofDisulfoton) to some of theseorganophosphorus pesticide wastes (i.e.,those that have analytical methods) andproposed incineration as a method oftreatment for the others. The basis of allof these standards is the similarities instructure and elemental composition ofall of the organophosphorus pesticidesto each other and to Disulfoton, theprincipal hazardous constituent ofconcern in K037 wastes. (EPApromulgated concentration-basedtreatment standards for K037wastewaters and nonwastewaters withthe First Third wastes on August 8,1988.) In addition, the Agency believesthat Disulfoton is one of the mostdifficult chemicals in this group oforganophosphorus pesticides toincinerate. Given that Disulfoton can beeffectively treated by incineration and

that the chemicals in this group arestructurally similar, the Agency believesthat all the other organophosphoruspesticides in this section can beeffectively treated by incineration, andthat the concentration-based standardfor each representative regulatedorganophosphorus pesticide can beidentical to that achieved byincineration of Disulfoton in K037wastes. Therefore, the Agency believesthat the performance achievable byincineration represents BDAT for all ofthe organophosphorus pesticidechemicals and is promulgatingconcentration-based treatmentstandards for the wastewaters andnonwastewater forms of K038, K040,P039, P071, P089, P094; P097 and U235 aswell as wastewater forms of K036 basedon this transfer.

EPA is establishing incineration as amethod of treatment for thenonwastewater forms of K039, P040,P041, P043, P044, P062, P085, P109, P111,U058 and U087 Standards for thewastewater forms of theseorganophosphorus pesticides have beendeveloped based on the performance ofbiological degradation, incineration andcarbon adsorption. These are discussedin detail in the following sections.

1. Wastes with concentration-basedBDA T standards. The Agency hasdetermined that, currently, there areanalytical methods (most of whichcomply with the EPA, Office of SolidWaste, Publication: SW-846 (generallyreferred to as SW--846)) that allow themeasurement of the principal hazardousconstituent (organophosphoruspesticide) contained in wastes andtreatment residuals for wastes identifiedas K036, K038, K040, P039, P071, P089,P094, P097 and U235. Thus, the Agencyis able to promulgate concentration-based treatment standards for:Disulfoton in K036 wastewaters;Disulfoton in P039 wastewaters andnonwastewaters; Phorate in K038, K040and P094 wastewaters andnonwastewaters; and Methyl parathion,Parathion, Famphur, and tris-(2, 3-Dibrompropyl) phosphate in P071, P089,P097 and U235 wastewaters andnonwastewaters, respectively.Standards applicable tononwastewaters are based on-theperformance achieved by rotary kilnincineration and the concentration oforganophosphorus pesticide measuredin the ash residuals. Standardsapplicable to wastewaters are based onthe performance achieved by biologicaltreatment and the concentration oforganophosphorus pesticide measuredin the resultant effluent wastewaters.Where the treatment standards are

26628




expressed as concentration-basedstandards, other treatment technologiesthat can achieve these concentration-based treatment standards are notprecluded from use by this rule. Theregulated constituents and treatmentstandards for these wastes are listed inthe tables at the end of this section.

The proposed treatment standards forthe wastewater forms of theseorganophosphorus pesticides werebased on the concentrations ofDisulfoton as measured in grab samplesof scrubber water from the incinerationof K037 nonwastewaters. EPA hasdecided to change these standards in thefinal rule based on additionalperformance data for a biologicalwastewaters treatment systemsubmitted during the comment period.These data were from the treatment ofindustrial wastewaters containing lowconcentrations of Parathion. Although,these data (based on analysis of grabsamples for influent wastes andcomposite samples for effluent) were notgenerated specifically for thisrulemaking and do not result from thedirect treatment of the RCRA wasteidentified as P089 (Parathion), theAgency believes that these wastewatershave concentrations of Parathion thatare similar to those wastewatersidentified specifically as K036, K038,K040, P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 orU235. The Agency has also determinedthat these data are valid and representthe level of performance that appears tobe achievable for this type of biologicalwastewater treatment system.

The Agency points out that thepromulgated concentration-basedtreatment standards for wastewaters forthese organophosphorus wastes arebased on the analysis of compositesamples rather than grab samples,because this new performance datareceived during the comment periodwere based on the analysis of compositeeffluent samples. See further discussionof when EPA uses composite samples toestablish treatment standards in sectionIII.A.1.(f.) of today's preamble.

EPA believes these data to be apreferable measure of treatmentperformance because where the Agencyhas performance data (that conformwith BDAT methodology) onwastewater treatment processes anddata on incineration (constituentconcentrations in scrubber water), theAgency prefers to establish treatmentstandards based on the wastewatertreatment processes. INote.-This doesnot preclude the Agency fromestablishing treatment standards forother wastes based on constituent

concentrations in incinerator scrubberwaters.)

EPA also believes that these data forbiological treatment of Parathion can bevalidly transferred to the wastewatersforms of the other organophosphoruspesticide waste codes. This is due to thestructural similarity between Parathionand the other organophosphorus wastes.Thus, today's rule promulgates revisedconcentration-based standards for thewastewater forms of K036, K038, K040,P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 and U235based on analysis of composite samplesfrom wastewater treatment. (EPA alsointends to investigate if thesewastewater standards are appropriatefor K037 wastewaters-a First Thirdwaste-as part of the Third Thirdrulemaking.)

The Agency received one commentdisagreeing with the proposedconcentration-based standards for P089,P097 and U235, because of a perceivedlack of analytical methods to detectParathion [P089), Famphur (P097) andtris-(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate. TheAgency disagrees with this comment,and believes that all three chemicals canbe analyzed. Famphur and Parathioncan be analyzed by Method 8270 of SW-846, and have been proposed in theJanuary 23, 1989 update to the thirdedition of SW-84W. Tris-(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate can beanalyzed by Method 8350 of SW-846,and will be included in the secondupdate to the third edition of SW--846,due to be proposed as an official methodin early 1990. All three chemicals havebeen previously included on the BDATList for that reason.

One commenter questioned why, inthe January 11, 1989 proposal, standardswere proposed for K(036 wastewaters,but not for K036 nonwastewaters. TheAgency promulgated a BDAT standardof "No Land Disposal based on NoGeneration" for K036 nonwastewaterswith the First Third wastes on August 8,1988. (See 53 FR 31174). EPA amendedthis standard on May 2, 1989, to apply towastes generated from the processdescribed in the listing description anddisposed after August 17, 1988 (54 FR18836). In the forthcoming proposed rulefor Third Third wastes, the Agencyintends to propose a standard for otherforms of K036 nonwastewaters, such asK036 spill residues or solid residuesfrom the treatment of K030 leachate.

One commenter stated that K036 andP039 may be harder to destroy byincineration than K037 because theconceritration of Disulfoton in K036 andP039 may be many times higher than theconcentration in K037 The Agencydisagrees with this comment. While it

recognizes that higher concentrations ofDisulfoton may occur in K036 and P039wastes, the Agency believes that theconcentrations would not besignificantly different from thatmeasured in the untreated K037 wastes.The data in the background documentfor K037 show Disulfoton concentrationsof 10.4% to 24.6% for the untreatedwastes. The Agency believes that theseconcentration levels would be within thesame order of magnitude of thoseanticipated to be in K036 and P039. TheAgency successfully incinerated thishigh level of Disulfoton such that theconcentrations in the residuals were ator near the detection limit in theresiduals. Further, the K037 waste testedalso contained approximately 75% solids(filter paper and diatomaceous earthfilter aid) which the Agency believescould interfere with the destruction ofDisulfoton and thus make K037 moredifficult to destroy than K036 and P039wastes that may have slightly higherconcentrations of the chemical, but alesser amount of interferences.

2. Wastes with treatment methods asBDAT. The Agency determined that theanalytical methods available during thedevelopment of today's rule could notsatisfactorily measure the principalhazardous organic constituents(organophosphorus pesticide) containedin wastes and treatment residuals forwastes identified as K039, P040, P041,P043, P044, P062, P085, P109, P111, U058and U087 Thus, the Agency is unable topromulgate concentration-basedtreatment standards for these wastesand is promulgating methods oftreatment. Although EPA prefers aconcentration-based standard (due toboth the greater flexibility in choice oftechnology used to achieve the standardand in the greater control afforded toensure efficient design and operation ofthe chosen technology), in the absenceof analytical methods (that wouldmeasure and assure compliance), theAgency believes that establishing amethod of treatment is the only logicalalternative for BDAT. In general, themajority of commenters on this issuesupported this approach. Further. EPAbelieves that this is consistent with thepromulgated BDAT methodology andwith RCRA Section 3004(m) whichauthorizes the Agency to establisheither levels or methods of treatment.Therefore, today's rule promulgatesmethods of treatment for these wastes.

As discussed previously, the Agencybelieves that incineration representsBDAT for the nonwastewater forms ofthese wastes. Besides the fact that EPAdoes not currently have an analyticalmethod for this group of

26629



Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 ./ Rules and Regulations

organophosphorus pesticides, EPA hascurrently not identified any organicconstituents in these wastes that couldbe used as a surrogate or as an indicatorcompound in order to developalternative concentration-basedstandards for these wastes. It should benoted that promulgating BDATstandards expressed as specificmethods of treatment does not precludethe Agency from establishingconcentration-based standards in thefuture, should an analytical method bedeveloped with sufficient QA/QC thatwill measure the hazardous constituentsor should an adequate surrogate orindicator constituent be identified.Therefore, the Agency is promulgating aBDAT treatment standard of"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"for the nonwastewater forms of K039,P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P085, P109,Pill, U058 and U087 Incinerators mustcomply with 40 CFR 264 Subpart 0 or265 Subpart 0.

For the wastewater forms of theseorganophosphorus wastes, the Agencyproposed carbon adsorption as theBDAT treatment method in 54 FR 1086(January 11, 1989). The residual from thistype of nondestructive treatment (i.e.,the spent carbon) is still considered tobe the same waste code as beforetreatment, and must be managed assuch. It therefore must be incineratedprior to land disposal.

It should be noted that the use ofother treatment technologies prior tocarbon adsorption is not prohibited bythis rule. Carbon adsorption is oftenused at the end of a treatment train,after the constituent concentrations arereduced by technologies such aschemical oxidation, hydrolysis orbiodegradation. Any nonwastewaterresidues from these treatmenttechnologies prior to and includingcarbon adsorption would have to beincinerated in order to meet thetreatment standard. The wastewatereffluent from carbon adsorption wouldbe considered to meet the treatmentstandard. See section III.A.3.(j.) oftoday's preamble for a similardiscussion on carbon adsorption forwastewaters associated with K027wastes.

Several commenters suggested thatthere are cases where it may bepreferable to incinerate the wastewater,rather than have the waste adsorbed bycarbon. Two examples of thesesituations occur when: (1) The wasteappears as a result of the "mixture-rule"with other waste codes for which theBDAT treatment method requiresincineration; and (2) the waste isgenerated such that it contains a

relatively high level of TOC but justunder the 1% TOC cut-off and maintainsits classification (for purposes of BDAT)as a wastewater. In either case, theAgency agrees with the commenter thatincineration would then be the preferredor required (as in the case of the firstexample) method of treatment. In fact,the Agency did consider incineration asan alternative destructive technology tocarbon adsorption. However, it seemedimpractical to require all wastewaterstreams to be incinerated. (Some dataindicated that the majority of hazardouswastewaters contain significantly lessthan 1% TOC.)

For those wastewaters that do containjust under the 1% TOC level,incineration may be more desirable andpossibly more effective than carbonadsorption. This might lead one tobelieve that for these "high" TOCwastewaters, the Agency shouldtherefore dictate incineration overcarbon adsorption. However, at thistime the lack of a method to analyze forthe constituents of concern makes itdifficult (but not impossible) to correlatethe performance efficiency of the twotreatment methods for the constituentsof concern to performance efficiency ofa surrogate or indicator compound. Onepossible surrogate to measure treatmentefficiency is total organic carbon (TOC);however, the Agency is currentlyunaware of the level of TOC for whichcarbon adsorption would be moreefficient than incineration.

Thus, the Agency is promulgating"Incineration or Carbon Adsorption as aMethod of Treatment" as BDAT for thewastewater forms of wastes identifiedas K039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062,P085, P109, P111, U058 and U087 Spentcarbon and any other nonwastewaterresiduals generated up-stream from acarbon adsorption unit must meet thenonwastewater standards applicable tothese wastes prior to land disposal, andso must be incinerated. Carbonadsorption units must be operated suchthat breakthrough of organophosphoruscompounds does not occur. (See sectionlII.A.3.(f.) of today's preamble for adiscussion on the need for specifyingsome level of proper operatingconditions for carbon adsorptiontechnology.) Selection of a surrogate orindicator compound of this breakthroughshould be made on a case-by-case basis(for example, as part of a facility'swaste analysis plan). See also thediscussion of waste analysis plans insection lII.A.1.(f.) of today's preamble.

Commenters asked the Agency tospecifically clarify the applicability ofthe "treatment as a method" BDATstandards to treatment residuals. They

suggested that the Agency could clarifythe standards by stating that they do notapply to "derived-from" wastes. Whilethe Agency agrees that clarification isnecessary, it does not agree that thestandards should be identified assuggested for several reasons: (1) allwastes identified as "derived-from" arenot necessarily treatment residues (e.g.,leachate); (2) all nonwastewatertreatment residues (such as spentcarbon, residues from recycling, andresidues from wastewater treatmentprocesses prior to carbon adsorption)may contain leachable hazardousorganics; (3) some wastewaters (such asscrubber waters from steam strippingoperations or recovery process waters)may contain significant amounts ofuntreated constituents.

However, the Agency believes thatthe previous discussions in this sectionassist in clarifying the applicability tothese residues. As a summary, theAgency points out the following: (1)Scrubber waters from incinerators incompliance with 40 CFR Part 264Subpart 0 of Part 265 Subpart 0 areconsidered to meet BDAT for thesewastes and can be land disposed; (2) thescrubber waters from incinerators incompliance with 40 CFR Part 264Subpart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0therefore are not required to undergo"Carbon Adsorption as a Method ofTreatment" (3) incinerator ashes andresidues from the treatment of scrubberwaters from incinerators in compliancewith 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart 0 of Part265 Subpart 0 are considered to meetBDAT for these wastes and can be landdisposed; (4) incinerator equipment(such as fire brick) that are derived fromsections of the-incinerator that havebeen directly subjected to the hightemperatures of the incinerator (thatwas operated in compliance with 40CFR Part 264 Subpart 0 of Part 265Subpart 0) or are downstream from thehigh temperature zones are consideredto meet BDAT for these wastes and canbe land disposed. The Agency believesthat the hazardous constituentscontained in these wastes are destroyedin the high temperature zones of theincinerator and would not be expectedto be present in the high temperaturezones or in the equipment down streamof these zones; (5) wastewater effluent(and their subsequent nonwastewatertreatment residues) from the carbonadsorption units treating wastewaterforms of these waters are considered tomeet BDAT for these wastes and can beland disposed; and (6) spent carbon (andnonwastewater residues from thepretreatment of these wastes prior tocarbon adsorption) from the treatment

26630

26630




of wastewater forms of these wastes arenot considered to meet BDAT for thesewastes and must meet the BDATtreatment standards for nonwastewatersprior to land disposal.

As noted earlier, when treatmentstandards are expressed as a specifictechnology rather than concentration-based standards, it is possible for a

generator or treater to demonstrate thatan alternative technology can achievean equivalent level of performance asthat specific treatment method (40 CFR268.42(b)). This demonstration could bebased on: (1) A newly developedanalytical method for the primaryhazardous constituent; (2) aconcentration-based standard utilizing a

surrogate or indicator compound; or (3)other demonstrations of equtvance foran alternative method of treatment. Theresultant treatment standard as well asany analytical methodology used in thedemonstration could then be proposedby the Agency to be applicable to allwastes in this group.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANOPHOSPHORUS WASTES K038, K040, P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 AND U235

Maximum for any singlegrab sampleWaste____

code Regulated constituent Total TCLPcomposition, (mg/1)(mg/kg)

K038 Phorate ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 ()K040 Phorate ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 ()P039 Disulfoton ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1 t)P071 M ethyl parathion .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1( )P089 Parathion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 ()P094 Phorate ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 )P097 Fam phur .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1 ()U235 tns-(2,3-Dibrom opropyl) phosphate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 )

Not applicable.

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANOPHOSPHORUS WASTES K036, K038, K040, P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 AND U235

[Wastewaters]

Regulated constituent

036 Disulfoton ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................038 Phorate ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................040 Phorate ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................039 Disulfoton ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................D71 Methyl parathion ....................................................................................................................................................................................................089 Parathion ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................094 Phorate ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................097 Famphur ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................235 tns-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate ....................................................................................................................................................................

'Not applicable.

±

Maximum for anycomposite sample

Total TCLPcomposition (mg/1)

(mg/I) I

0.0250.0250.0250.0250.0250.0250.0250.025

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR OR-

GANOPHOSPHORUS WASTES K039,P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P085,P109, Pil11, U058 AND U087

[Nonwastewaters]

Incineration as a method of treatment

BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR OR-

GANOPHOSPHORUS WASTES K039,P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P085,P109, Pl11, U058 AND U087

[Wastewaters]

Carbon adsorption or Incineration I as a method oftreatment

Incinerators must comply with 40 CFR 264 Sub-Incinerators must comply with 40 CFR 264 Sub- part 0 or 265 Subpart 0.part 0 or 265 Subpart 0. Spent carbon and any other nonwastewater re-

siduals generated upstream from a carbon adsorp-tion unit must meet the nonwastewater standardsapplicable to these wastes prior to land disposal.Carbon adsorption units must be operated such thatbreakthrough of the organophosphorus compoundsdoes not occur. Selection of a surrogate or indicatorcompound as a measure of breakthrough should beconsidered on a case-by-case situation.

i. Wastes from 2,4-D production.K043-2,6-Dichlorophenol wastes

from the production of 2,4-D.

Wastes identified as K043 aregenerated primarily by facilities in theorganic chemicals manufacturingindustry, specifically those engaged inthe production of 2,4-D. The Agency hasdata that indicate that there is only onecurrent generator of this waste. Detailedtechnical descriptions of the specificproduction process generating thesewastes can be found tn the backgrounddocument for the listing of this wastecode. The treatment standards for thiswaste are based on data obtained fromwastes generated and treated at thisfacility.

Today's rule promulgates treatmentstandards for K043 wastewaters andnonwastewaters based on incineration.Other treatment technologies that canachieve these concentration-basedtreatment standards are not precludedfrom use by this rule. EPA is

Wastecode

26631




promulgating treatment standards forthirteen organic constituents includingtetrachloroethene, six chlorinatedphenols, and six polychlormateddibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans(PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively). Thespecific regulated constituents andtreatment standards for these wastesare listed in the tables at the end of thissection.

The promulgated treatment standardsfor the regulated chlorinated phenols inwastewaters are based on new datareceived by the Agency from the solegenerator/treater of K043 during thecomment period. The original data forwastewaters consisted of two datapoints. The new data provided sixadditional wastewater data points. TheAgency believes these new data aremore representative of treatment thatcan be achieved for K043.

In general, the comments submittedon the proposed rule for K043 related tofour general issues: (1) Theestablishment of treatment standards forPCDDs and PCDFs; (2) specifying atreatment technology as the treatmentstandards for K043 rather thanestablishing concentration-basedstandards; (3) the validity of theperformance data upon which thetreatment standards are based; and (4)the regulation of tetrachloroethene inK043.

Commenters were concerned with thetreatment standards established for thesix regulated PCDDs and PCDFs. Somecommenters thought that the PCDDs andPCDFs should not be regulated becauseK043 is not listed for these constituents.This is not a sufficient reason for notestablishing a treatment standard, forthe reasons given a number of timesearlier in this preamble. (See furtherdiscussion of the use of Appendix VII inestablishing BDAT in section III.A.i.(b.)of today's preamble and the discussionof the analysis for analysis of PCDDsand PCDFs in F024 wastes in sectionIII.A.3.(b') of today's preamble.) TheAgency thus uses wastecharacterization and treatmentperformance data to determine theconstituents that should be regulated fora waste. A more detailed explanation ofthe selection of regulated constituents inK043 is provided in the backgrounddocument for this waste code.

Another commenter felt that thetetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDDs)and tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDFs)should not be regulated because theincineration data (submitted by thecommenter) did not indicate thepresence of these constituents in K043wastes. In response, the Agency pointsout that the availability of specifictreatment data for a given constituent in

a particular waste, is not a requirementfor the selection of that constituent forregulation. This is particularly true whenEPA has sufficient additional wastecharacterization data that indicate thepresence of that constituent in treatablelevels in wastes other than what wasspecifically treated. While the Agencydid not have specific treatment data forTCDDs and TCDFs in the submittedK043 incineration data, it did not wastecharacterization data indicating thepresence of several of these constituentsin other untreated K043 wastes atconcentrations that the Agencydetermined were treatable byincineration.

This same commenter expressedconcern that the BDAT treatmentstandards for these constituents in K043were transferred from treatmentstandards for K099. According to thecommenter, the wastes are notsufficiently similar to justify transferringstandards. As stated in the proposedrule (54 FR 1083), the Agency also hasdata on six PCDDs and PCDFs inuntreated and treated K099 wastes.Since K099 is generated at the same siteas K043 (in the next step of the 2,4-Dproduction process) and since theycontain similar types and concentrationsof hazardous constituents as containedin untreated K043 wastes, the Agencybelieves that K099 wastes aresufficiently similar in order to justifytransferring standards for theseconstituents to K043 wastes.

In addition, the Agency feels thatincineration of K043 waste will treat thePCDDs and PCDFs to levels that arecomparable to those achieved bychlorination of the K099 waste. Further,the Agency points out that standards forPCDDs and PCDFs are the same asthose promulgated for F024 wastes(which are also based on incineration).The Agency believes that the F024wastes tested by the Agency are moredifficult to incinerate than K043, basedon available characterization data, andthat the resultant F024 incinerator ash isas difficult or more difficult to analyzethan the respective K043 nonwastewaterresiduals. While the Agency maintainsthat the transfer of standards from K099is supportable, the Agency believes thatthe data from F024 also lends support toestablishment of these standards forK043. See section III.A.1.(e.) of today'spreamble for a more detailed discussionrelated to the transfer of treatmentstandards.

Several commenters expressedgeneral concerns about the ability tocomply with the treatment standards forPCDDs and PCDFs because they are toolow (i.e., near the practical quantitationlimits (PQLs) for these constituents).

They claim that the I ppb detection limitis not routinely achievable, that only ahandfulof laboratories can perform theanalysis to this level, and that analysisand reporting of these constituentstypically takes three to eight months.

The Agency disagrees that thesetreatment standards are too low anddoes not anticipate any difficulties inachieving detection at the treatmentstandard of 1 ppb for either thenonwastewaters or wastewaters. Whilethe Agency has no data for PCDDs andPCDFs in treated K043 residuals, datado exist for these constituents intreatment residues of other wastesindicating that detection limits of lessthan 1 ppb can routinely be achieved.For example, performance data fromincineration of F024 show detectionlimits of less than 10 parts per trillion(ppt) in residual wastewater and lessthan 100 ppt in residual ash. The Agencybelieves that these treatment standardsare analytically achievable on a routinebasis and points out that quantitationlevels for these PCDDs and PCDFs havebeen achieved by commerciallaboratory facilities at low ppt levels innonwastewaters and low parts perquadrillion (ppq) levels in wastewaters.The Agency also contends that there area sufficient number of laboratoriescapable of performing the analysis ofPCDDs and PCDFs to the 1 ppb leveland that the analysis can be performedin a timely manner, as was the case forF024 sample analyses. Furthermore,because there currently is just onegenerator of K043, the Agency does notbelieve that the regulation of PCDDsand PCDFs in K043 will adversely affectlaboratory capacity to perform suchanalyses. See also further discussion ofPQLs in section III.A.1.(b.) of today'spreamble.

One commenter suggested that theAgency set technology-based treatmentstandards for K043 instead ofconcentration-based standards. Thiscommenter felt that setting technology-based standards would be equivalent toestablishing concentration-based levelsbecause the concentrations were basedon performance data from the solegenerator of K043 whose treatmentfacility is well designed and operated.Though section 3004(m) specifies thatBDAT treatment standards may beexpressed as either concentration-basedlevels or as a method of treatment(technology-based), the Agencymaintains that where treatmentperformance data are available,concentration-based treatmentstandards should be established ratherthan specifying a method of treatment.Concentration-based standards allow

26632




industry the flexibility to use anytreatment technology or combination oftechnologies to treat K043 as long as thetreatment residuals produced (that aredestined for land disposal) haveconcentrations of the regulatedconstituents less than or equal to thetreatment standards. In addition, otherfacilities in the future may generateK043 wastes and the Agency has noguarantee that such facilities will havetreatment systems that are as well-designed and well-operated as that ofthe current sole generator/treater.Because acceptable treatmentperformance data were available fortreatment of K043, the Agencyestablished concentration-basedtreatment standards for this waste,

One commenter clauned that thewastewater performance data suppliedto EPA were insufficient to establishstatistically valid concentration-basedtreatment standards because thebackground levels of chlorinatedphenols were no different than levels inthe scrubber water collected during thetest burn. EPA does not concur with theclaim that the supplied data are notuseful in establishing statistically validtreatment standards for wastewaters.The sole generator provided the Agencywith results from the analysis of eightscrubber water samples collected duringincineration treatment tests. Theconcentrations of the regulatedconstituents m these samples aresubstantially lower than those in theuntreated waste. Thus, incineration hasbeen demonstrated to providesubstantial treatment of theseconstituents. The Agency's ownstatistical analysis confirms the fact thatthe levels of regulated constituentsfound in the scrubber water sampledshowed statistically significantreduction from the levels identified inthe raw waste. The fact that backgroundsamples of scrubber water and thescrubber water collected during thetreatment test were similar in theirconcentrations of regulated constituentsindicates simply that the incineration ofK043 completely destroys theseconstituents m the waste.

A concern of the sole generator/treater was that concentration-basedtreatment standards would force thefacility to incinerate dilute K043wastewaters or seek a treatmentstandard variance because of difficultiesarising from the "derived-from" and"mixture" rules. The Agency does notbelieve the generator/treater would beforced to incinerate or seek a treatmentvariance for dilute "derived-from" or"mixed" K043 wastewaters. First, theK043 wastewater treatment standards

would apply only if the wastewaterswere placed in land disposal units.Second, if such wastewaters are beingplaced in land disposal units, the facilityhas the option of delisting the scrubberwaters following the incineration ofK043 waste such that the "derived-from"and "mixture" rules would no longerapply. Third, the treated K043wastewaters could be isolated in a landdisposal unit such that other plantwastewaters would not become subjectto the BDAT treatment standards set forK043 under the "mixture" rule.

Finally, it is clear that the type ofproblem referred to by the commenterwould arise only if the other wastes atthe facility also contain treatable levelsof the regulated hazardous constituentsin K043, in which case it furthersRCRA's goals to have effectivetreatment of those constituents beforeland disposal of the combined waste.For example, if waste A has a treatmentstandard of 10 mg/I for hazardousconstituent X and is treated to meet thestandard but then is combined withother waste streams and the combinedwaste stream now contains greater than10 mg/I of X, the other wastes mustcontain X in treatable concentrations.Further treatment to minimize threats tohuman health and the environment thuswould be appropriate before landdisposal (See also RCRA section3004(m)).

One commenter believes thattetrachloroethene should not be aregulated constituent in K043 because itis used as a cleaning solvent for K043process equipment and is not present inthe waste as a result of the productionprocess that generates K043. Further, thecommenter states that this constituent isalready being regulated under theSolvents and Dioxins Rule (under F002waste) for this use.

In this case, the waste stream inquestion is a process waste that hasbecome contaminated with smallamounts of solvent; it is not a mixture ofspent solvent and K043. Furthermore,the K043 waste does not contain a spentsolvent since the tetrachloroethene thatcontaminated the K043 had not beengenerated as a waste when thecontamination took place. Dataprovided to EPA indicated thattetrachloroethene was present in theuntreated K043 as a treatable level andshowed substantial treatment byincineration in K043 treatment residuals.The solvent cleaning step is part of theproduction process and anycontamination present in the wastebefore treatment becomes part of thatwaste and, thus, can be made subject toBDAT treatment standards. Therefore,

the Agency chose to regulatetetrachloroethene in K043 at a totalconstituent concentration of 0.006 mg/Iin wastewaters and 1.7 mg/kg innonwastewaters.


[Nonwastewaters]


Constituent Totalcomposi- TCLPton (mg/ (mg/)

kg)

2,4-Dtchlorophenol ............... 0.38 (')2,6-Dichlorophenol ............... 0.34 (')2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ........... 8.2 ()2,4,6.Trichlorophenol .......... 7.6 (')Tetrachlorophenols (Total). 0.68 (')Pentachlorophenol .............. 1.9 (')Tetrachloroethene ................ 1.7 (')Hexachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins .............................. 0.001 (')Hexachlorodibenzo-furans.. 0.001 (')Pentachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ...... .... 0.001 (')Pentachlorodibenzo-furans. 0.001 (')Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ................................ 0.001 (')Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans.. 0.001 (')

Not applicable.


(Wastewaters]


Constituent Total TCLPcomposi- (mg/I)tion /rng /I) _

2,4-Dichlorophenol ............. 0.049 (')2,6-Oichlorophenol ............... 0.013 (')2,4,5-Tnchlorophenol ........... 0.018 (1)2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ........... 0.039 (')Tetrachlorophenois (Total). 0.018 (')Pentachlorophenol ............... 0.22 (')Tetrachloroethene ................ 0.006 (')Hexachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ............................... 0.001 (')Hexachlorodibenzo-urans 0.001 (')Pentachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins .............................. 0.001 (')Pentachlorodibenzo-furans 0.001 ('3Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ................ 0.001 (')Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans 0.001 (')

Not applicable.

B. "Soft Hammer" Applicable TreatmentStandards

(Note: EPA is not reinterpreting any of theprinciples relating to the RCRA "softhammer" provision (RCRA section 3004(g)(6])contained in the First Third rule andpreamble. See 53 FR 31179-31185. TheAgency is adding the following discussion,which repeats those principles, solely forpurposes of providing information.)

The Agency has not promulgatedtreatment standards for the First Thirdand Second-Third wastes in Tables B.(a)

26633




and B;b). If EPA fails to set treatmentstandards for any hazardous wasteincluded in 40 CFR 268.10 or 268.11 bythe August 8, 1988 or June 8, 1989statutory deadlines, such waste issubject to the "soft hammer" provisions.

Under the "soft hammer" provisions,these wastes may be land disposed in alandfill or surface impoundment only ifthe generator makes certaincertifications, and only if the unit meetsthe RCRA 3004(o) minimumtechnological requirements. Amongother things, the "soft hammer"provisions require that prior to disposalin a landfill or surface impoundmentunit meeting the minimum technologicalrequirements, a generator mustdemonstrate his good faith effort to treathis waste by the best practicallyavailable treatment technology(ies). TheAgency has interpreted this to meanpractically available treatment thatprovides the greatest environmentalbenefit (40 CFR 268.8(a)(1)). Where notreatment is practically available, thegenerator may so demonstrate. Therequired demonstration and certificationmust be submitted to the RegionalAdrinistrator. "Soft hammer" wastesbecome subject to the statutory hardhammer as of May 8, 1990.

The Agency is amending § 268.12 toinclude wastewater residues derivedfrom the treatment of "soft hammer"wastes by certain processes (shiftingsuch wastewater residues to the ThirdThird). This action will allow thesewastewater residues to be disposed inunits not meeting minimumtechnological requirements and suchresidues will not be subject to thecertification requirements of § 268.8.This action is being taken because anumber of companies use BDAT-typetreatment to treat "soft hammer"wastes, and then further treat theresulting treatment residues inimpoundments that do not satisfyminmum technological requirements,but meet the requirements of sectionRCRA section 3005(j)(3] or 3005(j)(13).

The Agency believes that persons whoare substantially treating their wastes tolevels that may satisfy ultimatetreatment standards are not precludedfrom further treatment of these wastesin polishing (i.e., 3005(j)(3)) or advancedbiological treatment (i.e., 3005(j)(13))units that are substantially protective ofhuman health and the environment,although not equivalent to minimumtechnology impoundments from thestandpoint of preventing migration fromthe unit. Furthermore, EPA does notbelieve that these types of treatmentresiduals are the types of contaminatedwastes deserving of prioritization in thesecond third of the schedule.

The Agency has identified severaltreatment technologies that aregenerally considered appropriate for thenonwastewater forms of "soft hammer"wastes (see 53 FR 31175). Thesetechnologies include: metal recovery,leaching/oxidation, metals stabilization,ash stabilization, chemical oxidation,biodegradation, incineration, and PCBincineration. Treatment technologiesgenerally considered appropriate for thewastewater forms of "soft hammer"wastes include: aqueous metal recovery,chromium reduction, metalsprecipitation, steam stripping, carbonadsorption, oxidation/reduction,chemical oxidation, biodegradation,incineration, and PCB incineration.

The technologies are listed as generalcategories of technologies that EPAbelieves have a reasonable probabilityof application to the waste codes listed.These categories do not specify anyparticular type of technology (e.g.,incineration can represent liquidincinerators, rotary kiln, or fluidized bedincinerators). The actual choice of aparticular technology or even train oftechnologies depends on the physicaland chemical characteristics of thespecific waste. Specific selection of onetechnology depends on its functionaldesign.

The Agency notes that many of thesewastes, when existing as untreated

wastes, are already prohibited from landdisposal because they are California listwastes. However, as was discussed inthe August 17 1988 final rule, treatmentto comply with the California listprohibitions (including the codifiedstatutory.prohibition levels) does notnecessarily satisfy the "soft hammer"requirements of 40 CFR 268.8 and, infact, the California list prohibitionsrepresent the minimum treatmentrequired for such "soft hammer" wastesprior to land disposal (53 FR 31187). Inthe case of an overlap between a "softhammer" waste and a California liststatutory prohibition, the "soft hammer"provisions still apply because they arepotentially more protective. However, inno case may a waste be disposed of inexcess of the California list prohibitionlevels.

Where EPA has promulgated aCalifornia list treatment standard,however, the soft hammer does notapply. Id. Thus, the "soft hammer" doesnot apply to California list HOCs forwhich EPA has established a treatmentstandard. Id.

The following tables are presented asan aid to generators seeking appropriatetechnologies to treat "soft hammer" F-and K-listed wastes. Severaltechnologies are listed for each wastecode, in descending order of preference.EPA notes that certain technologies areonly appropriate for certain constituenttypes and that more than one treatmenttechnology may be required (ifpractically available) to treat thedifferent constituents of concern in thewaste.

The Agency emphasizes that thesetables are riot to be considered as stricttreatment requirements. In general,however, EPA will use these tables inevaluating the demonstrations andcertifications received for these wastesand is providing this information to aidthe generator in determining the bestpractically available technology (if any)for treating his waste in compliancewith § 268.8.

TABLE B.a.-APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD AND SECOND THIRD "NONWASTEWATERS"

RCRA Waste Code Potential California List Applicability PImary Applicable Treatment

F019 ................................ Cyanide ..............................................................................................................................................................................

K004 ................................

K041 ................................K097K098K042K105 ................................K017 ................................

Electrolytic Oxid.Alkaline Chlodn.UV Ozonation Incineration

Ash Stabil.!LAMM.l 0_-__

,IllUMIIU1I ................................................................................................................................................... . I

iaiOaenaieu urcanics ........................................................................................................................................................ I

PCBs/Halogen. Organ ......................................................................................................................................................Halogenated Organics ....................................................................................................................................................

PCB Incineration.Incineration.

K008 ................................ i ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 "16- 5

26634



Federal Register / Vol. 54, NO. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 26635

TABLE B.a.-APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD AND SECOND THIRD "NONwASTEWATERS"-Continued

RCRA Waste Code Potential California Lst Applicability Primary Applicable TreatmentTechnologies

K073 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ BiodegradationAsh Stabilization.

K031 ................................ Arsenic .................................................................................................................................................................................. M etals Recovery.K084 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Leaching/O xidation.K101, K102/high Ar ...... ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Metals Stabil.K046/explosve .............. Oead ...................................................................................................................................................................................... O pen Detonate/Bum Oxida-

tion.IncinerationMetals Stabil.

K069/CaSO4 .................. .ead .................................................................................................................................................................................... Leaching/O xidationMetals Stabil.

K085 ................................ Halogenated O rganics & PCB's ........................................................................................................................................ PCB IncinerationBiodegradationAsh Stabilization.

K035 ............................... O rganics and/or M etals .............................................................................................. .. . . . . . . Incineration.K083 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. W et Air Oxidation.K086 solv. sludges ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Biodegradation

caust. water. Ash Stabilization.K106 ................................ M ercury ...................... .......................... R.......................................................................................................................... M etals Recovery

Metals Stabil.

TABLE B.b.-APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD AND SECOND THIRD "WASTEWATERS"

RCRA Waste Code Potential California Uist Applicability Primary Applicable Treatment_ Ws CdPttaC iLsA lciyTechnologies

F006 ................................ Cyanide ................................................................................................................................................................................ Alka. Chlorination.KOlI ............................... Cya de ............................................................................................................................................................................... W et Air Oxidation.K013K014K025 ................................ Hal ogenated O rganics ....................................................................................................................................................... Ca rbon Adsorption.K029 ............................... Halogenated O rganics .................................................................................................................................. .................... Chem ical Oxidation.K095 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Carbon Adsorption.K096K041 ................................ Halogenated O rganics ...................................................................................................................................................... Steam Stripping.K097 ................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon Adsorption.K098 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Biodegradation.K042 .............................. Halogenated O rganics ................................................................................................... . . . . . . . Steam Stripping.

Carbon Adsorption.Biodegradation.

K105 ................................ PCBs/Halog. O rganics ...................................................................................................................................................... Carbon Adsorption.Biodegradation.

K004 .............................. Chromium ......................................................................................................................................................................... Chrom ium Reduction.K008 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. M etals Precip.K061K017 ................................ Ha ogenated O rganics ....................................................................................................................................................... Steam Stripping.K021 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Carbon Adsorption.K073 ............................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Biodegradation.K022 ........................... Unlikely to be applicable ................................................................................................................................................... Steam Stripping.K035 ................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon Adsorption.K060 ................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Chem ical Oxidation.K083 . . ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Biodegradation.

Metals Precip.K031 ............................... Arsenic, lead or m ercury ................................................................................................................................................... O xidation/ReductionK046/nonexpl ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... M etals Precip.K069/allK084KIOK046/expl ....................... Lead .................................................................................................................................................................................... O xidation.

Metals Precip.K085 ................................ Halogenated O rganics & PCB's ....................................................................................................................................... . Biodegradation.

Carbon Adsorption.K086 ............................. Halogenated O rganics ........................................................................................................................................................ Biodegradation.

so lv. sludges ........... M etals ................................................................................................................................................................................... Carbon Adso rption.caust water ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Chrom ium Reduction

Metals Precip.




C. Capacity Determinations

1. Determination of Alternative Capacityand Effective Dates for Surface Land-Disposed Wastes for Which TreatmentStandards Are Promulgated

a. Total Quantity of Land-DisposedWastes. The capacity analyses forwastes for which EPA is today finalizingtreatment standards were performedusing the National Survey of HazardousWaste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,and Recycling Facilities (the TSDRSurvey). EPA conducted the TSDRSurvey during 1987 and early 1988 toobtain comprehensive data on thenation's capacity for managinghazardous waste and on the volumes ofhazardous waste being disposed of in oron the land (i.e., land disposal). Surveydata are part of the record for this finalrule.

In addition, EPA recently conductedthe National Survey of HazardousWaste Generators (the GeneratorSurvey). The Generator Survey wasdesigned to gather data on wastegenerators and exempt hazardous wastetreatment capacity, along with detailedwaste characterization data. Althoughthe majority of these data are not yetavailable, EPA used a subset of the datato corroborate conclusions as to theamount of treatment capacity requiredfor the electroplating wastes (F006-F012). These data are available as partof the administrative record.

The various land disposal methodsused and the quantities of wastehandled are presented in Table III.C.l.a.Since publication of the proposed rule,EPA has received additional data fromlate-reporting TSDR facilities. Althoughthe new data do not affect any of thenational capacity variance decisions forsurface disposed wastes, they have beenincluded in this discussion forcompleteness. Some methods of landdisposal, including use of salt domes,salt bed formations, and undergroundcaves and mines, are not addressed inthe capacity analyses because ofinsufficient data on the types andvolumes of wastes disposed of by thesemethods.

The TSDR Survey indicated thatabout 623 million gallons of wastes forwhich standards are finalized todaywere disposed in or on the land in 1986.This includes approximately 3 milliongallons of wastes that were stored insurface impoundments, and I millionthat were stored in waste piles. Thesestored wastes will eventually be treated,recycled, or permanently disposed inother units. To avoid double counting,the volumes of wastes reported as beingstored in surface impoundments orwaste piles have not been included in

the volume of wastes requiringalternative treatment capacity.Furthermore, this final rule prohibits theplacement of wastes affected by thisrule in waste piles or surfaceimpoundments for storage.

The TSDR Survey indicated that lessthan 50,000 gallons of the wastesaddressed today were treated annuallyin surface impoundments that do notmeet EPA's minimum technologyrequirements. However, this amount isactually a treatment residual from animpoundment that was replaced with atank. Because the Agency assumes thatthis waste is now being sent off-site fortreatment, this amount is included astreatment capacity required in today'srule.

In addition, 5 million gallons aretreated in waste piles, less than 1million gallons were disposed in surfaceimpoundments, 10 million gallons weredisposed in land treatment units orlandfills, and.604 million gallons areinjected underground. All of thesewastes will require alternativetreatment capacity.

b. Required Alternative Capacity forSurface Land Disposed Wastes. EPAassessed the requirements resultingfrom today's final rule for alternativetreatment capacity for surface landdisposed wastes. EPA firstcharacterized the volumes of wastes forwhich treatment standards are beingestablished, since these wastes requirealternative treatment. Waste streamswere characterized on the basis of landdisposal method, waste code, andphysical/chemical form. Using thisinformation, EPA placed the wastes intotreatability groups identifying applicabletreatment technologies. The wastevolumes were then summed bytreatability group to determine theamount and type of alternativetreatment capacity that would berequired when owners or operatorscomply with the land disposalrestrictions being promulgated today.

Based on this analysis, the EPAestimates that today's rule could affectabout 623 million gallons of wastes thatare land disposed annually. This totalincludes wastes that were stored only;consequently, only about 619 milliongallons will require alternativetreatment capacity. Of this total, 15million gallons were surface disposed(i.e., excluding underground injection),and the remaining 604 million gallonswere underground inlected. (See sectionIII.C.3. for determinations of alternativecapacity and effective dates for wastesinjected underground.)

The volumes of surface land disposedwastes that require alternativecommercial treatment/recycling

capacity are presented in Table III.C.l.b.This table does not includewastes thatcan be treated on site by the generator.

As explained in preamble sectionIII.A.1., with limited exceptions, EPA isfinalizing treatment standardsexpressed as concentration limits basedon the performance of the BestDemonstrated Available Technology(BDAT), rather than requiring treatmentusing BDAT. Where the treatmentstandard is a specific level ofperformance to be met, then anytreatment method may be used toachieve the concentration levelspecified by the standard. However,BDATs (and technologies that theAgency finds perform comparably) asdiscussed in preamble section III.A.,were used as the basis for determiningavailable capacity.

The TSDR Survey contains data onspecific treatment processes at facilities.The data enable EPA to identify specificBDAT treatment (and treatment theAgency finds performs comparably) inits assessment of both off-site and on-site capacity. Therefore, EPA believesthat the capacity identified as availablefor a specific treatment technology willbe capable of meeting the treatmentstandards, since a well-designed andwell-operated BDAT treatment processshould be capable of complying with thepromulgated treatment standards.

c. Capacity Currently Available andEffective Dates. Table III.C.1.c presentsan estimate of the volume of wastes thatwill require alternative treatment beforeland disposal to comply with thestandards finalized today. The amountof capacity that is available atcommercial facilities in each case is alsopresented. Available capacity is equalto the specific treatment system'smaximum capacity less the amount usedin 1986, and was calculated using theTSDR Survey data. In addition, theavailable capacity presented in thissection was adjusted to account forwastes previously restricted from landdisposal by subtracting the capacityrequired for land disposed solventwastes, California List HalogenatedOrganic Compound (HOC] wastes, andFirst Third wastes.

It is important to note that some of thewastes, because of their actual physicalform, cannot meet treatment standardssimply by using the technologyidentified as BDAT. These wastes mustbe treated through several steps, calleda "treatment train" EPA assumes thatthe resultant residuals will also need tobe treatedusing alternative technologiesbefore land disposal; therefore, the totalvolumes reported were assigned toappropriate technologies.

2663626636




The following sections discuss theresults of the individual capacityanalyses and effective dates for eachwaste code included in today's rule.

Wastes from ElectroplatingOperations. For today's final rule, EPAhas revised the proposed cyanidetreatment standards for cyanide-containing F007 F008, F009 waste fromelectroplating operations. The finalwastewater and nonwastewatertreatment standards are based onalkaline chlorination. The treatmentstandards for metals in treatmentresiduals from alkaline chlorination arebased on chemical precipitationfollowed by settling and filtration forwastewaters, and stabilization for thenonwastewaters. EPA estimates that 2million gallons of wastewaters andnonwastewaters will require cyanidetreatment before stabilization as a resultof today's treatment standards.

After analyzing the TSDR Surveydata, EPA has determined that sufficientcommercial capacity exists for thesewastes (both wastewaters andnonwastewaters). EPA has thereforedetermined that no long term nationalcapacity variance for these wastes iswarranted. However, in order to becautious and allow time (if any is trulyneeded) for facilities to adjust existingcyanide treatment processes to operatemore efficiently, EPA has determined togrant a 30-day extension for theelectroplating wastes (see also thediscussion in preamble section II.E.). Asshown below, however, EPA believesthat there will be ample treatmentcapacity at the end of 30 days (if notsooner) to accommodate demand fortreatment of these wastes.

In response to public comments, EPAreevaluated the amount of alternativetreatment capacity necessary to treatF006 wastes as a result of today's finalrule. The results of this analysiscorroborate the Agency's position thatthe majority of F006 wastes containingcyanides are already being pretreatedon-site to cyanide levels that meet thetreatment standard, and therefore, onlylimited additional commercial capacityis needed.

EPA evaluated TSDR Survey data andGenerator Survey data fromapproximately 1,500 facilities, selectedfrom those generating the largestvolumes of F006 wastes. The TSDRSurvey contained data on 358 facilitiesgenerating F006 wastes in 1986. Of thetotal volume generated, 69 percent isgenerated at facilities with on-sitecyanide treatment, and 27 percent wasdetermined to be non-cyanide bearingF006. Consequently, only 4 percent ofthe F006 waste reported as generated inthe TSDR Survey would need

alternative off-site treatment capacityfor cyanides.

EPA also evaluated a subset ofGenerator Survey data currentlyavailable. This analysis involvedevaluating data from almost 1,500facilities. The analysis identified 322facilities generating F006 waste. Sincethe Generator Survey contains wasteconcentration data, EPA was able toidentify the volume of wastes with thefollowing: Cyanide concentrationsabove and below the treatmentstandards; with unknown cyanideconcentration; and where the presenceof cyanide is unknown. This analysisshowed that only 7 percent of the F006waste for this data subset was notanalyzed by the generator for thepresence of cyanide, or the cyanideconcentration in the waste wasunknown, or had a cyanideconcentration in excess of the treatmentstandard. However, less than 0.7 percentof the volume of the F006 waste had acyanide concentration above thetreatment standard or had cyanideswith unknown concentration levels. Insummary, 93 percent of this samplereported meeting the treatmentstandard, approximately 1 percentreported exceeding the treatmentstandard, and 6 percent reportingunknown cyanide levels. The percentageof compliance could be higher since it isreasonable to assume that most of theunknown wastes will contain cyanidesin concentrations less than thetreatment standard, otherwisegenerators would know and report thatcyanides were present.

Although EPA has only evaluateddata from a subset of F006 generators, itbelieves this pattern to berepresentative of the total census ofF006 wastes. (As noted in sectionIII.A.3.a.2.i., the data on total cyanidesubmitted to EPA in the publiccomments to the rulemaking alsoshowed greater than 90 percentcompliance with the final treatmentstandard.)

In order to be cautious in assessingthe need for alternative treatmentcapacity, EPA is assuming that, as aworst case, 10 percent of F006 wastemay need alternative commercialtreatment capacity. EPA thereforeassumes for this rule that 10 percent ofthe 129 million gallons of land disposedF006 (or about 13 million gallons) mayrequire alternative commercialtreatment. Sufficient commercialalkaline chlorination capacity exists totreat this volume of waste.Consequently, EPA does not believe thatany extended national capacityvariance is warranted for F006nonwastewaters. As stated earlier, the

Agency is delaying the effective date ofthe cyanide standard for F006nonwastewaters 30 days in order to givefacilities a short period of time to adjustequipment performance should this benecessary. (Technically, the basis forthis 30-day delay is section 3010(b)rather than section 3004(h)(2), as notedin preamble section II.E.)

EPA also has determined that noextended capacity variance isappropriate for the F007-F009 wastes.These wastes are generated inconsiderably smaller volumes than F006and are no more difficult to treat. EPAhas determined to delay the effectivedate of the new standards for 30 days,however, for the same reasons as for thecyanide standard for F006. The basis forthis action is RCRA section 3004(h)(2).

Wastes from Heat TreatmentOperations and Cyanide-Bearing ""'Wastes. EPA is also promulgating intoday's final rule treatment standardsfor Foil and F012 cyanide-containingwastes from heat treating operationsand P013, P021, P029, P030, P063, P074,P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121. Thenonwastewater treatment standards forcyanide in these wastes arepromulgated based on the performanceof electrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination. The wastewaterstandard is promulgated based on theperformance of alkaline chlorination.

One commenter on the proposed rulepointed out than no commercialfacilities offer the specific treatmenttrains identified as BDAT fornonwastewaters (i.e., electrolyticoxidation followed by alkalinechlorination). EPA agrees that nocommercial facilities with a treatmenttrain consisting of electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination wereidentified in the TSDR Survey. However,EPA believes that alkaline chlorinationalone will meet the treatment standards(see the Background Document oncyanides for the basis of thisconclusion). The Agency receivednumerous public comments supportingthis position. Consequently, EPAincluded commercially availablealkaline chlorination capacity in itscapacity determinations for thesewastes.

After analyzing the TSDR Surveydata, EPA has determined that adequatetreatment capacity is commerciallyavailable to treat the small volume ofF011, F012, P030, P063, P074, P098, P099,P104, P106, and P121 wastes (bothwastewaters and nonwastewaters)surface land disposed. (As noted above,the nonwastewater form of the wastesare amenable to wastewater treatmentbecause they can by hydrated (i.e.,

26637I




dissolved easily.)) EPA does not believethat any extension is warranted for thediscarded commercial chemical productwastes. They are generated in smallvolumes at sporadic intervals and donot have to be treated in existingtreatment systems that conceivablyrequire major adjustments.

The Foil and F012 wastes could betreated in such existing treatmentsystems, however, and EPA hasconsequently decided to delay theprohibition effective date for 30 days forthese wastes as a result. Further, if Foilnonwastewaters and F012nonwastewaters are commingled withelectroplating nonwastewaters, theentire mixture will become subject tothe lowest treatment standard forcommon constituents, in this case 110mg/kg total cyanide. This limit is not.uniformly attainable for theelectroplating wastes due to significantconcentrations (in some streams, atleast) of complexed cyanides. Thus, EPAexpects that Foil nonwastewaters andF012 nonwastewaters will be segregatedand treated separately-an appropriateresult since otherwise the electroplatingwastes would interfere with thetreatment of the free (i.e., non-complexed) cyanides in the heat-treatingwastes. It will, however, take some timeto adjust processes to segregate theseheat-treating and electroplating wastes.Accordingly, the Agency is deferring theeffective date of the 110 mg/kg totalcyanide standard and the 9.1 mg/kgamenable cyanide standard for the Foiland F012 heat-treating nonwastewatersuntil December 8, 1989. Between July 8,1989 and December 8, 1989 these wasteswill be subject to the same cyanidestandards as the electroplatingnonwastewaters, i.e., 590 mg/kg totalcyanide and 30 mg/kg amenablecyanide (the alternative, which theAgency has relected as contrary topolicy and RCRA sections 3004 (h) and(m), being to leave these heat-treatingwastes sublect to no cyanide standardat all even though some treatment isavailable and achievable).

The treatment standards for FO1nonwastewaters have not been changedfrom the proposal. The nonwastewaterstandard for total cyanide concentrationis based on incineration, and thewastewater standard is based onalkaline chlorination. EPA estimatesthat less than 1 million gallons a year ofF010 nonwastewater will requireincineration as a result of today's finalrule. There is no shortage of thistechnology, nor would any short term

adjustments be needed in thetechnology's operation. No F010wastewaters were identified in theTSDR Survey as being surface landdisposed. Consequently, there is nobasis for delaying the effective date ofthe prohibition and treatment standardsfor these wastes.

F019 Wastes. For today's final rule,EPA has decided not to finalize theproposed standards for F019wastewaters and nonwastewaters (seepreamble section III.A.3.a.4.).Consequently, F019 wastes will continueto be subject to the "soft hammer"requirements.

Wastes From AcrylonitrileProduction. Nonwastewater treatmentstandards for Koll, K013, and K014wastes are being promulgated based onincineration. However, EPA is notpromulgating the proposed wastewaterstandards for K011, K013, and K014.Therefore, these wastewaters will besubject to the "soft hammer" provisionsof 40 CFR 268.8.

After analyzing the TSDR Surveydata, the Agency has determined thatenough commercial incinerationcapacity is available to treat the lessthan I million gallons of nonwastewaterK011, K013, and K014 that are notinjected underground. Therefore, EPA isnot granting a national capacityextension for K011, K013, and K014nonwastewaters that are surface landdisposed.

Wastes From AcetaldehydeProduction. Nonwastewater treatmentstandards for K009 and K010 are basedon incineration. For K009 and K010wastewaters, steam stripping followedby biological treatment has beenidentified as BDAT. No surface disposedK009 or K010 wastes were identifiedfrom the TSDR Survey. Consequently,EPA is not granting a variance to thesewastes.

Wastes from the Production ofDinitrotoluene, Toluene, DTonzne, andToluene Diisocyanate. For K027 K113-K116, U221, and U223 wastes, EPA isrequiring the use of incineration or reuseas fuel as a method of treatment fornonwastewaters, and carbonadsorption, incineration, or reuse as fuelas a method of treatment forwastewaters. Based on TSDR Surveydata, EPA estimates that about 8 milliongallons per year of surface landdisposed nonwastewaters will requireincineration as a result of today streatment standards. No wastewaterswere identified from the TSDR Survey

or from public comments as requiringalternative treatment.

After analyzing the TSDR Surveydata, EPA has determined that there isenough commercial capacity availableto treat the K027 K113-K116, U221, andU223 nonwastewaters and wastewaters.EPA is therefore not granting a capacityextension for surface land disposal of-these wastes.

Organophosphorus Pesticide Wastes.For K039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062,P085, P109, Pill, U058, and U087 wastes,EPA is requiring the use of incinerationas a method of treatment fornonwastewaters, and either carbonadsorption or incineration as a methodof treatment for wastewaters. Afteranalyzing the TSDR Survey data, EPAhas determined that enough commercialcapacity is available to treat both thewastewater and nonwastewater formsof these wastes. EPA is therefore notgranting a national capacity variance tosurface disposed K039, P040, P041, P043,P044, P062, P085, P109, P11l, U058, andU087 wastes.

For K038, K040, P039, P071, P089, P094,P097 and U235 nonwastewaters, EPA ispromulgating treatment standards basedon incineration/reuse as fuel. For K036,K038, K040, P039, P071, P089, P094, P097and U235 wastewaters the standard isbased on biological treatment (today'sfinal rule does not affect the "no landdisposal" standard for K036nonwastewaters previouslypromulgated). After analyzing the TSDRSurvey data, the Agency has determinedthat enough capacity is commerciallyavailable to treat the wastewater andnonwastewater forms of these wastes.EPA is therefore not granting a capacityextension for wastes K036(nonwastewaters only), K038, K040,P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 and U235.

Wastes From Pigment Production.EPA is promulgating a treatmentstandard of "no land disposal" only forK005 and K007 nonwastewatersgenerated from the manufacturingprocesses listed in 40 CFR 261.32 anddisposed after June 8, 1989. At this time,EPA is not promulgating treatmentstandards for K005 and K007wastewaters or other nonwastewaters(e.g., "derived-from wastes). The TSDRSurvey identified about 2 million gallonsof K005 and K007 nonwastewaters asbeing surface land disposed at onefacility. However, as stated earlier inthis preamble, EPA has determined thatthis was the only facility generatingthese wastes, and that the facility is no

26638




longer generating or land disposing K005or K007

The Agency is not promulgating theproposed treatment standard of "noland disposal" for K002, K003, K004,K006, and K008 nonwastewaters. SinceK004 and K008 wastes are First Thirdwastes, their land disposal will continueto be restricted by the "soft hammer"provisions. Treatment standards forK002, K003, and K006 wastes will beestablished with the remaining ThirdThird wastes by May 8, 1990.

Wastes From Chlorinated AliphoticsProduction, From 1,1,1- TrichloroethaneProduction, From 2,4-D Production, andPhthalates and Phtholic AnhydrideProduction Wastes. Today EPA ispromulgating treatment standards basedon incineration/reuse as fuel for F024,K023, K028, K043, K093, K094, U028,U069, U088, U102, U107 and U190wastewaters and nonwastewaters, andfor K029, K095, and K096nonwastewaters. The wastewater formsof K029, K095, and K096 wastes aresubject to the "soft hammer" provisions.The treatment standards for metals intreatment residuals for F024 and K028are based on stabilization.

The Agency estimates that less than 1million gallons of F024, K023, K028,K029, K043, K093, K094, K095, K096,U028, U069, U088, U102, U107 and U190wastes will require commercialincineration or reuse as fuel as a resultof today's treatment standards. Afteranalyzing the TSDR Survey data, theAgency has determined that enoughincineration capacity is commerciallyavailable to treat these wastes. EPA istherefore not granting a capacityextension for surface land disposedF024, K023, K028, K029, K043, K093,K094, K095, K096, U028, U069, U088,U102, U107 and U190 wastes.

TABLE IIl.C.I.a.-VOLUME OF WASTES BY

LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR WHICH

STANDARDS ARE BEING ESTABLISHED

VolumeLand disposal method (million

gallons/year)

Storage:W aste piles ...........................................Surface impoundments ........................ .3

TreatmentW aste piles ........................................... 5Surface impoundments ......................... 1

Disposal:Landfills ................... ........................ 10Land treatment ...................................... <1Surface impoundments ........................ <1Injected underground ............................ 604

Total .................................................... 623

TABLE III.C.I.b.-REQUIRED ALTERNATIVECOMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING

CAPACITY FOR SURFACE LAND DIS-

POSED WASTES'

[Millions gallons/year]

Capacity

required forWaste Code surface land

disposedwastes

First third wastes:F007 ............................................... 1.3F008 ............................................... 2.7F009 ............................................ 0.3KO l1 .............................................. 0.2K013 ............................................... 0.1K014 ............................................... < 0.1K036 ............................................... 0.0P030 ............................................... < 0.1P039 ............................................... < 0.1P041 .............................................. 0.0P063 ............................................... < 0.1P071 ..................... <0.1P089 ............................................... < 0.1P094 ............................................... < 0.1P097 ............................................... 0.0U221 ............................................... 0.3U223 ............................................... < 0.1

Second third wastes:F010 ............................................... 0.2F01I ............................................... 0.1F012 ............................................... 0.1F024 ............................................... < 0.1K009 ............................................... 0.0K010 ............................................... 0.0K027 ............................................... 7.6K028 ............................................... 0.0K029 ............................................... 0.0K038 ............................................... 0.0K039 ............................................... 0.0K040 ............................................... 0.0K043 ............................................... 0.0K095 ............................................... 0.0K096 ............................................... 0.0P029 ............................................... 0.0P040 ............................................... 0.0P043 ............................................... 0.0P044 ......................................... ..... < 0.1P062 ............... ................ 0.0P074 ............................................... 0.0P085 ............................................... 0.0P098 ............................................... < 0.1P104 ............................................... 0.0P106 ............................................... < 0.1Pill ............................................... 0.0U028 .............................................. < 0.1U058 .............................................. 0.0U107 ...................................... ...... 0.0U235 .............................................. 0.0

Third third wastesK005 ............................................... 20.0

K007 ............................................... 0.0K023 ............................................... 0.0K093 ............................................... < 0.1K094 .............................................. < 0.1P013 ............................................... 0.0P021 ............................................... 0.0P099 ............................................... 0.0P109 ............................................... 0.0P121 ............................................... 0.0U069 ............................................... < 0.1U087 ............................................... 0.0U088 ....................................... 0.0U102 ............................................... 0.0U190 ....................................... < 0.1

Newly listed wastes:K113 ............................................... 0.0K114 ............................................... 0.0K115 ............................................... 0.2K116 ............................................... 0.0

'The volumes presented here include all types oftreatment required (i.e., all phases of treatmenttrains, where applicable.

2Waste no longer generated from the processdescribed in 40 CFR Part 261.32.

TABLE III.C.1.C.-REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE

COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING

CAPACITY FOR SURFACE LAND DIS-POSED WASTES

Available Required

Technology capacity surface land(mil gall disposedyear) (mil gallyear)

Incineration:Liquids ...................... 282 <1Solid/sludge ............. 17 9

Wastewater Treatment:Alkaline

chlorination .......... 33 2Electrolytic

oxidationfollowed byalkalinechlorination .......... 0 0

Carbon adsorption. 2 0Biological

treatment ............. 44 <1Steam stripping

followed bybiologicaltreatment 0 0

Stabilization ................... 516 2

These wastes have been Included with thewastes requirng alkaline chlorination.

Available capacity has been adjusted to accountfor 13 million gallons of capacity that may beneeded for F006.

2. Extension of the Effective Date forContaminated Soil and Debris

The Agency is today granting anextension of the effective date forcertain First, Second, and Third Thirdcontaminated soils and debris for whichtreatment standards established bytoday's rule are based on incineration.RCRA section 3004(h)(2) allows theAdministrator to grant an extension tothe effective date which wouldotherwise apply on the basis of theearliest date on which adequateprotective capacity will be available,notto exceed two years " after theeffective date of the prohibition whichwould otherwise apply under subsection(d), (e), (f), or (g). For First Third wastesthat have heretofore been subject to the"soft hammer" provisions but for whichtreatment standards are beingpromulgated today, the Agency isinterpreting the statutory language

effective date of the prohibitionthat would otherwise apply" to be thedate treatment standards arepromulgated for these wastes (i.e., June8, 1989) rather than the date the "softhammer" provisions took effect (i.e.,August 8, 1988). The Agency finds thisthe best interpretation for two reasons.Extensions of the effective date arebased on the available capacity of theBDAT technology for the waste, so it is

26639




reasonable that such an extensioninitiate from the date treatmentstandards based on performance ofBDAT are established. Furthermore, it isnot the intent of the Agency to, in effect,penalize First Third wastes by allowingless time (i.e., 38 months) for thedevelopment of needed capacity, whileSecond and Third Third wastes in thesame treatability group are allowed themaximum 48 months (assuming capacitydoes not become available at an earlierdate). The capacity extension, therefore,commences for First, Second, and ThirdThird wastes on June 8, 1989, andextends (at maximum) until June 8, 1991.

For the purpose of determiningwhether a contaminated material issubject to this capacity extension, soil isdefined as materials that are primarilygeologic in origin such as silt, loam, orclay, and that are indigenous to thenatural geological environment. Incertain cases soils will be 'mixed withliquids or sludges. The Agency willdetermine on a case-by-case basiswhether all or portions of such mixturesshould be considered soil (52 FR 31197November 8, 1986).

Analysis of the TSDR survey dataindicated that relatively small volumesof soil contaminated with Second Thirdwastes were land disposed in 1986.However, the Superfund remediationprogram has expanded significantlysince that time. Plans for remediation atSuperfund sites indicate far greaterexcavation of soil and debris requiringtreatment, including incineration, andsubsequent land disposal in 1989 than in1986. Because of the major increase inthe Superfund remediation program, theAgency believes that capacity is stillinadequate for incineration of SecondThird contaminated soil and debris.Therefore, a two year extension of theeffective date is granted to Second Thirdcontaminated soil and debris for whichBDAT is incineration or fuelsubstitution.

EPA is not promulgating a nationalcapacity variance for soil and debristhat are contaminated with any of theprohibited cyanide wastes. Thetreatment technology on which theAgency based treatment standards isalkaline chlorination (preceded byelectrolytic oxidation in certain casesinvolving heavily contaminated wastes).The record for this rulemakingdocuments that there is amplecommercial cyanide treatment capacityproviding alkaline chlorination. It is truethat this is a wastewater treatmenttechnology, and that contaminated soilsand debris are not liquids. However,contaminated soils could be slurried intoliquid form and so be treatable by this

technology. The Agency consequentlydoes not believe that a national capacityvariance is warranted.

3. Capacity Determinations forUnderground Injected Wastes

The Agency received comments from8 different parties concerning theestablishment of effective dates forunderground injected wastes. TheAgency is taking this opportunity todiscuss its position on the twocomments which it feels are most crucialto this rule and to the regulatedcommunity. A response to all commentsmade on the January 11, 1989, proposedrule can be found in the Response toComments Background Document in theRCRA docket.

A number of commenters indicatedthat treatment capacity variancesshould commence not from the statutorydeadline of RCRA section 3004(g), butrather from May 8, 1990 or from anearlier date which EPA may establish byregulation after promulgating a BDATtreatment standard (and after making adecision on the availability of nationalprotective treatment or disposalcapacity). EPA first addressed this issuein the June 7 1989, promulgation ofeffective dates for the ban onunderground injection of certain FirstThird wastes published in the FederalRegister on June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25416).EPA adopted the commenters approachfor the wastes addressed in that rule,and is likewise adopting the sameapproach for today's rule. Briefly, RCRAsection 3004(g) sets no statutoryprohibitions for disposal of hazardouswastes into UIC wells until May 8, 1990.Any earlier prohibition date is set byregulation. Thus, any extension of theeffective date would commence fromthat regulatory prohibition date, and bebased on anaylsis of available adequatealternative treatment, recovery, ordisposal capacity existing as of theregulatory prohibition date (see RCRAsection 3004(h)(2)). For a furtherdiscussion of this issue, see 54 FR 25416,June 14, 1989. This decision changes theeffective dates for F007 wastewatersand nonwastewaters, and K011 andK013 nonwastewaters from August 8,1990 to June 8, 1991, as indicated in theJanuary 11, 1989 proposed rule.

Commenters also requested that theAgency defer setting any section 3004(g)prohibitions for UIC wastes until May 8,1990. As previously articulated in theFederal Register on June 14, 1989 (54 FR25416), the Agency disagrees with thisposition. EPA believes that it is theintent of Congress to ban the disposal ofsection 3004(g) wastes as expeditiouslyas possible upon the establishment oftreatment standards and determination

of alternative treatment capacity. Ifcapacity exists, then consistent withsection 3004(g)(5), the Agency will banthe underground disposal of such waste.Facilities that are able to make ademonstration of "no migration" incompliance with the requirements of 40CFR 148 and 40 CFR 268.6 or meet thetreatment standards in Part 268 maycontinue to inject hazardous wastesbeyond the specified effective dates.

In previous rules, the Agency used ahierarchical approach in makingdecisions to allocate limited protectivetreatment or disposal capacity whenevaluating national capacity variances(52 FR 32450, August 27 1987- and 53 FR30912, August 16, 1988). Briefly,available treatment capacity was firstapportioned to demand from wasteoriginally destined for surface disposalunits, then to wastes from CERCLAremedial actions and RCRA section3004(u) corrective actions, and finally towastes disposed in injection wells. Forthe reasons discussed in the recent FinalRule for a group of First Third Wasteseffective June 7 1989 and published inthe Federal Register on June 14, 1989 (54FR 25416). This hierarchy has no effecton the Agency's decisions today. TheUIC wastes being prohibited arerelatively low volume. Prohibiting thesesmall volumes of wastes will not resultin capacity becoming unavailable foreither wastes that are surface disposed,or for CERCLA/RCRA cleanup wastes.

a. Effective date determinations forSecond Third scheduled wastes forwhich EPA has not set treatmentstandards. The Agency has not settreatment standards for the SecondThird wastes listed in Table III.C.3.a.These wastes are not prohibited fromland disposal by underground injectionuntil the Agency sets treatmentstandards and effective dates, or untilMay 8, 1990, if EPA takes no action.

On January 11, 1989, the Agencyproposed, in part, to set treatmentstandards and UIC effective dates forthe following First Third wastes: F019,K011, K013, and K014. In today's rule,EPA is not finalizing the treatmentstandards or effective dates for F019wastes, and K011 wastewaters, K013wastewaters, or K014 wastewaters.These wastes, consequently, remainsubject to the "soft hammer" provisionsof 40 CFR 268.8. Similarly, the Agencyproposed to set treatment standards andUIC effective dates for the followingThird Third wastes: K002nonwastewaters. K003 nonwastewaters,and K006 nonwastewaters. In today'srule, EPA is not finalizing thesestandards or effective dates. Since thestatutory deadline for these wastes is

26640




May 8, 1990, and no prohibitions arebeing established in today's rule, thesewastes are not subject to the landdisposal restrictions until promulgationof the Third Third final rule.

Treatment standards for K004nonwastewaters and K008nonwastewaters were finalized onAugust 16, 1988 (No Land DisposalBased on No Generation). Amendmentsto these standards were proposed onJanuary 11, 1989 (No Land DisposalBased on Recycling). These tieatmentstandards were finally amended on May2, 1989 (No Land Disposal Based on NoGeneration for forms of these wastesgenerated by the process described inthe waste listing description anddisposed after August 17 1988, and notgenerated in the course of treatingwastewater forms of these wastes; 54 FR18836). EPA is today rescinding alltreatment standards for thesenonwastewaters; therefore, all K004 andK008 wastes (wastewaters andnonwastewaters) are under the effect ofthe "soft hammer" provisions of 40 CFR268.8.

b. Scheduled wastes with establishedtreatment standards which current dataindicate are not being injected. Thewastes listed in Table III.C.3.b. arewastes for which standards are beingestablished today and for which currentdata indicate are not being injected. Nocomment was received indicating thatany of these wastes are beingunderground injected. Therefore, EPA isprohibiting the underground injection ofthese wastes unless they meet thetreatment standards on June 8, 1989. TheAgency believes these decisions willhave no effect on the remaining nationalcapacity available to treat wastesgenerated from RCRA/CERCLA cleanupactions requiring the type of treatmentassociated with these wastes.

The Agency has not establishedtreatment standards for F006wastewaters; accordingly, today's ruledoes not ban injection of F006wastewaters. F006 nonwastewaterswere banned from injection on June 71989 published in the Federal Register,June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25416).

EPA is also banning the undergroundinjection of K009 nonwastewaters andK010 wastewaters. Data received sincethe January 11, 1989, proposal indicatethat these wastes are not beingunderground injected.

c. Scheduled wastes with establishedtreatment standards which current dataindicate are being injected. TableIII.C.3.c. lists those wastes withtreatment standards being establishedtoday whichare underground injected.The Table summarizes the volumesrequiring alternative treatment capacity.

Table III.C.3.d. lists effective dates forthe prohibitions against the undergroundinjection of these wastes. The Agencybelieves these decisions will have littleeffect on the remaining nationalcapacity available to treat wastesgenerated from RCRA/CERCLA cleanupactions requiring the type of treatmentassociated with these wastes, Moreover,these waste streams are sufficiently lowvolume not to affect transportationcapacity for these wastes (see 53 FR30914, August 16, 1988).

(1) Capacity determinations forinjected wastes requiring alkalinechlorination or electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination (F007F008, F009, Foil, F012, P029, P030, P063,and P098). The wastewater treatmentstandards for F007 F008, F009, Foil,F012, P029, P030, and P098 are based onalkaline chlorination. Thenonwastewater treatment standards forF007 F008, and F009 are based onalkaline chlorination followed byprecipitation. The treatment standardsfor Foil, F012, P029, P030, P063, and P098nonwastewaters are based onelectrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination. (As indicated inpreamble section HI.C.1,c., nocommercial facilities with a treatmenttrain consisting of electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination wereidentified in the TSDR Survey. TheAgency believes that alkalinechlorination alone will be able to meetthe BDAT treatment standards for Foil,F012, P029, P030, P063, and P098nonwastewaters.)

An estimated 130 million gallons peryear of these wastes will requirecyanide wastewater treatment. Of the130 million gallons, approximately 128million gallons are being disposed byunderground injection. Table III.C.3.c.gives the volumes of wastes injected forthe indicated waste codes. These wastesmay be inlected in individual streams oras mixtures of wastes.

There is no need to use the allocationhierarchy in this situaiton. A straightcomparison of available versus requiredcapacity indicates a shortfall in alkalinechlorination capacity for injected F007wastewaters and nonwastewaters (33million gallons available versus 128million gallons of injected F007).Comments received on the proposedeffective date supported thatdetermination. The Agency is thereforegranting a two-year national capacityvariance for F007 wastes which areunderground injected. As indicatedearlier in the preamble, EPA will grant atwo-year variance not from the August8, 1988 statutory First Third deadline,but rather from the effective date of thisrule.

Over 33 million gallons per year ofavailable alternate commercialtreatment capacity has been identifiedfor the low volumes of F008, F009, Foil,F012, P029, P030, and P098 wastewatersand nonwastewaters being injected;therefore, no capacity variances wereproposed for these wastes. No commentwas received on this action. The Agencyis banning the underground injection ofP029, P030, and P098 wastes uponpromulgation of this rule. As indicatedin preamble section III.C.l.a., EPA isgranting 30-day extensions of theeffective date for F008, F009, Foil, andF012 wastes. These wastes willtherefore be banned from undergroundinjection on July 8, 1989. (See preamblesection III.C.l.a. describing thebifurcated treatment standard for Foilnonwastewaters and F012nonwastewaters).

P063 wastes are reported in the TSDRsurvey as part of mixed waste streamswith K011, K013, and K014. In theproposal EPA requested information onthe quantities of P063 being undergroundinjected, indicating a belief that suchwastes are being injected in muchsmaller quantities than the data in theTSDR survey might suggest. Informationreceived since this rule was proposedindicates that only relatively smallamounts of P063 are being disposed byunderground injection. ConsequentlyEPA is banning the undergroundinjection of P063 wastes upon thepromulgation of this rule.

(2) Capacity determination forinjected P071, P089, U028, U088, U107and U190. Treatment standards for P071and P089 nonwastewaters, and U028,U088, U107 and U190 wastewaters andnonwastewaters are based onincineration. Treatment standards forP071 and P089 wastewaters are basedon biological treatment.

These wastes are currently injected inlow volumes, if at all (see TableIII.C.3.c.). The Agency has determinedthat adequate treatment capacity existsfor these wastes (281 million gallons ofavailable capacity and 44 milliongallons of available biological treatmentcapacity versus a maximum of 300,000gallons injected). No comments werereceived on the proposed effectivedates. The Agency is therefore banningthe underground injection of thesewastes upon promulgation of this rule.

(3) Capacity determination forinjected K009 wastewaters and K010nonwastewaters. On January 11, 1989,the Agency proposed to grant capacityvariances for all K009 and K010 wastes.New information indicates that onlyK009 wastewaters and K010nonwastewaters are being injected. The

I Ill 7 I I I III II rm

26641




Agency is setting treatment standardsfor K009 wastewaters based on steamstripping followed by.biologicaltreatment. Treatment standards for K010nonwastewaters are based onincineration. Inadequate alternativetreatment capacity exists to treat theK009 wastewaters that are annuallybeing injected (0 gallons of capacityavailable versus approximately 79million gallons injected). There isadequate alternative treatment capacityto treat the K010 nonwastewaters thatare being injected annually (281 milliongallons of capacity available versusapproximately 5 million gallonsinjected). Consequently, EPA is todaygranting a two-year capacity variance tothe prohibition of underground injectionof K009 wastewaters. The undergroundinjection of K010 nonwastewaters isbanned on June 8, 1989. As indicatedpreviously, K009 nonwastewaters andK010 wastewaters not meeting thetreatment standards are banned on June8, 1989, based upon assessment of thebest data available to the Agency,which indicate that these wastes are notbeing underground injected.

(4) Capacity determination forinjected K011 nonwastewaters, K013nonwastewaters, and K014nonwastewaters. A significant volumeof K011 nonwastewaters and K013nonwastewaters (wastes fromacrylonitrile production) are currentlybeing land disposed by undergroundinjection. Treatment standards for thesewastes are based on incineration. Thedata indicate that approximately 282million gallons of commercialincineration capacity exists versus 347million gallons of injected K011nonwastewaters and K013nonwastewaters requiring incineration.

The Agency received extensivesupport for the proposed capacityvariance for these waste codes. Asindicated earlier in the preamble, EPAwill grant a two-year variance not fromthe August 8, 1988, statutory First Thirddeadline, but rather from the effectivedate of this rule. K011 nonwastewatersand K013 nonwastewaters will bebanned from underground injection onJune 8, 1991. At proposal, EPA hadtreated K011, K013, and K014 injectednonwastewaters as one nonsegregabletreatability group for the purpose of thenational capacity determination. Uponfurther evaluation, EPA believesinjected K014 nonwastewaters aresegregable from K011 and K013 injectednonwastewaters. EPA plans to publish anotice to provide an opportunity tocomment'on this issue and will set aneffective date for injected K014nonwastewaters after evaluating

comments. Thus, EPA is not taking finalaction on the proposal for setting aneffective date for injected K014nonwastewaters. Until final action,injected K014 nonwastewaters remainunder the effect of the "soft hammer"provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.

(5) Capacity determination forinjected U221, U223. and P044 Wastes.Table III.C.3.c. indicates thatapproximately 27 million gallons peryear of U221 wastes are being injectedunderground, and additional volumes ofU223 and P044 wastes are being injectedin mixed waste streams. Treatmentstandards for P044 nonwastewaters, andU221 and U223 wastewaters andnonwastewaters are based onincineration. Treatment standards forP044 wastewaters are based on carbonadsorption or incineration. The dataindicates that there is adequatetreatment capacity for both injectednonwastewaters and wastewaters (282million gallons of incineration capacityavailable versus 27 million gallonsinjected; 2 million gallons of carbonadsorption capacity available versus<100,000 injected). No national capacityvariances were proposed for U221, U223or P044 wastes. No comment wasreceived on this decision. The Agency istherefore banning the undergroundinjection of U221, U223, and P044 onJune 8, 1989, unless these wastes meetthe treatment standards.

Table lIl.C.3.a.-Second Third Wastes forWhich Treatment Standards Are NotEstablished(025 (wastewaters), K029 (wastewaters).

K041, K042, K095 (wastewaters), K096(wastewaters), K097 K098, K105

P002, P003, P007 P008, P014, P026, P027 P049,P054, P057 P060. P066, P067 P072, P107 P112,P113, P114

U002, U003, U005, U008, U011, U014, U015,U020, U021, U023, U025, U026. U032, U035,U047 U049, U057 U059, U060, U062, U070.U073, U080, U083, U092, U093, U094, U095,U097 U098, U099, U101, U106, U109, Ull0,Ull, U114, U116, U119, U127 U128, U131,U135, U138, U140, U142, U143, U144, U146.U147 U149, U150, U161, U162, U163, U164,U165, U168, U169, U170, U172, U173, U174,U176. U178, U179. U189, U193, U196, U203,U205, U206. U208, U213. U214, U215, U216,U217 U218, U239, U244

Table lIl.C.3.b.-Wastes for Which TreatmentStandards Are Today Established and WhichAre Not Underground Injected(Banned from underground injection on June8, 1989)First Third

(036 (wastewaters), P039, P041. P094, P097

Second Third

F010, F024, K009 (nonwastewaters), K010(wastewaters), K027 K028, K029(nonwastewaters), K038, K039, K040,K043, K095 (nonwastewaters), K096(nonwastewaters), P040, P043, P062, P074,P085. P104, P106. Pill, U058, U235

Third ThirdK005 (nonwastewaters), K007

(nonwastewaters), K023, K093, K094,P013, P021, P099. P109, P121. U069, U087U102

Newly Listed WastesK113, K114, K115, K116

TABLE III.C.3..-WASTES FOR WHICHTREATMENT STANDARDS ARE TODAYESTABLISHED. AND WHICH ARE BEINGUNDERGROUND INJECTED

[Millions of gallons per year]

Volume ofInjected waste

Waste code requirngtreatmentcapacity

First Third:F007 ............................................... 127.6FOO8 ............................................... < 0.1F009 ............................................... < 0.1K011 nonwastewaters ................. 173.4K013 nonwastewaters ................ 173.4P030 .............................................. < 0.1P063 ............................................... < 0.1P071 .............................................. < 0.1P089 .............................................. < 0.1U221 .............................................. 26.8U223 ............................................... < 0.1

Second Third:F011 ............................................... 0.0F012 ............................................... 0.0K009 wastewaters ........................ 79.0K010 nonwastewaters ................. 5.0P029 ............................................... < 0.1P044 ............................................... 0.0P098 ............................................... < 0.1U028 ............................................... 0.0U 107 ............................................... < 0.1

Third Third:U088... .................... 0.0U190 .......................................... ..... <0.1

Indicates wastes are Injected in mixed wastestreams. Wastes with no volumes indicated may beinjected as part of these mixed streams.

TABLE 111.3.C.d.-SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVEDATES FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTEDWASTES WITH STANDARDS ESTAB-LISHED IN TODAY'S RULE

Waste code Effective date

First Third:FO7, K011 nonwastewaters,

K013 nonwastewaters.P030, P063, P071, P089,

U221, U223.F008, F009 ...................................

Second Third:K009 wastewaters .......................

.K010 nonwastewaters. P029,P044, P098,.U028. U107.

F011. F012 (590 mg/kg, 30mg/kg).

June 8, 1991.

June 8, 1989.

July 8, 1989.

June 8, 1991.June 8, 1989.

July 8, 1989.

2664226642




TABLE 111.3.C.d.-SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVEDATES FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTEDWASTES WITH STANDARDS ESTAB-LISHED IN TODAY'S RULE-Continued

Waste code Effective date

F011, F012 (110 mg/kg, 9.1. Dec.8, 1989.mg/kg).

Third Third:U088, U190 ................................... June 8, 1989.

IV State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in AuthorizedStates

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPAmay authorize qualified States toadminister and enforce the RCRAprogram within the State. Followingauthorization, EPA retains enforcementauthority under sections 3008, 3013, and7003 of RCRA, although authorizedStates have primary enforcementresponsibility. The standards andrequirements for authorization are foundm 40 CFR Part 271.

Prior to HSWA, a State with finalauthorization administered itshazardous waste program in lieu of EPAadministering the Federal program inthat State. The Federal requirements nolonger applied in the authorized State,and EPA could not issue permits for anyfacilities that the State was authorizedto permit. When new, more stringentFederal requirements were promulgatedor enacted, the State was obliged toenact equivalent authority withinspecified time frames. New Federalrequirements did not take effect in anauthorized State until the State adoptedthe requirements as State law.

In contrast, under RCRA section3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), newrequirements and prohibitions imposedby HSWA take effect in authorizedStates at the same time that they takeeffect in nonauthonzed States. EPA isdirected to carry out these requirementsand prohibitions in authorized States,including the issuance of permits, untilthe State is granted authorization to doso. While States must still adoptHSWA-related provisions as State lawto retain final authorization, HSWAapplies in authorized States in theinterim.

Today's rule is promulgated pursuantto sections 3004(d) through (k), and (m),of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(d) through (k),and (in)). Therefore, it will be added to'Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), whichidentifies the Federal programrequirements that are promulgatedpursuant to HSWA and take effect in allStates, regardless of their authorization

status. States may apply for eitherinterim or final authorization for theHSWA provisions in Table 1, asdiscussed in the following section.When this rule is promulgated, Table 2in 40 CFR 271.1(j) will be modified alsoto indicate that this rule is a self-implementing provision of HSWA.

B. Effect on State AuthorizationsAs noted above, EPA will implement

today's final rule in authorized Statesuntil their programs are modified toadopt these rules and the modification isapproved by EPA. Because the rule ispromulgated pursuant to HSWA, a Statesubmitting a program modification mayapply to receive either interm or finalauthorization under RCRA section3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on thebasis of requirements that aresubstantially equivalent or equivalent toEPA's. The procedures and schedule forState program modifications for eitherinterim or final authorization aredescribed in 40 CFR 271.21. It should benoted that HSWA interim authorizationwill expire on January 1, 1993 (see 40CFR 271.24(c)).

Section 271.21(e)(2) requires thatStates that have final authorization mustmodify their programs to reflect Federalprogram changes and must subsequentlysubmit the modification to EPA forapproval. The deadline by which theState must modify its program to adoptthis regulation will be determined by thepromulgation of the final rule inaccordance with § 271.21(e). Thesedeadlines can be extended in certaincases (see § 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPAapproves the modification, the Staterequirements become Subtitle C RCRArequirements.

States with authorized RCRAprograms may already haverequirements similar to those in today'sfinal rule. These State regulations havenot been assessed against the Federalregulations being promulgated today todetermine whether they meet the testsfor authorization. Thus, a State is notauthorized to implement theserequirements in lieu of EPA until theState program modification is approved.Of course, States with existingstandards may continue to administerand enforce their standards as a matterof State law. In implementing theFederal program, EPA will work withStates under agreements to minimizeduplication of efforts. In many cases,EPA will be able to defer to the States intheir efforts to implement their programsrather than take separate actions underFederal authority.

States that submit official applications

for final authorization less than 12months after the effective date of theseregulations are not required to includestandards equivalent to theseregulations in their application.However, the State must modify itsprogram by the deadline set forth in§ 271.21(e). States that submit officialapplications for final authorization 12months after the effective date of theseregulations must include standardsequivalent to these regulations in theirapplication. The requirements a Statemust meet when submitting its finalauthorization application are set forth in40 CFR 271.3.

The amendments being promulgated-today need not affect the State'sUnderground Injection Control (UIC)primacy status. A State currentlyauthorized to administer the UICprogram under the Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) could continue to do sowithout seeking authority to administerthese amendments. However, a Statewhich wished to implement Part.148 andreceive authorization to grantexemptions from the land disposalrestrictions would have to demonstratethat it had the requisite authority toadminister sections 3004(fo and (g) ofRCRA. The conditions under Which suchan authorization may take place aresummarized below and are discussed ina July 15, 1985 final rule (50 FR 28728).

C. State ImplementationThe following four aspects of the

framework established in the November7 1986, rule (51 FR 40572) affect Stateimplementation to today's final rule andimpact State actions on the regulatedcommunity:

1. Under Part 268, Subpart C, EPA isproposing land disposal restrictions forall generators, treaters, storers, anddisposers of certain types of hazardouswaste. In order to retain authorization,States must adopt the regulations underthis Subpart since State requirementscan be no less stringent than Federalrequirements.

2. Also under Part 268, EPA isproposing to grant two-year nationalvariances from the effective dates of theland disposal restrictions based on ananalysis of available alternativetreatment, recovery, or. disposalcapacity. Under section 268.5, case-by-case extensions of up to one year(renewable for one additional year) maybe granted for specific applicantslackingadequate capacity.

The Administrator of EPA is solelyresponsible for.granting variances, to theeffective dates because these.determinations must be made on a

26643




national basis. In addition, it is clearthat RCRA section 3004(h)(3) intends forthe Administrator to grant case-by-caseextensions after consulting the affectedStates, on the basis of national concernswhich only the Administrator canevaluate. Therefore, States cannot beauthorized for this aspect of theprogram.

3. Under § 268.44, the Agency maygrant waste-specific variances fromtreatment standards in cases where itcan be demonstrated that the physicaland/or chemical properties of thewastes differ significantly from wastesanalyzed in developing the treatmentstandards, and the wastes cannot betreated to specified levels or treated byspecified methods-

The Agency is solely responsible forgranting such variances since the resultof such an action may be theestablishment of a new wastetreatability group. All wastes, meetingthe criteria of these new wastetreatability groups may also be subjectto the treatment standard established bythe variance. Granting such variancesmay have national impacts; therefore,this aspect of the program is notdelegated to the States at this time.

4. Under t268.6, EPA may grantpetitions of specific duration to allowland disposal of certain hazardouswastes where it can be demonstratedthat there will be no migration ofhazardous constituents for as long asthe waste remains hazardous. Stateswhich have the authority to, imposerestrictions may be authorized underRCRA section 3006 to grant petitions forexemptions from the restrictions.Decisions on site-specific petitions donot require the national perspectiverequired to restrict wastes or grantextensions. EPA will be handling "nomigration" petitions at Headquarters,though the States may be authorized togrant these petitions in the future. TheAgency expects to gain valuableexperience and information from reviewof "no, migration" petitions which mayaffect future land disposal restrictionsrulemakings. In accordance with RCRAsection 3004(i), EPA will publish noticeof the Agency's final decision onpetitions in the Federal Register.

States are free to impose their owndisposal restrictions if such actions aremore stringent or broader in scope thanthe actions of Federal programs (RCRAsection 3009 and 40 CFR 271.1(i)). WhereStates impose such restrictions, thebroader and more stringent Staterestrictions govern.

V Effect Of the Land DisposalRestrictions Program on OtherEnvironmental Programs

A. Discharges Regulated Under theClean Water Act

As a result of the land disposalrestrictions program, some generatorsmight switch from land disposal ofrestricted Second Third wastes todischarge to publicly-owned treatmentworks (POTWs] in order to avoidincurring the costs of alternativetreatment. In shifting from land disposalto discharge to POTWs, an increase inhuman and environmental risks couldoccur. Also as a result of the land.disposal restrictions, hazardous wastegenerators might illegally discharge theirwastes to surface waters withouttreatment, which could cause damage tothe local ecosystem and potentially posehealth risks from direct exposure orbioaccumulation.

Some generators might treat theirwastes prior to discharging to a POTW,but the treatment step itself couldincrease risks to the environment. Forexample, if incineration were thepretreatment step, metals and otherhazardous constituents present m airscrubber waters could be discharged tosurface waters. However, the amount ofSecond Third waste shifted to POTWswould be limited by such factors as thephysical form of the waste, the degree ofpretreatment required prior to discharge,and State and local, regulations.

B. Discharges Regulated Under theMarine Protection, Research. andSanctuaries Act

Management of some of the hazardouswastes included in today's rulemakingcould be shifted from land disposal toocean dumping and ocean-basedincineration. If the cost of ocean-baseddisposal plus transportation were lowerthan the cost of land-based treatment,disposal, and transportation, this optioncould become an attractive alternative.In addition, ocean-based disposal couldbecome attractive to the regulatedcommunity if land-based treatment werenot available.

However, the Ocean Dumping BanAct of 1988 has restricted oceandumping of sewage sludge andindustrial wastes to existing, authorizeddumpers until December 31, 1991, afterwhich it shall be unlawful for anyperson to dump (sewage sludge orindustrial wastes), rto ocean waters"Therefore, the Ocean Dumping Ban Acthas made moot any economic or otherincentive to ocean dump industrialhazardous wastes, including the wastessubject to this regulation.

C. AIr Emissions Regulated Under theClean Air Act

Some treatment technologiesapplicable to Second Third wastes couldresult in cross-media transfer ofhazardous constituents to air. Forexample, incineration of metal-bearingwastes could result in metal emissionsto air. Some constituents, such aschromium, can be more toxic if inhaledthan if ingested. Therefore, it might benecessary to issue regulatory controlsfor some technologies to ensure they areoperated properly.

The Agency has taken several steps toaddress this issue. EPA has initiated aprogram to address metal enussionsfrom incinerators. It has also initiatedtwo programs under section 3004(n) toaddress air emissions from othersources. The first program will addressfugitive emissions from equipment suchas pumps, valves, and vents from unitsprocessing concentrated organic wastestreams. The second program willaddress other sources of air emissions,such as tanks and waste transfer andhandling.

. Clean Up Actions Under theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct

The land disposal restrictions mayhave significant effects on the selectionand implementation of response actionsthat are taken under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response.Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA). There are three primaryareas in which these effects may occur.

One area that may be affected by theLDR is in the selection, of treatmentstandards at the remedial action site.The cleanup standards set at CERCLAsites are risk-based, while treatmentstandards developed under the landdisposal restrictions program aretechnology-based. Therefore, thetechnology-based treatment standardsmay be more stringent than the risk-based cleanup standards developedbased on the CERCLA selection ofremedy criteria, and vice versa. Anothermatter that may be affected is thetreatment of soil and debriscontaminated with wastes restrictedfrom land disposal. Contaminated soiland debris are a primary type of wastethat must be remediated at mostCERCLA sites. In many cases, the soilmatrix is different from that of theindustrial waste for which treatmentstandards are set. CERCLA sitemanagers must either comply with thetreatment standards or request and begranted a variance from the treatment

26644




standard (§ 268.44) or request and begranted a "no-migration" variance(§ 268.6).

Finally, even though the hazardoussubstances at a CERCLA remediationsite may have been disposed prior to theeffective date of RCRA, if the actioninvolves removal of restricted wastesafter the prohibition effective date, theland disposal restrictions are legallyapplicable (51 FR 40577). For example, ifa waste is excavated from a unit,treated, and redisposed, EPA hasindicated that "placement" (see RCRAsection 3004(k)) of the waste in a landdisposal unit has occurred and theapplicable treatment standards must bemet [see 53 FR 51444 and 51.445, Dec. 21,1988). However, if the waste is cappedin place, removal or "placement" hasnot occurred and the treatmentstandards are not legally applicable.

E. Applicability of Treatment Standardsto Wastes from Pesticides RegulatedUnder the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

A number of generators of pesticidewaste that have heretofore beencomparatively unaware of the landdisposal restrictions may be regulatedwhen today's rulemaking ispromulgated. This will require that theAgency develop guidance materials andprovide training on how to comply withthe requirements of the land disposalrestrictions.

Generators of significant quantities ofpesticide P and U wastes are farmersand commercial pesticide applicators.The provisions of 40 CFR 268.1(c)(5)exempt farmers from regulation underthe land disposal restrictions program;however, no such exemption exists forcommercial applicators. Such generatorsof hazardous wastes have traditionallyland disposed their pesticide wastes.Subsequent to promulgation of today'sfinal rule, these generators must complywith the requirements of the landdisposal restrictions if they dispose ahazardous waste subject to treatmentstandards of "soft hammer" provisions.

F Regulatory Overlap ofPolychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)Under the Toxic Substance Control Actand Resource Conservation andRecovery Act

Certain wastes listed as P or Ucontain PCBs. The PCB component ofsuch a waste mixture is regulatedprimarily under TSCA, whereas thelisted P or U component of the waste isregulated under RCRA. Such a mixtureof listed/PCB waste must meet theapplicable requirements under bothstatutes. Such a waste must ordinarilygo to an incinerator permitted under

both TSCA and RCRA. Any ash residualfrom incineration must meet thetreatment standard for the listed wastecomponent prior to land disposal.

VT. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

1. Purpose

The Agency estimated the costs,benefits, and economic impacts oftoday's final rule to determine if it is a"major" regulation as defined byExeoutive Order No. 12291. For all majorrules, the Agency is required by theExecutive Order to conduct a RegulatoryImpact Analysis, and by the RegulatoryFlexibility Act to assess small businessimpacts. The cost and economic impactestimates serve, additionally, asmeasures of the practical capability offacilities to comply with the final rule.

The results indicate that today's finalrule is not a major rule. This section ofthe preamble discusses the results of theanalyses of the final rule.

2. Executive Order No. 12291

Executive Order No. 12291 requiresEPA to assess the effect of final Agencyactions and alternatives during thedevelopment of regulations. Such anassessment consists of a quantificationof the potential benefits and costs of therule, as well as a description of anybeneficial or adverse effects that cannotbe quantified in monetary terms. Inaddition, Executive Order No. 12291requires that regulatory agenciesprepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis(RIA) for major rules. Major rules aredefined as those likely to result in:

An annual cost to the economy of$100 million or more; or

A major increase in costs or pricesfor consumers or individual industries;or

Significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment.innovation, or international trade.

The Agency has conducted costanalysis and has concluded that thefinal rule is not a major rule. Annualcosts to the economy are estimated atapproximately $24.9 million to $32.4million for wastes not injectedunderground and an additional $3.9million for those injected underground.

3. Basic Approach

The Agency analyzed costs andbenefits using the-same approach andmethodology that was used for theAugust 17 1988 First Third final rule (53FR 31138). The effects of the final rulewere estimated by comparing post-regulatory costs, benefits, and economicimpacts with those resulting underbaseline conditions. The baseline for all

Second-and Third wastes is defined ascontinued land disposal of wastes inunits meeting minimum technologicalrequirements. The baseline was notadjusted to reflect treatmentrequirements that would automaticallyoccur in the absence of a rule after May8, 1990.

The baseline for First Third wastesincluded in this rule is defined astreatment needed to comply with theFirst Third Land Disposal Restrictionsrule or the soft hammer provisions thatwent into effect on August 8,1988. Thisbaseline corresponds to treatmentsevaluated under Alternative A Scenario2 in the First Thirds RIA (53 FR 31138,August 17 1988).

4. Results

Table VI(A) summarizes the results ofthe Regulatory Impact Analysis, asdiscussed in the following section.

TABLE VI(A)-REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS RESULTS

Surface Under-groundDisposal Injection

Affected facilities:PromulgatedWastes ................. 27 20"Soft hammer"W astes ............... 8 .......................

Total ..................... 35 20

Costs (annual) inmillions:

0 PromulgatedWastes .................. 24.9 3.9"Soft hammer"W astes .................. 7.5 .......................Total ...................... 32.4 3.9

Economic Impact:Significantly affectedfacilities ........................ 0 0

Benefits (over 70 yrs.):Cancer caseavoided ..................07 .....................

Noncarcinogenicexposuresavoided ................. 555 .......................

a. Population of affected facilities.The final rule will affect 27 facilities thatsurface-dispose wastes. An additional 8facilities would be affected by the softhammer provisions that will take effecton June 8, 1989.

Only 20 injection facilities will berequired to either treat wastes or file"no migration" petitions. These facilitieswill not significantly contribute tocompliance costs already incurred byinjection well owners/operatorsmanaging solvents, dioxins, Californialist, and First Third wastes.

26645




b. Costs. The standards promulgatedby this final rule are estimated to costindustry $24.9 million per year forsurface-disposed wastes, and 3,9 millionper year for injected wastes. If there isnot enough capacity to treat the wastessubject to the soft hammer provisions,the facilities may be able to continuemanaging their wastes in mnmmumtechnology units at no additional cost.

If treatment capacity is available,surface-disposed wastes subject to thesoft hammer provisions would need tobe treated. The Agency estimated theupper-range costs of treating thosewastes by assuming these wastes wouldbe incinerated. This treatment could addas much as $7.5 million to the cost of therule. Less costly forms of treatmentwould be available for the softhammered wastes, which would reducethe cost.

In general, the Agency assumed thatthe least costly treatment would beselected. This assumption had negligibleeffects on the estimated costs except forthe case of a combined waste streamcontaining K027 and D007 a Third Thirdchromium waste. The Agency assumedthat the combined waste would betreated to comply with the final rule.The Agency also assumed that notreatment of the residual scrubbersludges to remove chromium would takeplace because treatment standards forD007 have not been promulgated.Promulgation of standards for D007under the Third Third rule wouldincrease costs for this combined wasteby approximately $28 million annually.

The additional volume of injectedwastes attributable to the Second Thirdschedule is small by comparison to thevolumes of wastes regulated by previousrulemakings. The Agency performed ananalysis to assess the economic effect ofassociated compliance costs for SecondThird wastes and found totalcompliance costs to be $3.9' millionannually and petition costs areestimated at $0.1 million annually.

c. Economic impacts. The economicimpact analysis for surface-disposedwastes estimates that none of theaffected facilities would be significantlyaffected by the final rule. None of the.affected facilities is expected to close asa result of the rule.

d. Benefits. The benefits analysis forsurface-disposed wastes estimated that,over a 70 year lifetime, the final rulewould reduce the number of cancercases by 0.07 and the number ofexposures to noncarcinogenmc chemicalsabove threshold levels by 555.

Benefits other than. reduction inhuman health risk-such as resoucedamage avoided and corrective actioncosts avoided-were not quantified. As

a result, the benefits of the land disposalrestrictions for Second Third wastes arelikely to be understated.

B. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisPursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever anagency is required to publish a notice ofrulemaking for a final rule, it mustprepare and make available for publiccomment a Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis (RFA} that describes the effectof the rule on small entities (i.e., smallbusinesses, small organizations, andsmall governmental junsdictions). Thisanalysis is unnecessary, however if theAgency's Administrator certifies that therule will not have a significant economiceffect on a substantial number of smallentities.

According to EPA's guidelines forconducting an RFA, if over 20 percent ofthe population of small businesses,small organizations, or smallgovernment jurisdictions is likely toexperience financial distress based onthe costs of the rule, then the agency isrequired to consider that the rule willhave a significant effect on a substantialnumber of small entities and to performa formal RFA. EPA. evaluated theeconomic effect of the final rule, asrequired by the Regulatory FlexibilityAct, and determined that no facilitieswould be significantly affected. TheAdmimstrator certifies that Part 268 andPart 148 will not have significanteconomic effects on a substantialnumber of small entities. As a result ofthis finding, the Agency has notprepared a formal RFA.

C. Papereiwork Reduction ActAll information collection

requirements in this final rule werepromulgated m previous land disposalrestrictions rulemakings (other thanthose for the Underground InjectionControl Program} and approved by theOffice of Management and Budget atthat time. Since there are no newinformation collection requirementsbeing promulgated today, anInformation Collection Request has notbeen prepared.

For the Underground Injection ControlProgram, the information collectionrequirements in this final rule have beenapproved by the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB] under the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.Reporting and recordkeeping burden onthe public for this collection is estimatedat 745 hours for the respondents, with anaverage of 14 hours per response. Theseburden estimates include all aspects ofthe collection effort and may includetime for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the dataneeded, completing and reviewing thecollection of information.

Send comments regarding the burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing the burden,(please reference ICR No. 370.09], toChief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW Washington,DC 20460 (202-382-2745), and Office ofManagement and Budget, PaperworkReduction Project (2040-0042),Washington, DC 20503, markedAttention: Desk Officer for EPA."

D. Review of Supporting Documents

The primary source of information oncurrent land disposal practices andindustries affected by this rule wasEPA's 1986 "National Survey ofHazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (theTSDR Survey). The average quantity ofwaste contributed by generator facilitieswas obtained from EPA's "NationalSurvey of Hazardous Waste Generatorsand Treatment, Storage, and DisposalFacilities Regulated under RCRA in1981" (April 1984].

VII. REFERENCES

(1) U.S. EPA, "Treatment TechnologyBackground Document. June, 1989. EPA/530-SW--89-048A.

(2) U.S. EPA, "Methodology for DevelopingTreatment Standards, June, 1989. EPA!530-SW-89-048B.

(3) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for Cyanide Wastes.F006 (Cyanide Only), F007-F012, F019,P012, P013, P021, P029, P030, P033, P063,P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121,U246. June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048K.

(4) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for Kol1, K013. andK014. June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048J.

(5) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for K009 and K010.June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-0481.

(6) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for K043. June 1989.EPA/530-SW-89-048L.

(7) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology [BDATI for PhthalateWastes, K023, K093, K094, U028, U069,U088, U102, U107 U190. June 1989. EPA/530.SW-89-048H.

(8) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) forOrganophosphorous Wastes, K038.-K040,P039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P071,P085, P089, P094, P097, P109, P111, U059,U087, and U235. June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048G.

(9), U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDATJ for 024. June 1989.EPA/530-SW-89-048M.

26646




(10) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT for Waste from theProduction of Dinitrotoluene,Toluenediamine, andToluenediisocyanate, K027, K111-K116,U221, and U223. June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-0480.

(11) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for Wastes From theProduction of 1,1,1,-TrichloroetheneK028, K029, K095, and K096. December1988. EPA/530-SW-89-048N.

(12) ICF Memorandum From Ralph Braccio,Jean Tilley to William Vocke, "Results ofPreliminary Analysis of Proposed SecondThirds Land Disposal Restrictions Rule.December 19, 1988.

(13) U.S. EPA, "Background Document forSecond Third Wastes to Support 40 CFRPart 268 Land Disposal RestrictionsProposed Rule. Second Third WastesVolumes, Characteristics, and Requiredand Available Treatment Capacity June1989. EPA/530-SW-8..-048F

(14) U.S. EPA, "Evaluation of Availability ofAlternate Treatment and DisposalCapacity for Injected HazardousWastes"' Tischler and Kocurek. October1987

(15) U.S. EPA, "Information CollectionRequest for the Proposed HazardousWaste Disposal Restrictions for Class IInjection of Second Thirds List Wastes"Cadmus Group, Inc, November 1988.

(16) U.S. EPA, "Second and Third Thirds CostEstimate" Cadmus Group, Inc. December1988.

(17) U.S. EPA, "Response to CommentsBackground Document for Second ThirdScheduled Wastes, Vol. 1"' June 1989.EPA/530-SW-89-048D.

(18) U.S. EPA, "Response to CommentsBackground Document for Second ThirdScheduled Wastes, Vol. 2"' June 1989.EPA/530-SW-89-048E.

(19] U.S. EPA, "Response to CommentsBackground Document for Second ThirdScheduled Wastes, Vol. 3"' June 1989.EPA/530-SW--89-O4C.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 148, 264,265, 268, and 271

Administrative practice andprocedure, Confidential businessinformation, Environmental protection,Hazardous materials, Hazardousmaterials transportation, Hazardouswaste, Imports, Indian lands, Insurance,Intergovernmental relations, Labeling,Packaging and containers, Penalties,Recycling, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Security measures, Suretybonds, Waste treatment and disposal,Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: June 8, 1989.

William K. Reilly,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, Title 40. Chapter I, of theCode of Federal Regulations is amendedas follows:

PART 148-HAZARDOUS WASTEINJECTION RESTRICTIONS

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

Authority: Section 3004, ResourceConservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.6901 et seq.

2. Section 148.14 is amended byredesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)as paragraphs (d), (e), and (g); byrevising the introductory text of newlyredesignated paragraph (g); and byadding new paragraphs (b), (c), and (f)to read as follows:

§ 148.14 Waste specific prohibitions-firstthird wastes.

(b) Effective June 8, 1989, the wastespecified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPAHazardous Waste number K036(wastewaters); and the wastes specifiedin 40 CFR 261.33 as P030, P039, P041,P063, P071, P089, P094, P097 U221, andU223 are prohibited from undergroundinjection.

(c) Effective July 8, 1989, the wastesspecified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPAHazardos Waste numbers F008 andF009 are prohibited from undergroundinjection.

(f) Effective June 8,1991, the wastespecified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPAHazardous Waste number F007' and thewastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 asK011 (nonwastewaters) and K013(nonwastewaters) are prohibited fromunderground injection.

(g) The requirements of paragraphs(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this sectiondo not apply:

3. Section 148.15 is amended byredesignating paragraph (b) asparagraph (e); by revising theintroductory text of newly redesignatedparagraph (e); and by adding newparagraphs (b). (c), and (d) to read asfollows:

§ 148.15 Waste specific prohibitions-second third wastes.

(b) Effective June 8, 1989, the wastesspecified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPAHazardous Waste numbers FolO, F024;the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 asK009 (nonwastewaters), KOO, K027K028, K029 (nonwastewaters), K038,K039, K040, K043, K095(nonwastewaters], K096(nonwastewaters), K113, K114, K115,K116; and wastes specified in 40 CFR261.33 as P029, P040, P043, P044, P062,P074, P085, P098, P104, P106, Pi111. U028,

U058, U107 and U235 are prohibitedfrom underground injection.

(c) Effective July 8, 1989, andcontinuing until December 8, 1989, thewastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 asEPA Hazardous Waste numbers Foiland F01.2 are prohibited fromunderground injection pursuant to thetreatment standards specified in§ § 268.41 and 268.43 applicable to F007F008, and F009 wastewaters andnonwastewaters. Effective December 8.1989, F011 (nonwastewaters) and F012(nonwastewaters) are prohibitedpursuant to the treatment standardsspecified in § § 268.41 and 268.43applicable to Foil and F012wastewaters and nonwastewaters.

(d) Effective June 8, 1991, the wastespecified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPAHazardous Waste number K009(wastewaters) is prohibited fromunderground injection.

(e) The requirements of paragraphs(a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do notapply:

4. Section 148.16 is amended byredesignating paragraph (b) asparagraph (c); by revising theintroductory text of newly redesignatedparagraph (c); and by adding newparagraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 148.16 Waste specific prohibitions-third third wastes.

(b) Effective June 8, 1989, the wastesspecified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPAHazardous Waste numbers K005(nonwastewaters, K007(nonwastewaters), K023, K093, K094;and the wastes specified in 40 CFR261.33 as P013, P021, P099, P109, P121,U069, U087 U088, U102, and U190 areprohibited from underground injection.

(c) The requirements of paragraphs (a]and (b) of this section do not apply:

PART 264-STANDARDS FOROWNERS AND OPERATORS OFHAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 6924, and6925.

Subpart E-Manifest System,Recordkeeping, and Reporting§ 264.73 [Amended]

2. Section 264.73 is amended byrevising the first sentence in theparenthetical statement to read asfollows: (Approved by the Office of

26647




Management and Budget under controlnumbers 2050-0012, 2050-0013 and 2040-0042 1.

PART 265-INTERIM STATUSSTANDARDS FOR OWNERS ANDOPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTETREATMENT, STORAGE, ANDDISPOSAL FACILITIES


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a). 6924,6925. and 6935.

Subpart E-Manifest System,Recordkeeping, and Reporting§ 265.73 [Amended]

2. Section 265.73 is amended byrevising the parenthetical statement toread as follows: (Approved by the Officeof Management and Budget undercontrol numbers 2050-0039 and 2040-0042).

PART 268-LAND DISPOSALRESTRICTIONS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a). 6921. and6924.

Subpart A-General

§ 268.7 [Amended]2. Section 268.7 is amended by

revising the parenthetical statement toread as follows: (Approved by the Officeof Management and Budget undercontrol numbers 2050-0062 and 2040-0042).

Subpart B-Schedule for LandDisposal Prohibitions andEstablishment of Treatment Standards

3. Section 268.12 is amended byremoving paragraph (c); byredesignating paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g).and (h) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f),and (g); and by revising paragraphs (b)and newly redesignated paragraph (c) toread as follows:

§ 268.12 Identification of wastes to beevaluated by May 8, 1990.

(b) Wastewater residues (less than 1%total organic carbon and less than 1%total suspended solids) resulting fromthe following well-designed and well-operated treatment methods for wasteslisted in § § 268.10 and 268.11 for whichEPA has not promulgated wastewatertreatment standards: metals recovery,metals precipitation, cyanidedestruction, carbon adsorption, chemicaloxidation, steam stripping,

biodegradation, and incineration orother direct thermal destruction.

(c) Hazardous wastes listed in§ § 268.10 and 268.11 that are mixedhazardous/radioactive wastes.

Suppart C-Prohibitions on LandDisposal

4. Section 268.34 is added to read asfollows:

§ 268.34 Waste specific prohibitions-second third wastes.

(a) Effective June 8, 1989, the followingwastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 asEPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO0; F024;the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 asEPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K005, K007.K009 (nonwastewaters), K010; K023;K027" K028; K029 (nonwastewaters);K036 (wastewaters): K038: K039; K040;K043; K093; K094; K095(nbnwastewaters); K096(nonwastewaters); K113; K114; K115;K116; and the wastes specified in 40CFR 261.33 as EPA Hazardous WasteNos. P013; P021; P029; P030; P039; P040;P041; P043; P044; P062; P063; P071; P074;P085; P089; P094: P097, P098; P099; P104;P106; P109; P111; P121; U028; U058; U069;U087" U088; U102; U107. U221; U223; andU235 are prohibited from land disposal.

(b) Effective June 8, 1989, thefollowing wastes specified in 40 CFR261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.K009 (wastewaters), K011(nonwastewaters), K013(nonwastewaters), and K014(nonwastewaters) are prohibited fromland disposal except when they areunderground injected pursuant to 40CFR 148.14(f) and 148.15(d).

(c) Effective July 8, 1989, the wastesspecified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPAHazardous Waste Nos. F006-cyanide(nonwastewater); F008; F009; Foil(wastewaters) and F012 (wastewaters)are prohibited from land disposal.

(1) Effective July 8, 1989, the followingwaste specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPAHazardous Waste No. F007 is prohibitedfrom land disposal except when it isunderground injected pursuant to 40CFR 148.14(fl.

(2) Effective July 8, 1989 andcontinuing until December 8, 1989, FOil(nowastewaters) and F012(nonwastewaters) are prohibited fromland disposal pursuant to the treatmentstandards specified in § § 268.41 and268.43 applicable to F007 F008, and F009nonwastewaters. Effective December 8,1989 Foil (nowastewaters) and F012(nonwastewaters) are prohibited fromland disposal pursuant to the treatmentstandards specified in §§ 268.41 and268.43 applicable to Foil

(nonwastewaters) and F012(nonwastewaters)

(d) Effective June 8, 1991, the wastesspecified in this section having atreatment standard in Subpart D of thispart based on incineration, and whichare contaminated soil and-debris areprohibited from land disposal.

(e) Between June 8, 1989 and June 8,1991, (for wastes F007 F008, F009, Foil,and F012 between June 8,1989 and July8, 1989) wastes included in paragraphs(c) and (d) of this section may bedisposed in a landfill or surfaceimpoundment, regardless whether suchunit is a new, replacement, or lateralexpansion unit, only if such unit is incompliance with the technicalrequirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).

(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a),(b), (c), and (d) of this section do notapply if:

(1) The wastes meet the applicablestandards specified in Subpart D of thisPart; or

(2) Persons have been granted anexemption from a prohibition pursuantto a petition under § 268.6, with respectto those wastes and units covered bythe petition.

(g) The requirements of paragraphs(a), (b), and (c) of this section do notapply if persons have been granted anextension to the effective date of aprohibition pursuant to § 268.5, withrespect to those wastes covered by theextension.

(h) Between June 8, 1989 and May 8,1990, the wastes specified in § 268.11 forwhich treatment standards underSubpart D of this Part are notapplicable, including California listwastes subject to the statutoryprohibitions of RCRA section 3004(d) orcodified prohibitions under § 268.32, areprohibited from disposal in a landfill orsurface impoundment unless the wastesare the subject of a valid demonstrationand certification pursuant to § 268.8.

(i) To determine whether a hazardouswaste listed in §§ 268.10, 268.11, and268.12 exceeds the applicable treatmentstandards specified in §§ 268.41 and268.43, the initial generator must test arepresentative sample of the wasteextract or the entire waste, dependingon whether the treatment standards areexpressed as concentrations in thewaste extract or the waste, or thegenerator may use knowledge of thewaste. If the waste contains constituentsin excess of the applicable Subpart Dlevels, the waste is prohibited from landdisposal and all requirements of Part 268are applicable, except as otherwisespecified.

26648




Subpart D-Treatment Standards

6. In § 268.41, Table CCWE isamended by removing from the subtablefor F006 nonwastewaters "Cyanides(Total) Reserved" and by addingthe following subtables to Table CCWEin alphabetical/numerical order by EPAHazardous Waste Number:

§ 268.41 Treatment standards expressedas concentrations In waste extract.

(a)

TABLE CCWE-CONSTITUENTCONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT

F007 F008, and F009nonwastawatets (see also table

CCW in § 268.43)

Cadmium .............................................Chromi m (total) .................................Lead .....................................................Nickel ..........................Silver .....................................................

Concentration(in mg/I)

F011 and F012 nonwastewalers Concenlration(see also table CCW in § 268.43) (in mg/I)

Cadmium ....................................Chrom ium (total) .................................Lead ..................................Nickel ...................................................Silver ................................

0.0665.20.510.320.072

F024 nonwastewaters (see also Concentration (intable CCW in § 268.43) mg/I)

Chromium (total)............................... Reserved.Nickel ................................................ Reserved.

K028 nonwastewaters (see also Concentration (intable CCW n § 268.43) mg/I)

Chromium (total) ............................... Reserved.Nickel ....................... Reserved.

K 115 nonwe tewaters (see also Concentrationtable CGW in § 268.43) (in mg/I)

Nickel ............................................ 0.32

P074 nonwastewaters (see also Concentrationtable CCW in § 268.43) (in mg/I)

N ickel .................................................... 0.32


S ilver ..................................................... 0.072


Silver ......................... 0.072

7 In § 268.42, paragraphs (a)(3) and(a)(4) are added to read as follows:

§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressedas specified technologies.

(a)(3) The nonwastewater form of the

following hazardous wastes listed in§§ 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 must beincinerated in accordance with therequirements of Part 264, Subpart 0, orPart 265, Subpart 0, or burned in boilersor industrial furnaces burning inaccordance with applicable regulatorystandards: K027 K039, K113, K114, K115,

K116, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P085,P109, Pll, U058, U087 U221, and U223.

(4) The wastewater form of thefollowing hazardous wastes listed in§ § 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 must be

treated by carbon adsorption, orincineration, or pretreatment followedby carbon adsorption: K027 K039, K113,K114, Kl15, K116, P040, P041, P043, P044,P062, P085. P109, P111, U058, U087 U221,and U223.

8. In § 268.43, paragraph (a) is revised;Table CCW is amended by revising thesubtable for F006 nonwastewaters; byrevising the subtables for K024wastewaters and nonwastewaters; byremoving K004 and K008 from thesubtable for No Land Disposal; byadding the following subtables inalphabetical/numerical order by EPAhazardous waste number, and by addingparagraph (b) and K005 and K007 to thesubtable for No Land Disposal to readas follows:

§268.43 Treatment standards expressedas waste concentrations.

(a) Table CCW identifies therestricted wastes and the concentrationsof their associated hazardousconstituents which may not be exceededby the waste or treatment residual (notan extract of such waste or residual) forthe allowable land disposal of suchwaste or residual. The wastewater andnonwastewater treatment standards inTable CCW are based on analysis ofgrab samples except the wastewatertreatment standards that are based on

analysis of composite samples forwastes, KOO9, K010, K036, K038, K040,P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 and U235.

TABLE COW-CONSTITUENTCONCENTRATION IN WASTES

F006 nonwastewaters (see also ConcentrationTable CCWE in §268.41) (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) ................. 590Cyanides (Amenable) ......................... 30

F007, F008, and F009 Cnonwastewaters (see also Table Concentration

CCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) ................. 590Cyanides (Amenable) .................... .30

F007, F008, and F009 Concentrationwastowaters (see also Table (in mg/I)

CCWv E in § 268.41)

Cyanides (Total) .............................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) ......................... 0.10Chromium (Total).............................. 0.32Lead .............................................. 0.04Nickel .................................................... 0.44

ConcentrationF010 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) .................................. 1.5

ConcentrationF010 wastewaters (in mg/I)

Cyanides (Total) ................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) .................... 0.10

ConcentrationF0il and F012 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) ................. 110Cyanides (Amenable) .......................... 9.1

Effective December 8, 1989; from July 8. 1989until December 8, 1989, these wastes are subject tothe same treatment standards as F007, F008, andF009 nonwastewaters (see also Table CCWE in§ 268.41).

FO11 and FO12 wastewaters (see Concentrationalso Table CCWE in §268.41) (in mg/I)

Cyanides (Total) .................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) .......................... 0.10Chromium (Total) ................................. 0.32Lead ...................................................... 0.04N ickel .................................................... 0.44

F024 nonwastewaters (see also ConcentrationTable CCWE in §268.41) (in mg/kg)

2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ....................... 0.283-Chloropropene ................................. 0 28

26649



54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

F024 nonwastewaters (see also ConcentrationTable CCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/kg)

t,1 -Dichloroethane .............................. 0.0141,2-Dichloroethane .............................. 0.0141.2-Dichloropropane ............................ 0.014cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene ...................... 0.014trans-1,3-Dichloropropene .................. 0.014Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................. 1.8Hexachloroethane ............................... 1.8Hexachlorodibenzo-furans .................. 0.001Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............. 0.001Pentachlorodibenzo-furans ................ 0.001Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins . . 0.001Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans .............. .. 0.001

F024 wastewaters (see also Table ConcentrationCCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/I)

2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ....................... 0.283-Chloropropene .................................. 0.281,1-Dichloroethane .............................. 0.0141,2-Dichloroethane .............................. 0.0141,2-Dichloropropane ............................ 0.014cis-l,3-Dichloropropene ...................... 0.014trans-1,3-Dichloropropene .................. 0.014Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ................. 0.036Hexachloroethane ............................... 0.036Hexachlorodibenzo-furans .................. 0.001Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............. 0.001Pentachlorodibenzo-furans ................ 0.001Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............ 0.001Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans ................. 0.001Chromium (Total) ................................. 0.35Nickel .................................................... 0.47

KOI . K013, and K014 Concentrationnonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

Acetonitrile ........................................... 1.8Acrylonitrile ........................................... 1.4Acrylamide ........................................... 23Benzene ............................................. 0.03Cyanides (Total) ................. 57

K023. K093, and K094 Concentrationnonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

Phthalic anhydride (measured asPhthalic acid) .................................. 28

K023, K093, and K094 Concentrationwastewaters (in mg/I)

Phthalic anhydnde (measured asPhthalic acid)................................... 0.54

K024 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Phthalic anhydride (measured asPhthalc acid) ................................... 28

K028 nonwastewaters (see also ConcentrationTable CCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/kg)

1,1-Dichloroethane .............................. 6.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethane .................... 6.0Hexachlorobutadiene .......................... 5.6Hexachloroethane .............................. 28Pentachloroethane ............................. 5.61,1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane .................. 5.61,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................. 5.61,1,1-Tnchloroethane .......................... 6.01,1,2-Tnchloroethane .......................... 6.0Tetrachloroethylene ............................ 6.0

K028 wastewaters Concentration(in mg/I)

1,1-Dichloroethane .............................. 0.007trans-1,2-Dichloroethane .................... 0.033Hexachlorobutadiene .......................... 0.007Hexachloroethane ............................... 0.033Pentachloroethane .............................. 0.0331,1,1.2-Tetrachloroethane .................. 0.0071,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................. 0.007Tetrachloroethylene ............................ 0.0071.1.1 -Trichloroethane .......................... 0.0071,1,2-Trichloroethane .......................... 0.007Cadmium ........ ............. 6.4Chromium (Total) ................................ 0.35Lead ...................................................... 0.037Nickel .................................................... 0.47

K029 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Chloroform ........................................... 6.01,2-Dichloroethane .............................. 6.01.1-Dichloroethylene ........................... 6.01,1,1-Tnchloroethane .......................... 6.0Vinyl chlonde ....................................... 6.0

K036 wastewaters Concentration(in mg/I)

Disulfoton ............................................ 0.025

K038 and K040 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Phorate ................................................. 0.1

K038 and K0 Concentration040 wastewaters (in mg/I)

Phorate ................................................. 0.025

K043 nonwastewaters

2,4-Dichlorophenol .............................2,6-Dichlorophenol .............................2,4,5-Trichlorophenol .........................2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .........................Tetrachlorophenols (Total) ................Pentachlorophenol .............................Tetrachloroethene ..............................Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............Hexachlorodibenzo-furans .................Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ...........Pentachlorodibenzo-furans ...............Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans ................

Concentration(in mg/kg)

ConcentrationK043 wastewaters (in mg/I)

2,4-Dichlorophenol ............................. 0.0492,6-Dichlorophenol ............................. 0.0132,4,5-Tnchlorophenol ......................... 0.0162,4,6-Trichlorophenol ......................... 0.039Tetrachlorophenols (Total) ................ 0.018Pentachlorophenol ............................. 0.22Tetrachloroethene .............................. 0.006Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............ 0.001Hexachlorodibenzo-turans ................. 0.001Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ........... 0.001Pentachlorodibenzo-furans ................ 0.001Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ............ 0.001Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans ................. 0.001

ConcentrationK095 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane ................. 5.61,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ................. 5.6Tetrachloroethene .............................. 6.01,1.2-Trichloroethane ......................... 6.0Trichloroethylene ................................ 5.6Hexachloroethane ............................... 28Pentachloroethane ............................. 5.6

concentrationK096 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

1,3-Dichlorobenzene .......................... 5.6Pentachloroethane ............................. 5.61,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ................. 5.61,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ................. 5.6Tetrachloroethylene ..................... 6.01,2.4-Tnchlorobenzene ...................... . 19Tnchloroethylene ................................ 5.61,1,2-Trichloroethane ......................... 6.0

K 115 wastewaters (see also Table ConcentrationCCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/I)

N ickel ................................................... 0.47

P01 3 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total); ................................ 110Cyandes (Amenable) ......................... 9.1

26650 Federal Register / Vol.



,Federal Register / Vol.

P013 wastewaters Concentration(in mg/I)

Cyanides (Total) .................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) .......................... 0.10

P021 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)







Cyanides (Total) ................................ 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) ......................... 0.10

ConcentrationP030 nonwastewal~ers (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) ................ 110Cyanides (Amenable) ........................ 9.1

P030 wastewaters Concentration

(in mg/I)

Cyanides (Total) ................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) .......................... 0.10

P039 nonwastewaters Concentration mg/kg)

Disulfoton ............................................ 0.1


Disulfoton ............................................. 0.025





54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations


Methyl parathion .................................. 0.025

P074 nonwastewaters (see also ConcentrationTable CCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) ................. 110Cyanides (Amenable) ......................... 9.1

P074 wastewaters (see also Table ConcentrationCCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/I)

Cyanides (Total) ................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) .......................... 0.10N ickel ................................................... 0.44

ConcentrationP089 wastewaters (in mg/I)

Parathion .............................................. 0.025


Phorate ................ 0.1


Famphur .............................................. . 0.025

26651

ConcentrationP098 wastewaters (in mg/I)

Cyanides (Total) .................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) ............. .. 0.10

P099 nonwastewaters (see alsoTable CCWE in § 268.41)

Cyanides (Total) ..................................Cyanides (Amenable) ..........................

Concentration(in mg/kg)

1109.1


Cyanides (Total) ................................. 1.9Cyanides (Amenable) ......................... 0.10

P104 nonwastewaters (see also ConcentrationTable CCWE in § 268.41) (in mg/kg)

Cyanides (Total) ................ 110Cyanides (Amenable) .......................... 9.1



ConcentrationP106 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)


ConcentrationSP106 wastewaters (in mg/I)


ConcentrationP121 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)


P121 wastewaters

Cyanides (Total) ..................................Cyanides (Amenable) ..........................

Concentration(in mg/I)

1.90.10

ConcentrationU028 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ............... 28

ConcentrationU028 wastewaters (in mg/I)

Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ................ 0.54




U069 ntonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............................ 28

U069 wastewaters Co entration(in mg/I)

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............................. 0.54

U088 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Diethyl phthalate ................................ 28

U088 wastewaters Concentration(in mg/I)

Diethyl phthalate .............................. 0.54


Dimethyl phthalate . . . .............. 28

U ConcentrationU102 wastewaters (in mg/I)

Dimetlhyl phthalate .............................. 0.54


Di-n-octyl phthalate ............................. 28


Di-n-octyl phthalate ............................ 0.54

U 190 nonwastewaters Concentration(in mg/kg)

Phthalic anhydride (measured asPhthatic acid) ................. ....... 28


Phthatic anhydnde (measured asPhthalic acid .................................... 0.54

ConcentrationU235 nonwastewaters (in mg/kg)

tns-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate.. 0.1


tns-(2,3-Oibromopropyl) phosphate.. 0.025

No Land Disposal for:

K005 Nonwastewaters generated by theprocess described in the waste listingdescription, and disposed after June 8, 1989,and not generated in the course of treatingwastewater forms of these wastes. (Basedon No Generation)

K007 Nonwastewaters generated by theprocess described in the waste listingdescription, and disposed after June 8, 1989,and not generated in the course of treatingwastewater forms of these wastes. [Basedon No Generation)

(b) When wastes with differingtreatment standards for a constituent ofconcern are combined for purposes oftreatment, the treatment residue mustmeet the lowest treatment standard forthe constituent of concern.

PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FORAUTHORIZATION OF STATEHAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

Subpart A-Requirements for FinalAuthorization

2. § 271.1(j) is amended by adding thefollowing entry to Table 1 inchronological order by date ofpublication in the Federal Register:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

(0)

TABLE 1.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation FEDERAL REGISTER reference Effective date

[Insert date of publication] ............ ..... Land Disposal Restrictions for Second Thrd IInsert page numbers] ........................................ June 8, 1989.wastes.

3. § 271.1[j) is amended by revising the § 271.1 Purpose and Scope U)entry for June 8, 1989 in Table 2 to readas follows:

TABLE 2.-SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Effective Self-implementing provision RCRA citation FEDERAL REGISTER reference

June 8, 1989 ............................................... Prohibition on land disposal % of listed 3004(g)(6)(B) .............. ........................... (Insert date of publication and pagewastes. numbers of this document.]

[FR Doc. 89-14262 Filed 0-22-89 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

26652

