Land Disposal Restrictions--Phase III Decharacterized: Federal Register: EPA

[Federal Register: March 2, 1995]

[[Page 11701]]_________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 148 et al.

Land Disposal Restrictions--Phase III: Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners; Proposed Rule [[Page 11702]]ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148, 266, 268 and 271

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

ADDRESSES: The public must send an original and two copies (and a voluntary copy on computer diskette) of their comments to: RCRA Information Center (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Place the docket number F-95-PH3PFFFFF on your comments. The official record for the proposed rulemaking is located in the EPA RCRA Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 2616, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA Docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling (202) 260-9327. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. The mailing address is EPA RCRA Docket (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. For additional information on submitting computer diskettes please see the heading ``Paperless Office Effort'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperless Office Effort

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

Glossary of Acronyms

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

Outline

I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste [[Page 11703]] Amendments, and Requirements of the 1993 Proposed Consent Decree with the Environmental Defense Fund B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's Opinion on the Third Third Standards for Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and Toxic Characteristic Wastes and EPA's Implementation of the Opinion to Date

Summary of the Third Third Standards
The Court's Decision
Options Prepared for the Notice of Data Availability
Contents of the Interim Final Rule
Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase II Rule
Requirements of 1993 Settlement Agreement with CWM, et al. II. EPA's Interpretation of the Third Third Opinion A. Statutory Language
B. Legislative History
C. Judicial Opinions
III. Integration of BDAT with Other Agency Actions A. Phase IV LDRs--Cross-Media Transfer and Equivalency Issues
Cross-Media Implications
Background of Equivalency Issues EPA is Considering for LDR Phase IV
a. Sludges
b. Leaking Surface Impoundments
c. Air Emissions
B. The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) C. Water Rules--the Pulp and Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries Rules
IV. End-Of-Pipe Treatment Standards
A. EPA's General Approach to Setting Treatment Standards and its Relation to the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed Today B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for Clean Water Act and Equivalent Wastewater Treatment Systems
CWA Standards and Limitations as RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment Standards
Implementation When CWA Standards and Limitations Will Be the Exclusive Standard
a. Direct Dischargers
b. Indirect Dischargers
C. Treatment Standards for Class I Nonhazardous Injection Wells
Introduction
Compliance Options for Class I Nonhazardous UIC Wells
Pollution Prevention Compliance Option
De Minimis Volume Exclusion
D. Point of Generation Discussion
Introduction
Background
Similar Streams Generated by Similar Processes
Streams From a Single Process
``Battery Limits''
Another Approach on Which EPA Seeks Comment
Situations Where Existing Point of Generation Determinations May Remain Appropriate
a. Listed Wastes
b. Prohibited Wastes Whose Treatment Standard is a Method of Treatment
Implications Beyond LDR Rules
V. Discussion of the Potential Prohibition of Nonamenable Wastes from Land-Based Biological Treatment Systems A. Technical Overview
B. Summary of the ETC's Position
C. Summary of the CMA's Position
D. Summary of EPA's Preliminary Response to CMA's and ETC's Technical Concerns
Feed Limits
Technical Concern
Constituent Properties of Concern
a. Water solubility
b. TC Metals
c. Toxicity
F. Additional Issues
List of Hazardous Constituents
Biotreatment as BDAT
Toxics Along for the Ride
G. Treatment Standard for Wastes with a High Concentration of Organics
VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes A. Carbamates
Proposed Treatment Standards
Request for Comments
B. Organobromines
Proposed Treatment Standards for Organobromine Wastes
Applicable Technology
C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)
Possible Determination of Inherently Waste-Like
Overview of Today's Proposal
a. Proposed Regulated Constituents
b. Specific Companies Investigating K088 Recovery/Treatment Technologies
VII. Improvements to the Existing Land Disposal Restrictions Program A. Completion of Universal Treatment Standards
Expansion to Cover All Components of Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates and Organobromines)
UTS Organic Constituents in Wastewater and Nonwastewater Forms
a. Nonwastewaters
b. Wastewaters
Application to Listed Waste
a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs
b. Elimination of Redundant Methods of Treatment
Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater standard b. Revoking the special wastewater/nonwastewater definition for acrylonitrile wastes
Aggressive Biological Treatment as BDAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes
B. Dilution Prohibition
Dilution Prohibited as a Method of Treatment
Permissible Dilution
Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and Combustion
Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes
The Addition of Iron Dust to Stabilize Characteristic Hazardous Wastes: Potential Classification as Impermissible Dilution C. Expansion of Methods Requiring Incineration D. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
Section 268.8
Sections 268.10--268.12
Section 268.2(f)
VIII. Proposed Prohibition of Hazardous Waste as Fill Material IX. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary C. Requests for Comment
X. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States B. Effect on State Authorization
XI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
Methodology Section
a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected Universe b. Cost Methodology
c. Economic Impact Methodology
d. Benefits Methodology
Results
a. Volume Results
b. Cost Results
c. Economic Impact Results
d. Benefit Estimate Results
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Underground Injected Wastes C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, and Requirements of the 1993 Proposed Consent Decree With the Environmental Defense Fund
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984, largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute provides only two options for legal land disposal: Meet the treatment standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory no migration test. A no migration unit is one from which there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5). EPA was required to promulgate land disposal prohibitions and treatment standards by May 8, 1990 for all wastes that were either listed or identified as hazardous at the time of the 1984 amendments (RCRA sections 3004(d), (e), and (g)), a task EPA completed within the statutory timeframes. EPA was also required to promulgate prohibitions and treatment standards for wastes identified or listed as hazardous after the date of the 1984 amendments within six months after the listing or identification takes effect (RCRA section 3004(g)(4)). [[Page 11704]]
The Agency did not meet this latter statutory deadline for all of the wastes identified or listed after the 1984 amendments. As a result, a suit was filed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). EPA and EDF signed a consent decree that establishes a schedule for adopting prohibitions and treatment standards for newly identified and listed wastes. (EDF v. Reilly, Cir. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.) This proposed consent decree was modified as a result of the court decision on the Third Third final rule (Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 113 S. Ct. 1961 (1993); hereafter referred to as CWM v. EPA, or the Third Third opinion). Today's proposed rule fulfills several provisions of the proposed consent decree. The rule proposes land disposal restrictions for characteristic hazardous wastes managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent treatment systems, and injected into underground injection control (UIC) Class I nonhazardous injection wells regulated under the SDWA. Today's rule also proposes treatment standards for carbamate and organobromine wastes. The rule also proposes treatment standards for newly listed spent aluminum potliners (K088), which according to the proposed consent decree need not be proposed until June 30, 1995.
B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's Opinion on the Third Third Standards for Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and Toxic Characteristic Wastes and EPA's Implementation of the Opinion to Date
Characteristic hazardous wastes that are treated or diluted such that they no longer exhibit the hazardous characteristic are no longer subject to RCRA Subtitle C management standards, and thus may be discharged into units that are not subject to the stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards, such as UIC wells. In CWM v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted RCRA section 3004(m) as requiring treatment of underlying hazardous constituents in decharacterized hazardous wastes so as to minimize threats to human health and the environment. As yet, the Agency has not set minimize threat levels under RCRA and therefore must require treatment.
However, the Agency has a process to set levels under the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). If risk-based minimize threat levels are established under HWIR, these levels would implement section 3004(m) and consequently supersede the technology-based treatment standards presently utilized. See HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362-63. Wastes treated to these levels also would not be classified as hazardous wastes and consequently could be disposed in units not subject to subtitle C standards (e.g., landfills not receiving federal permits.) EPA has lodged a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court to propose the HWIR levels not later than August 15, 1995, and finalize by December 15, 1996. As was previously mentioned, the Agency entered into a consent decree setting out a schedule for fulfilling the court's mandate for the wastes addressed in today's rule. This consent decree requires the Agency to set treatment standards for these wastes before the HWIR rulemaking.
That being said, the risks addressed by this rule, particularly UIC wells, are very small relative to the risks presented by other environmental conditions or situations. In a time of limited resources, common sense dictates that we deal with higher risk activities first, a principle on which EPA, members of the regulated community, and the public can all agree.
Nevertheless, the Agency is required to set treatment standards for these relatively low risk wastes and disposal practices during the next two years, although there are other actions and projects with which the Agency could provide greater protection of human health and the environment. At the same time, however, EPA has sought to exercise the full extent of its authority under current law to develop innovative options designed to significantly lower the potential cost of these controls while ensuring protectiveness, such as giving credit for upstream reductions in hazardous constituents, and crafting limited exemptions for wastewaters containing de minimis amounts of hazardous constituents. Through the public comment process and further consultation with stakeholders, EPA expects to obtain guidance for any future action we may take.
A detailed discussion of the Agency's interpretation of the opinion in CWM v. EPA is provided in the next section. For background information on the relevant portions of the Third Third final rule (i.e., the treatment standards promulgated for hazardous wastes exhibiting the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity), see 55 FR 22653- 22659 (June 1, 1990).
The Agency's immediate response following issuance of the opinion can be found in the January 19, 1993 Supplemental Information Report to the Notice of Data Availability (58 FR 4972). This report sets out the Agency's options for complying with the court's decision. The options discussed in this report applied to reactive, as well as ignitable and corrosive wastes, since EPA knows of no inherent differences among these wastes with respect to propensity to contain hazardous constituents.
1. Summary of the Third Third Standards On May 8, 1990, EPA promulgated regulations addressing the last of five congressionally-mandated prohibitions on land disposal of hazardous wastes, which was the third one-third of the schedule of restricted hazardous wastes, referred to as the Third Third. Among other things, the Third Third final rule promulgated treatment standards and prohibition effective dates for hazardous wastes that exhibited one or more of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity (40 CFR 261.21-261.24). The Third Third rule established treatment standards for the characteristic wastes in one of four forms: (1) a concentration level equal to, or greater than, the characteristic level; (2) a concentration level less than the characteristic level; (3) a specified treatment technology (e.g., for ignitable wastes containing high levels of total organic carbon); and (4) a treatment standard of ``deactivation'' which allowed the use of any technology, including dilution, to remove the characteristic.
  The Agency also evaluated the applicability of certain provisions of the land disposal restrictions' framework with respect to characteristic wastes, including wastes regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or pretreatment programs under sections 402 and 307(b) of the CWA and the SDWA UIC programs to try to ensure successful integration of these programs with the regulations being promulgated under RCRA. See generally 55 FR 22653-59 (June 1, 1990). Specifically, the Agency considered the appropriateness of the dilution prohibition for each of the characteristic waste streams, and the applicability of treatment standards expressed as specified methods.
  The Agency found, generally, that mixing waste streams to eliminate certain characteristics was appropriate and permissible for corrosive wastewaters, or in some cases, reactive or ignitable wastewaters. Furthermore, EPA stated that the dilution prohibition did not normally apply to characteristic wastewaters that are managed in treatment trains including surface impoundments whose ultimate [[Page 11705]] discharge is regulated under the pretreatment and NPDES programs under sections 307(b) and 402 of the CWA, or in Class I underground injection well systems regulated under the SDWA. The Agency stated that the treatment requirements and associated dilution rules under the CWA are generally consistent with the dilution rules under RCRA, and that the Agency should rely on the existing CWA provisions. The Agency also singled out certain particularly toxic wastewaters to which the dilution prohibition still applies notwithstanding management in CWA systems. 40 CFR 268.3(b). Similarly, EPA stated that a regulatory program had been established under the SDWA to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources. Class I deep wells inject below the lowermost geologic formation containing an underground drinking water source and are subject to federal location, construction, and operation requirements. The Agency stated that application of the dilution rules to these wastes would not provide further protection to human health and the environment, and that disposal of these wastes by underground injection at the characteristic levels was as sound a practice as treating them.
2. The Court's Decision
  On September 25, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on the various petitions for review. The principal holdings of the case with respect to characteristic wastes are that: (1) EPA may require treatment under RCRA section 3004(m) to more stringent levels than those at which wastes are identified as hazardous, 976 F. 2d at 12-14; (2) section 3004(m) requires that treatment standards address both short-term and long-term potential harms posed by hazardous wastes, and consequently must result in destruction and removal of hazardous constituents as well as removal of the characteristic property, id. at 16, 17, 23. As a consequence, dilution is permissible as an exclusive method of treatment only for those characteristic wastes that do not contain hazardous constituents ``in sufficient concentrations to pose a threat to human health or the environment'' (i.e., the minimize threat level in section 3004(m)), id. at 16; and (3) situations where characteristic hazardous wastes are diluted, lose their characteristic(s) and are then managed in centralized wastewater management land disposal units (i.e., subtitle D surface impoundments or Class I nonhazardous injection wells) are legal only if it can be demonstrated that hazardous constituents are reduced or destroyed to the same extent they would be pursuant to otherwise applicable RCRA treatment standards, id. at 7. As a consequence of these holdings, the court held that the deactivation standard for ignitable and corrosive wastes did not fully comply with RCRA section 3004(m). This was because that standard could be achieved by dilution, and dilution fails to destroy or remove the hazardous constituents that can be present in the wastes. Id. (A more detailed analysis of the D.C. Circuit's Third Third opinion is found in section II of this notice.)
3. Options Prepared for the Notice of Data Availability On January 19, 1993, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability to solicit as many comments as possible on all issues in the court opinion (58 FR 4972). The Agency prepared a Supplemental Information Report that was distributed to the public that set out the Agency's options for complying with the court's decision. The options discussed in this report applied to reactive, as well as ignitable and corrosive wastes, since EPA knows of no inherent differences among these wastes with respect to propensity to contain hazardous constituents. The report included options for establishing treatment standards for the underlying hazardous constituents in ignitable, corrosive and reactive (ICR) wastes that would have to be met prior to land disposal (including disposal in UIC wells). (It should be noted that the Agency also believes that underlying hazardous constituents can be present in wastes displaying the toxicity characteristic.) Two approaches were set out, along with the Agency's views on possible advantages and disadvantages of each.
  Under approach one, the Agency discussed the possibility of adopting concentration limits for underlying hazardous constituents. Under approach two, the Agency discussed specifying required treatment technologies. The Agency discussed how these possible approaches might apply to ICR wastes that are not managed in CWA centralized wastewater treatment systems. Furthermore, the applicability of LDR treatment standards to CWA facilities, and possible implementation scenarios under the CWA, were also discussed.
  The Agency also discussed options for how to determine the equivalency of CWA treatment systems with treatment under RCRA. The ``equivalency'' discussion included possible options for addressing air emissions, leaks, and sludges from CWA treatment surface impoundments. Also mentioned were other Agency efforts such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAPs (HON) (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994) developed by the Office of Air. These options will be developed in a later LDR rulemaking, but are discussed here and elsewhere in this preamble in order to inform and gather comments from all potentially affected persons. Approximately 60 public comments were received in response to the Notice of Data Availability. Those that pertain to establishing treatment standards for characteristic waste managed in CWA, CWAequivalent, and Class I nonhazardous UIC wells have been considered as this proposed rule was developed.
4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule EPA issued an interim final rule on May 24, 1993 (58 FR 29860) to address those treatment standards that were vacated (as opposed to remanded) by the court. Today's rule proposes treatment standards for some of the portions of the rule that were remanded. The distinction between vacated and remanded rules is that vacated rules are no longer in effect after the court's mandate issues, whereas remanded rules remain in force until the Agency acts to replace them. The Agency's opinion at that time was that the rules dealing with centralized wastewater management involving land disposal (Secs. 268.1(c)(3) and 268.3(b)) were remanded, not vacated. (See 976 F. 2d at 7, 19-26 where these rules are discussed and not expressly vacated.) This means that the only wastes to which the interim final rule applied were those ignitable and corrosive wastes for which the treatment standard was deactivation (since the deactivation standard for these wastes was vacated) and which were not managed in the types of centralized wastewater management systems covered by the remanded rules cited above.
  The Agency thus promulgated revised treatment standards for certain ignitable and corrosive wastes that are managed in systems other than those managed: (1) In centralized wastewater treatment systems subject to the CWA or in Class I underground injection wells subject to the SDWA UIC program; or, (2) by a zero discharger with a wastewater treatment system equivalent to that utilized by CWA dischargers prior to land disposal. The treatment standards retained the requirement of deactivation to remove the hazardous characteristic (see DEACT in Table 1, 40 CFR 268.42); however, the rule also set numerical treatment standards for the underlying hazardous [[Page 11706]] constituents that could reasonably be expected to be present in the wastes. EPA also promulgated alternative treatment standards of incineration, fuel substitution, and recovery of organics for ignitable wastes. In addition, EPA established new precautionary measures to prevent emissions of volatile organic constituents or violent reactions during the process of diluting ignitable and reactive wastes.
5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase II Rule
  On March 29, 1990, EPA promulgated a rule that identified organic constituents (in addition to existing EP metals and pesticide constituents) and levels at which a waste is considered hazardous based on the characteristic of toxicity (55 FR 11798). Because these wastes were identified as hazardous after the enactment date of HSWA in 1984, they were ``newly identified wastes'' for purposes of the LDR program. Included are wastes identified with the codes D012 through D043 based on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC wastes. In the LDR Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA established treatment standards for each of these constituents if they are managed in systems other than those regulated under the CWA, those engaging in CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land disposal, and those injected into Class I deep injection wells regulated under the SDWA. In addition, because wastes exhibiting the TC can contain treatable levels of other hazardous constituents, EPA established treatment standards for the underlying hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present in the waste. These rules are consistent with the Third Third opinion and adopt the same approach as the May 24, 1993 interim final rule. Furthermore, as part of a regulatory response to implement the court's ruling, EPA required in the LDR Phase II final rule that hazardous constituents in two types of characteristic wastes--high total organic carbon (TOC) ignitable liquids (D001) and halogenated pesticide wastes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic (D012-D017)-- be fully treated before those wastes are disposed into any Class I nonhazardous injection well that does not have a no-migration variance. See 59 FR at 48013. Therefore, these wastes can no longer be legally diluted to remove the characteristic and then be injected into Class I nonhazardous injection wells.
6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement Agreement With CWM, et al. This proposed rule continues to fulfill the requirements of the settlement agreement with the petitioners in CWM v. EPA. Today's rule proposes concentration-based treatment standards for the underlying hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present in ignitable, corrosive, reactive and TC wastes managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent treatment systems, and injected into UIC Class I nonhazardous injection wells regulated under the SDWA. The settlement agreement calls for developing standards for ignitable and corrosive wastes only; however, the Agency believes that underlying hazardous constituents may also be present in reactive and toxic wastes, and is therefore proposing regulations for these wastestreams as well. Today's rule also complies with the settlement agreement by describing and discussing the following option for implementing the opinion: the identification of underlying hazardous constituents that are not amenable to treatment in certain CWA centralized treatment systems, and the subsequent prohibition on the introduction of such nonamenable wastes into such systems. II. EPA's Interpretation of the Third Third Opinion
  EPA's action in this rulemaking is taken to implement key portions of the court's mandate in CWM v. EPA, the opinion vacating and remanding (among other things) EPA's rules allowing treatment standards for hazardous constituents in characteristic hazardous wastes to be achieved solely by diluting these constituents. EPA's initial view of the opinion is that it interprets the statute to require that hazardous constituents present in hazardous wastes at concentrations exceeding a minimize threat level to be treated so that they are destroyed, removed, or immobilized before the waste is land disposed. Some commenters to the May 24, 1993 interim final rule and the LDR Phase II proposed rule, however, have argued that dilution nevertheless can be utilized as the sole means of treating characteristic hazardous wastes, if dilution reduces hazardous constituent concentration levels to levels reflecting either performance of Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) or minimize threat levels. This argument is based largely on language in the court's opinion that treatment of hazardous constituents is required if, after dilution, hazardous constituents are present in concentrations sufficient to pose a threat to human health and the environment. See, e.g., 976 F. 2d at 7, 17, 18, 19-20, 23. Some commenters have added the further argument that section 3004(m) requires that treatment ``substantially reduce the toxicity of the waste'', which is accomplished when dilution lowers hazardous constituents to BDAT levels.
  If these arguments were accepted, it would mean that characteristic wastes could be disposed after dilution, without further treatment of hazardous constituents, provided sufficient dilution had occurred. Although this argument has been made chiefly by representatives of facilities engaged in underground injection, the argument is not limited to the injection context, or even to the context of characteristic wastes. Thus, if EPA accepted this argument, it would mean that any hazardous waste could be land disposed into any type of land disposal unit provided the waste was sufficiently diluted before land disposal, notwithstanding that the same volume of hazardous constituents as in the initial waste would be land disposed. EPA does not accept this interpretation of the court's opinion or of the statute. In the Agency's view, the statute and opinion are best interpreted by requiring hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes to be treated so that hazardous constituents are destroyed, removed, or immobilized before land disposal. The Agency's basis for this conclusion is set out below.
  A. Statutory Language
  Section 3004(m)(1) requires EPA to establish, as a precondition to land disposal of hazardous waste, treatment standards ``which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized.'' Although the first prong of the test-- ``substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste''--conceivably is satisfied by dilution,\1\ the treatment must not only diminish the waste's toxicity but also do so in a manner that minimizes short-term and long-term harms to human health and the environment.\2\ [[Page 11707]] Furthermore, although EPA has maintained that ``minimization'' of threats does not necessarily require elimination of all possible hazards (see, e.g., 55 FR 6641 and n.1 (February 26, 1990)), the phrase certainly requires something more substantial than merely diluting hazardous constituents.
  \1\If, for example, a wastewater starts out with cadmium concentrations exceeding 100 mg/l and is diluted so that cadmium is present at concentrations below the MCL of 0.1 mg/l, the toxicity of the waste has been diminished.
  \2\``Treatment is required not only for purposes of protecting against the short-term or acute risks associated with the land disposal of hazardous wastes, but more importantly focuses on the long-term hazards associated with migration of the wastes and subsequent contamination of ground or surface water.'' 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (July 25, 1984) (Statement of Sen. Chaffee introducing the amendment that became section 3004(m))
  
  Allowing the waste's toxicity to be diminished solely by dilution also is at odds with RCRA's enumerated goals and policies. Congress prohibited land disposal of hazardous waste because of ``long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal'',\3\ and persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate'' of hazardous constituents in the waste. Sections 3004 (d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5); Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 1355, 1362-63 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990) (upholding technologybased treatment standards due to the uncertainties inherent in determining when land disposal is protective). Land disposal of untreated hazardous waste is only allowed in ``protective'' land disposal units, defined as meaning units from which no hazardous constituents will migrate for as long as the waste remains hazardous-- to be demonstrated ``to a reasonable degree of certainty''. Sections 3004 (d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5). Allowing dilution of hazardous constituents fails to take account of these long-term uncertainties, propensity to bioaccumulate, and the like. As a result, it arguably fails to minimize long-term threats posed by the wastes.
  \3\See also section 1002(b)(7) which states that ``certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment, reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated * * *.''.
  
  Another provision indicating that Congress did not intend for dilution to be a means of treating toxic hazardous wastes is section 3004(h). Congress, in sections 3004(h) (2) and (3), authorized EPA to postpone LDR prohibition effective dates for up to two years (renewable for up to two additional years for individual facilities) if there is inadequate available treatment capacity for a particular waste. This provision would not have been necessary if dilution could be used as a means of treatment, since it would never take two years (or longer) for a facility to develop the means (i.e. adding dirt or water) of diluting wastes to meet a treatment standard.
  B. Legislative History
  The legislative history states that dilution is not to be allowed as a means of treating hazardous constituents. See S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. 17, which states that ``(t)he dilution of wastes by the addition of other hazardous wastes or any other materials during waste handling, transportation, treatment, or storage is not an acceptable method of treatment to reduce the concentration of hazardous constituents. Only dilution which occurs as a normal part of the process that results in the waste can be taken into account in establishing concentration levels.''\4\ The House Report is similarly explicit.\5\ The Conference Report similarly states that ``the Conferees intend that through the vigorous implementation of the objectives of this Act, land disposal will be eliminated for many wastes and minimized for all others, and that advanced treatment, recycling, incineration and other hazardous waste control technologies should replace land disposal.'' H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong. 2d sess. 80.
  \4\The final sentence undoubtedly refers to situations where dilution occurs as part of the manufacturing process that generates the waste (see House Report quoted in the next footnote), not to dilution that occurs once the waste is generated. This legislative history was to a bill containing the predecessor provision to section 3004(m). The critical provision would have mandated treatment only of hazardous wastes containing significant concentrations of hazardous constituents, and required treatment to levels that would be ``protective'', defined as satisfying the no-migration test. EPA does not view these differences as being critically different from the enacted section 3004(m), and so views the Senate legislative history as being relevant to ascertaining Congressional intent regarding dilution of hazardous constituents as a means of achieving treatment standards. \5\``The Committee intends that dilution to a concentration less than the specified thresholds by the addition of other hazardous waste or any other material during waste handling, transportation, treatment, or storage, other than dilution which occurs as a normal part of a manufacturing process, will not be allowed. Such hazardous waste would still be prohibited from land disposal.'' H. Rep. No. 198, 98th Cong. 1st sess. 34; see also id. at 38 (``(t)he Administrator may also impose limitations on the use of waste dilution to avoid disposal restrictions. The late (sic) is particularly important where regulations are based on concentrations of hazardous constituents.'')
  The House Bill did not expressly require pretreatment before disposal, the scheme of the enacted law, but nevertheless illuminates Congressional intent not to allow dilution as a means of treating hazardous constituents.
  
  Other legislative history indicates that Congress intended for EPA to adopt technology-based treatment standards: ``The requisite levels o(r) methods of treatment established by the Agency should be the best that has (sic) been demonstrated to be achievable. This does not require a BAT-type process * * *. The intent here is to require utilization of available technology in lieu of continued land disposal without prior treatment.'' 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178 (daily ed. July 25, 1984) (statement of Sen. Chaffee introducing the amendment that became section 3004(m)); see also 130 Cong. Rec. 20803 (1984 (statement of Sen. Moynihan on section 3004(m)): ``The requisite levels o(r) methods of treatment established by the Agency should be the best that has been demonstrated to be achievable.'' The legislative history also indicates that Congress intended treatment to result in destruction of total cyanide and organic hazardous constituents. 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178 (statement of Sen. Chaffee). Dilution of hazardous constituents, of course, is not BDAT, and does not destroy or remove hazardous constituents.
  The legislative history consequently strongly supports reading section 3004(m) as not allowing dilution of hazardous constituents.
  C. Judicial Opinions
  The D.C. Circuit's position in the Third Third opinion is potentially contradictory on this point. At points in the opinion, as noted above, this court states that dilution could satisfy section 3004(m) requirements, perhaps even for hazardous constituents. Elsewhere, however, the court unequivocally stated that dilution does not satisfy section 3004(m) because hazardous constituents are not destroyed, removed, or immobilized:
  We wish to make explicit the impact of our holding * * *. First, where dilution to remove the characteristic meets the definition of treatment under section 3004(m)(1), nothing more is required. Second, where dilution removes the characteristic but does not ``treat'' the waste by reducing the toxicity of hazardous constituents, then the decharacterized waste may be placed in a surface impoundment if and only if the resulting CWA treatment fully complies with RCRA section 3004(m)(l).
  In other words, the material that comes out of CWA treatment facilities that employ surface impoundments must remove the hazardous constituents to the same extent that any other treatment facility that complies with RCRA does. 976 F. 2d at 23. Dilution thus cannot be used as the sole means of treating hazardous constituents because it does not remove hazardous constituents from the waste. The court made this explicit in a footnote quantifying the above-quoted passage:
  To illustrate RCRA's focus on treatment of the hazardous constituents in a waste, consider a waste stream hazardous by characteristic for cadmium. Both the [[Page 11708]] characteristic and treatment levels for the hazardous waste are l.0 mg/l. Assume that a stream of 3.0 mg/l daily deposits 1000 liters into a treatment facility. A RCRA treatment facility would remove at least 2000 mg of cadmium from the waste stream. A CWA must do the same-- although to do so it will have to process at least three times as much water (because dilution of 1000 liters of 3.0 mg/l to just below the characteristic level will yield just over 3000 liters). Allowing dilution alone would decharacterize the waste, but it would not reduce the total amount of cadmium entering the environment. 976 F 2d at 23 n. 8.
  Applying this same standard to injection of decharacterized wastewaters into Class I nonhazardous injection wells, the court stated:
  (W)e hold that dilution followed by injection into a deep well is permissible only where dilution itself fully meets section 3004(m)(l) standards or where the waste will subsequently meet section 3004(m)(l) standards. Because deep well injection is permanent land disposal, our holding in effect permits diluted decharacterized wastes to be deep well injected only when dilution meets the section 3004(m)(l) standard or where the deep well secures a no-migration variance. 976 F. 2d at 25. This means that ``any hazardous waste (must) be treated in such a way that hazardous constituents are removed from the waste before it enters the environment.'' 976 F. 2d at 24 (emphasis added). Since injection wells are disposal units and do not engage in treatment, they are incapable of satisfying this standard. Id. at 25.
  EPA believes that the thrust of the opinion is to require treatment of hazardous constituents before land disposal. The court's explicit and quantified insistence that treatment standards are to reduce mass loadings of hazardous constituents makes this clear. If the court intended to allow dilution as the sole means of treating hazardous constituents, it would at least have discussed how this squared with statutory language, goals and objectives, and legislative history. Thus, the Agency does not accept the commenters' reading of the opinion. Today's rule consequently proposes that prohibited, decharacterized wastes be treated so that underlying hazardous constituents are removed, destroyed, or immobilized before final disposal into the environment.
  III. Integration of BDAT With Other Agency Actions
  As EPA makes decisions in this LDR Phase III rule on so-called endof -pipe equivalence for direct and indirect dischargers treating prohibited, decharacterized wastes in surface impoundments, there are related Agency rulemaking activities warranting mention: The LDR Phase IV rule, which will consider leaks, sludges, and air emissions from surface impoundments; the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), which provides a risk based assessment of when wastes are hazardous, and may result in capping the extent of treatment of some hazardous constituents; the Pulp and Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries effluent limitations guidelines which affect industries using impoundment-based treatment systems to manage decharacterized wastes; and rules for control of hazardous air pollutants issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which regulate similar air emissions. These interrelationships are explored below, so that the public can be made aware of how future regulations may impact decisions to be made in response to this rule. Comments and data are requested on the LDR Phase IV options discussed in this part.
  A. Phase IV LDRs--Cross-Media Transfer and Equivalency Issues
  1. Cross-Media Implications
    The LDR Phase IV rule will consider equivalent treatment for centralized wastewater treatment systems with impoundments managing wastewaters that are decharacterized. The principle potentially at issue is the transfer of pollutants from one media to another without being destroyed, removed, or immobilized. Treatment of the wastewaters transfers the pollutants , to groundwater from leaks, or to the air. The transfer of pollutants from one media to another is an Agency-wide concern. The environment is not well served by piecemeal regulation which simply transfers pollutants, nor is industry well-served by piecemeal regulation. The Agency's preference is to look at these situations holistically so that pollutants are not simply transferred, and so that the Agency provides industry with a coordinated understanding of the ``environmental requirements'' for all media. How the Agency pursues this preference has not been decided, but the following discussion outlines some of the issues being examined.
  2. Background of Equivalency Issues EPA is Considering for LDR Phase IV EPA is considering, in addition to evaluating equivalence at the point of ultimate discharge to surface waters or to a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) (``end-of-pipe equivalence''), conditions for determining equivalence of treatment for decharacterized wastes managed in nonhazardous waste (subtitle D) surface impoundments which would involve consideration of whether treatment is not equivalent due to cross-media transfers of untreated hazardous constituents. In evaluating the above approaches, EPA is looking both at RCRA and other Agency authorities and programs that would ensure protection and provide control equivalent to RCRA.
    The Agency has not made any determination as to the best manner to implement the standard enunciated in the opinion. It is certain that the opinion requires at least a demonstration of end-of-pipe equivalence, which will be accomplished when the treatment standards in today's proposed rule are finalized. Whether it requires more is unclear. The opinion appears to focus on treatment of wastewaters. For example, the court stated ``treatment of solid wastes in a CWA surface impoundment must meet RCRA requirements prior to ultimate discharge into waters of the United States or publicly owned treatment works * * *.'' 976 F. 2d at 20, emphasis added). See also id. at 7, 20 (focus on treatment of waste ``streams'', i.e. the liquids in the impoundment); 23 n. 8 (reduction of mass loadings of hazardous constituents of waste stream entering and exiting an impoundment); 24 (court indicates that decharacterized wastes are not held permanently in impoundments, a statement that is uniformly correct for wastewaters but not wastewater treatment sludges); 24 (court focuses on treatment of ``liquids'' in impoundments). At one point, the court also noted, in distinguishing between subtitle C and subtitle D surface impoundments, that sludges in subtitle C impoundments require further management in accord with subtitle C, id. at 24, n. 10, perhaps suggesting by negative implication that sludges in subtitle D impoundments do not. Equally important, the court held that ``RCRA requires some accommodation with (the) CWA'', id. at 20, see also id. at 23, indicating that to some degree RCRA need not mandate a wholesale disruption of existing wastewater treatment impoundments, provided the CWA treatment system really achieves treatment equivalent to RCRA section 3004(m) treatment: ``In other words, what leaves a CWA treatment facility can be no more toxic than if the waste streams were individually treated pursuant to the RCRA treatment standards.'' Id. On the other hand, the opinion can be read more broadly to encompass requirements respecting surface impoundment integrity. The court's fundamental concern with dilution, echoing the requirements of section [[Page 11709]] 3004(m), is that dilution does not reduce or destroy hazardous constituents, and thus does not prevent those constituents from entering the environment. Id. at 22, 24, 29-30; see also id. at 23 n. 8 stressing the court's holding that total mass loadings of pollutants ``entering the environment'' must be reduced in order to comply with section 3004(m).
    Moreover, the court distinguished a number of times between temporary placement of diluted wastes in impoundments for treatment and permanent disposal in land disposal units, stating that only the temporary placement represents a satisfactory accommodation between RCRA and the CWA. Id. at 24, 25. To the extent hazardous constituents leak or volatilize from impoundments, it can be argued that permanent disposal of untreated hazardous constituents is occurring. The schedule for issuing the LDR Phase III and IV rules are both subject to settlement agreement, and, according to the schedule established by these settlement agreements, will be proposed only six months apart. Therefore, industry will be able to evaluate the LDR Phase III proposed end-of-pipe equivalency requirements while keeping in mind the upcoming LDR Phase IV rule which must consider sludges, leaks, and air emissions from treatment surface impoundments. The Agency has not yet decided how to pursue the potential equivalency issues related to sludges, leaks, or air emissions; however, the Agency is taking this opportunity to discuss the issues and potential options in these three areas. Furthermore, the Agency solicits data characterizing sludges, leaks, and air emissions from surface impoundments,
    a. Sludges. Characteristic wastewaters managed in CWA and CWAequivalent impoundment-based systems invariably are treated to generate a sludge. Under EPA's existing interpretations of the rules, such sludges are usually considered to be prohibited wastes only if they are themselves hazardous. 55 FR at 22661. This is because generation of a new treatability group is considered to be a new point of generation for purposes of determining where LDR prohibitions attach. The Agency has not determined whether the court decision could or should be read to invalidate this interpretation (although the Agency adopted a ``waste code carry through'' approach for the characteristic wastes addressed in the emergency interim final rule). This will be an issue that must be resolved in the LDR Phase IV rule. In addressing this issue, it should be noted that the LDR treatment standards for nonwastewaters and wastewaters are by now well established. There are 521 hazardous waste codes subject to LDR technology-based treatment standards. In instances where analytical methods are available, these hazardous wastes are subject to UTS that were promulgated in the LDR Phase II final rule (UTS are, however, based on treatment standards that have been in effect, in some cases, since 1986 and thus are well established). While no decision has been made on whether to regulate these sludges, if the Agency decides to control sludges from CWA and CWA-equivalent surface impoundments, the treatment standards (UTS levels) are already in place. EPA believes that the likely impact of such an approach would be mixed--that is, some facilities will continue to use surface impoundments and remove and treat the sludge, if necessary, while others will move away from the use of surface impoundments. For example, aggressive biological treatment, such as that typically used by the petroleum refining industry, may achieve UTS levels as generated. Sludges from primary treatment in surface impoundments are more likely to exceed UTS levels. If the Agency decides to control sludges, such an approach may impose significant costs on the facility. Subjecting sludges to UTS may encourage pollution prevention and recycling alternatives to be used prior to placement of wastes in the impoundment, so that sludge treatment standards are not triggered. Comments are solicited on these issues. b. Leaking Surface Impoundments. While hazardous wastes entering surface impoundments constitute temporary land disposal (because they are being placed there for treatment), leaks from such impoundments constitute permanent land disposal. Such permanent land disposal was clearly a concern of the court. 976 F. 2d at 25-6. The Agency is considering the following additional controls if the decision is made to address leaking surface impoundments: EPA already has UTS limits that could be applied to the influent into the surface impoundment when it is determined that it leaks underlying hazardous constituents at levels above UTS. Applying UTS to the influent would assure that only wastes that have been treated in a manner equivalent to RCRA treatment are land disposed. EPA is also considering applying some of the subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill criteria to address leaking surface impoundments (Municipal Landfill Rule (56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991). The impacts of such an approach on aggressive biological surface impoundments may not be significant. On the other hand, facilities with leaking impoundments engaged in primary treatment could have to perform some type of action such as retrofitting, remediating groundwater, or switching to tank treatment.
    A third option being considered is using triggering controls based on the potential risk of any leak. The Agency could require as a performance standard that owners demonstrate that the expected leaks would pose a low level of risk to nearby receptors. Facilities would have the flexibility to change the influent, install engineering controls, or limit potential exposure in order to comply with this performance standard.
    c. Air Emissions. Achieving wastewater or nonwastewater standards by merely transferring hazardous constituents to the air may be inconsistent with the court opinion in that excessive, uncontrolled volatilization could be viewed as unequivalent treatment, or unsafe treatment conditions. For example, treatment of volatile organic compounds in surface impoundments may achieve compliance with a wastewater treatment standard by simply transferring pollutants to the air.
    If EPA should determine that the court's opinion should be read to require control of excessive volatilization from impoundments to demonstrate equivalent treatment, one option is deferral to CAA NESHAP standards, such as the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAPs and the HON. The Benzene NESHAPs were promulgated on January 17, 1993, and the HON was promulgated on April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19402). The Agency will explore further whether the CAA standards for hazardous air pollutants provide equivalent protection or control of the hazardous constituents of concern.
    Another option is extend the applicability of existing air emission controls in RCRA--the recently promulgated RCRA Air Emission Standards (59 FR 62585 (Dec. 6, 1994)). The RCRA Air Emission Standards are selfimplementing and are applicable to 90-day units at hazardous waste generator sites. These standards do not apply to surface impoundments which receive waste that was hazardous at the point of generation but was ``decharacterized'' (i.e., rendered nonhazardous) before being placed in the surface impoundment.
    The approach EPA is considering in the second option is a ``target mass removal'', which would ensure that hazardous constituents are effectively [[Page 11710]] removed or destroyed and that standards are not achieved through dilution or air emissions. A key to this approach is that all waste streams commingled with the hazardous waste streams are accounted for, and calculations are made to ensure that dilution is not credited toward achieving the standard. The target mass removal approach is to identify a hazardous waste at its point of generation and determine the mass of hazardous constituents that must be removed to meet UTS. The mass of constituents removed can be calculated by comparing a post-treatment waste determination to the point of generation waste determination. An alternative is to calculate the percent reduction of hazardous constituents that is required to meet the standard, and ensure that associated treatment devices operate at that level of efficiency. Application of this approach could also address the issue of nonamenable waste discussed in Section VI of this preamble. Comments are solicited on the application of this approach. The likely impacts of establishing air emission requirements are that facilities will pursue pollution prevention, recycling, steam stripping or other treatment to remove volatile organics prior to treatment in surface impoundments. Under this approach, hazardous constituents would either need to be removed prior to entering the surface impoundment, or the impoundment would have to be retrofitted in a way that prevents escape of air emissions. Comments and data are solicited on options for addressing these three areas of potential cross media transfer from wastewater treatment surface impoundments. Comments and data are also solicited on potential costs and human health benefits. B. The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
    A recurring concern expressed by many commenters is the relationship between technology-based and risk-based RCRA limits. EPA has established technology-based limits for all LDR rules and will continue to do so in the LDR Phase III rule. The Agency is considering the establishment of risk-based levels, however, under the HWIR that is scheduled to be proposed in the fall of 1995. The integration of the two approaches could impact how facilities comply with all LDR treatment standards. For example, if the HWIR riskbased limits are determined to minimize threats to human health and the environment, when they are higher than the LDR standards (less stringent), they will satisfy RCRA section 3004(m) and the waste would not have to be treated to meet the LDR technology-based limits. HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362. Integration of the LDR and HWIR will be further addressed in the HWIR rulemaking process.
    C. Water Rules--the Pulp and Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries Rules
    The LDR Phase III end-of-pipe RCRA wastewater treatment standards (i.e., the standards which will satisfy the end-of-pipe equivalence standard enunciated by the court) being proposed today will be applied at the same location that CWA effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards are currently applied. EPA is currently amending effluent limitation guidelines and standards for two industries that use surface impoundments extensively: the pulp and paper and the pharmaceutical industries. Both of these rules are considering inprocess limitations of the highly-volatile constituents. The combined CWA and CAA Pulp and Paper rule was proposed on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66077). The Pharmaceutical Industry effluent guidelines are scheduled to be proposed by February 1995. One key issue, with respect to both of these industry categories, is the timing of these amended effluent guidelines and standards in relation to promulgation of LDR Phase III standards. EPA believes that these amended guidelines and standards should establish end-of-pipe equivalence. However, these amended rules may not be promulgated or effective until after this LDR Phase III rule takes effect. For reasons discussed later in today's preamble, however, EPA is proposing to wait until the amended rules for these industrial categories take effect before establishing end-of-pipe equivalence standards for these industries.
    IV. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards
    A. EPA's General Approach to Setting Treatment Standards and Its Relation to the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed Today
    In the recently-promulgated LDR Phase II rule, EPA significantly simplified the existing treatment standards by adopting Universal Treatment Standards (UTS). 59 FR 47982 (September 19, 1994). These standards apply the same concentration limit for the same constituent in all prohibited wastes. The Agency believes these standards are typically achievable for all prohibited wastes, and greatly improve the implementation of the LDR program by reducing the numbers of different treatment standards from thousands to essentially one per constituent. That being said, however, the Agency is nevertheless proposing today that UTS not apply to hazardous constituents in decharacterized wastewaters discharged by CWA facilities subject to the rule so long as the facility is subject to an appropriate CWA technology-based or water quality-based standard or limitation for that hazardous constituent. As explained more fully in section B below, the Agency believes that such CWA limitations and standards satisfy RCRA section 3004(m) requirements and therefore that the best means of integrating RCRA and CWA requirements is to have the CWA limitation or standard be the RCRA treatment standard as well. This choice by the Agency, should it be finalized, should not be viewed as any retreat from general applicability of UTS. Indeed, as proposed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA is proposing to apply UTS to various newly identified and listed wastes, as well as to prohibited decharacterized wastes injected into Class I nonhazardous injection wells.
    B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for Clean Water Act and Equivalent Wastewater Treatment Systems
    As discussed before, EPA must impose treatment standards on wastes that heretofore have not been subject to RCRA regulation. Both RCRA and CWA programs require treatment notification, monitoring, and enforcement; however, they do so using different procedures. This rule proposes an approach, discussed in the following subsections, that integrates requirements under both statutes to the maximum extent possible.
    The nonhazardous waste surface impoundments in CWA and CWAequivalent systems currently have no RCRA permit. For CWA systems, the discharge into navigable waters are subject to a NPDES permit, while discharges to POTWs are subject to pretreatment standards. EPA is today proposing to require that the treatment standard be met at the same point that the NPDES and pretreatment limits are required to be met: Generally, at end-of-pipe. CWA-equivalent systems may be subject to state or local permits, and would be subject to the treatment standards before final discharge to the land.
    [[Page 11711]]
    1. CWA Standards and Limitations as RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment Standards
      RCRA section 1006(b) requires EPA (among other things) to integrate provisions of RCRA and the CWA when implementing RCRA and to avoid duplication to the maximum extent possible with CWA requirements. In keeping with this requirement, EPA is proposing to implement the endof -pipe equivalency standard in the court's opinion so that a technology-based or water quality-based CWA standard for an underlying hazardous constituent in a CWA facility's discharge will also be considered to be the RCRA BDAT treatment standard for that constituent. (If a CWA standard for an underlying hazardous constituent is not included in the CWA permit, the facility must meet UTS at end-of-pipe. See further discussion in the next subsection.) Consequently, satisfying the CWA standard or limitation for that constituent will also satisfy RCRA. Thus, for example, if a facility managing decharacterized wastes containing benzene has an NPDES permit with a limitation for benzene which reflects Best Available Technology (BAT), that limitation would also satisfy RCRA LDR requirements. In addition, the facility would not be subject to a separately enforceable RCRA standard for benzene. In order to limit the amount of potential administrative duplication, EPA is proposing that the standard remain enforceable only under the Clean Water Act. EPA is proposing that a technology-based CWA limitation or standard for a hazardous constituent satisfies RCRA because such a limitation or standard best reflects the capability of best treatment technologies to treat a specific industry's wastewater (or, when the limitation is determined by a permit writer using Best Professional Judgment, a specific plant's wastewater). The RCRA UTS for wastewaters were developed by transferring performance data from various industries, and thus EPA need not make that same transfer when industry-specific (or plant-specific) wastewater treatment data is available. (EPA notes, however, that the UTS reflect treatment of wastewater matrices that are particularly difficult to treat, and hence that the Agency's conclusion that these standards are typically achievable is sound.) It is also reasonable for water quality-based limitations to satisfy RCRA requirements. These limitations must be at least as stringent as the limitations required to implement an existing technology-based standard. (See CWA section 301(b)(1)(c).) Even where there is no existing BAT limitation for a toxic or nonconventional pollutant, a permit writer must determine whether BAT would be more stringent than the applicable water quality-based limitation, and again, must apply the more stringent of the two potential limitations. (40 CFR 125.3(c)(2).) Consequently, a water quality-based limitation not only reasonably satisfies RCRA section 3004(m) requirements, but can be viewed as a type of site-specific minimize threat level. If a facility has received a Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) variance, EPA is proposing that the limitations established by that variance also satisfy RCRA requirements. Limitations established by the FDF variance process are technology-based standards reflecting facility-specific circumstances, and hence can appropriately be viewed as BDAT as well, just as with RCRA treatability variance standards. See 51 FR at 40605 (Nov. 7, 1986).
      EPA also believes that there are adequate constraints in the CWA implementing rules to prevent these end-of-pipe standards from being achieved by means of dilution. First, many of the effluent limitation guidelines and standards regulate the mass of pollutants discharged, and thus directly regulate not only the concentration of pollutant discharged but the degree of wastewater flow as well. Where rules are concentration-based, NPDES permit writers can set requirements which preclude excessive water use, and EPA has so instructed permit writers. (See 58 FR 66151, December 17, 1983, encouraging permit writers to estimate reasonable rate of flow per facility and factor that flow limit into the permit.) These permit conditions can take the form of best management practices, explicit mass limitations, and conditions on internal waste streams. 40 CFR 122.44(k); 122.45(f), (g) and (h). Indirect dischargers are also subject to specific CWA dilution rules in both the general pretreatment rules and the Combined Wastestream Formula (as well as through many of the categorical standards). 40 CFR 403.6(d) and (e). Many of the guidelines and standards also preclude addition of stormwater runoff to process wastewater to preclude achieving treatment requirements by means of dilution. The Agency is accordingly of the view that end-of-pipe equivalence would be achieved by treatment that removes or destroys hazardous constituents, as required by section 3004(m). (This discussion, of course, still leaves open the questions, left for the LDR Phase IV rule, of how existence of leaks, air emissions, or depositions of constituents in sludges affects determinations of equivalent treatment and similar issues.) With respect to indirect dischargers, EPA is further proposing that national categorical standards or, potentially, plant-specific standards contained in control mechanisms (i.e. contracts between industrial users and the POTW or other governmental entity) satisfy RCRA where these standards reflect pass through findings. If it is found that a particular pollutant/hazardous constituent will not pass through to navigable waters because of efficacious treatment by the POTW, there will be full-scale treatment of the pollutant/hazardous constituent before its final release into the environment. EPA is proposing that such full-scale treatment satisfies the court's equivalency test. EPA is also proposing to add such pass-through situations as a valid ground for indirect dischargers to obtain a RCRA treatability variance, for the same reasons. However, the Agency is not proposing that standards based on interference with POTW operations be deemed to also satisfy RCRA requirements. Interference findings reflect the effect the pollutant may have on overall POTW treatment, not necessarily treatment of the particular constituent. Because the relationship of an interferencebased standard with treatment of a particular pollutant is tenuous, the Agency does not believe such a standard can be said to be equivalent to RCRA treatment. The Agency solicits comment on the prevalence of interference-based standards.
    2. Implementation When CWA Standards and Limitations Will Be the Exclusive Standard a. Direct Dischargers
      EPA is proposing that if a direct discharger subject to this rule (i.e. generating ICRT wastes containing hazardous constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS at the point the wastes are generated and treating those wastes in surface impoundments) has an NPDES permit containing a limitation for that pollutant based on BAT, New Source Performance Standards, or a more stringent water quality standard, or is regulated through controls on an indicator pollutant, then there are no RCRA requirements other than documentary recordkeeping. An indicator pollutant is a pollutant for which control of that pollutant is considered to indicate control of a [[Page 11712]] specific constituent. For example, total phenols is an indicator for a specific phenol. The Agency solicits comments on specific circumstances where a pollutant is an indicator of a specific underlying hazardous constituent.
      If the existing NPDES permit either does not contain a limitation for the pollutant or does not regulate the pollutant through an indicator, a facility would have several choices. It could do nothing, in which case the hazardous constituent would be subject to the UTS, and compliance would be monitored at end-of-pipe (unless the facility chooses to segregate the wastestreams for treatment, in which case compliance would be measured in the segregated stream after treatment). These standards would be implemented by rule, and thus would not be embodied in a permit. Enforcement would be solely under RCRA. In the alternative, a facility could seek amendment of its NPDES permit pursuant to Sec. 122.62(a)(2), requesting that the applicable permitting authority modify the permit to add limits for the underlying hazardous constituents reflecting BAT for that pollutant at the facility. Assuming proper design and operation of the wastewater treatment technology, a permit writer in such a case could modify the permit to add a limitation for the pollutant based on Best Professional Judgement reflecting actual treatment (40 CFR 125.3(c)). Modification requests would be processed pursuant to the procedures found at Sec. 124.5. The modified permit limitation would be a CWA requirement and enforceable solely under that statute. A final alternative is for the facility to seek a RCRA treatability variance. EPA is proposing to amend the grounds for granting such a variance to include situations where a facility is treating decharacterized wastes by treatment identified as BAT, the technology is designed and operated properly, but is not achieving the UTS (see proposed amendments to Sec. 268.44(a)). The amendment would also apply to indirect dischargers properly operating technology identified as the basis for their PSES (Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources) or their PSNS (Pretreatment Standard for New Sources) standard. b. Indirect Dischargers
      The same alternatives exist for indirect dischargers. First, if an underlying hazardous constituent is not regulated nationally by a PSES, PSNS, or by a local limit, and so therefore becomes subject to the UTS for that constituent, that UTS would be enforced as a RCRA standard. In addition, if there is no pretreatment standard (i.e., PSES/PSNS) for an underlying hazardous constituent, because the Agency determined that there was no pass through, then the RCRA standard for that underlying hazardous constituents does not apply. However, in cases where an underlying hazardous constituent is not already subject to categorical PSES, categorical PSNS, or to a local limit in a control mechanism reflecting PSES or PSNS-level treatment, water quality, or pass through, the control mechanism between the indirect discharger and the applicable control authority would have to be modified in order to avoid application of the UTS by rule. Although procedures for modifying control mechanisms are less institutionalized than those codified for modifying direct dischargers' permits, the Agency initially does not believe this will pose a significant logistical problem because the number of indirect dischargers significantly affected by this rule (i.e. those treating decharacterized wastewaters in surface impoundments before discharge to a POTW where categorical PSES or local limitation does not address a particular hazardous constituent, and discharging greater than de minimis levels of hazardous constituents) appears to be small. The Agency continues to solicit information on the number of indirect dischargers so affected, however. EPA also solicits comment on the best means of applying the equivalency requirement to industries where the Agency is also undertaking significant revisions to applicable CWA requirements on a somewhat slower schedule than this rule. The Agency has in mind particularly the forthcoming amended standards for the pharmaceutical and pulp and paper industrial categories.\6\ Amended BAT/PSES standards for these industries are likely to encompass most or all of the underlying hazardous constituents typically found in these industries' wastewaters, and will reflect EPA's best judgement of the appropriate optimized technology-based controls for those pollutants, as well as the time needed to implement those controls. The Agency's initial preference, in keeping with the requirements of RCRA section 1006, is to wait until those controls are in place before evaluating end-of-pipe equivalency for those industries. The Agency solicits comment on this matter.
      \6\The Pharmaceutical Rule is scheduled to be proposed on February 28, 1995; the Pulp and Paper Rule was proposed on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66077).
      
      Finally, if the facility treats to UTS and does not modify its CWA permit or control mechanism to include a CWA standard/limitation for an underlying hazardous constituent, EPA is proposing minimal recordkeeping requirements, under RCRA authority. EPA is proposing that generators can use generator knowledge to identify the underlying hazardous constituents present at the point of generation of the ICRT wastes which are not covered by a CWA limitation and hence must be treated to meet UTS (assuming no permit modification, etc.). Monitoring at potentially hundreds of points of generation would be unnecessarily burdensome and so is not being proposed as a requirement. EPA is proposing that this information be kept on-site in files at the facility. EPA proposes that the facility will then monitor compliance with the UTS standard for each of these constituents at the point of ultimate discharge on a quarterly basis, and that the results of this monitoring also be kept in the facility's on-site files. Monitoring compliance with UTS at the point of discharge provides appropriate assurance of effective treatment. Failure to comply with the RCRA UTS standard must be reported by the facility to the EPA Regional or authorized state RCRA personnel.
      Finally, the Agency is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity variance to allow facilities time to repipe and build on-site treatment, or to modify their CWA permit. EPA is proposing these same requirements for documenting compliance for zero dischargers without NPDES permits who are affected by this rule. The absence of a permit necessitates some alternative means of documenting compliance, and the scheme outlined above seems to be the least burdensome scheme which would still provide a reasonable means of enforcing this rule.
      C. Treatment Standards for Class I Nonhazardous Injection Wells
      1. Introduction
        Generally, facilities injecting decharacterized ICRT wastes into Class I nonhazardous injection wells do not treat their waste beyond removing the characteristic by mixing and diluting, plus some filtering of solids. There are as many as 149 such facilities. The average flow of a typical Class I nonhazardous well is estimated at 107,000 gallons/ day. Typically, the volume of the hazardous wastestreams is relatively small (less than 25%) compared to the volumes of [[Page 11713]] nonhazardous wastestreams being co-injected. EPA is proposing that these characteristic wastestreams be considered prohibited at the point they are generated. The Agency is further proposing that underlying hazardous constituents in these prohibited wastes be treated to meet UTS levels before the waste is injected. The treatment must destroy, remove, or immobilize the underlying hazardous constituents in the waste that are present in concentrations exceeding UTS at the point the wastes are generated. It may be that in some situations, one type of treatment may pose more risk than another type, notwithstanding that it removes or destroys hazardous constituents to a greater degree. In such cases, facilities may seek a treatability variance to allow the use of the less aggressive treatment technology (assuming such treatment technology satisfies the 3004(m) standard). In such a situation, the technology posing greater risk could be considered to be ``not appropriate to the waste,'' (see 40 CFR 268.44(a)) and a variance could be granted to allow the use of alternative treatment. EPA believes this result satisfies the court's mandate in the Third Third opinion. EPA believes that the decision in the Third Third opinion necessitates revising the applicability of the 40 CFR Part 148 requirements, Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions, as they now apply to Class I nonhazardous injection wells. The Agency is clarifying in proposed revisions to 40 CFR 148.1, that owners and operators of Class I nonhazardous wells must determine, under certain circumstances, whether the LDRs now apply to their facilities. Class I wells which inject nonhazardous wastes at the point of injection must now determine if any of these wastes exhibited a characteristic of hazardous waste at the point they were generated. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 148.1 and redefine the purpose, scope, and applicability of the Part 148 regulations.
        To conform with the Court's ruling the Agency is also proposing to include Class I nonhazardous wells within the scope of the dilution prohibition at 40 CFR 148.3. Class I wells thus may not impermissibly dilute their hazardous waste streams in order to substitute for or avoid treatment levels or methods established in the LDRs.
      2. Compliance Options for Class I Nonhazardous UIC Wells In order to comply with today's requirements, facilities could segregate their characteristic streams for separate treatment. Treatment could occur either on-site or off-site. After the characteristic wastes have been treated to meet UTS, they can be land disposed (either by injection or by some other means). A facility could also treat the aggregated mass of wastewaters (i.e. the commingled characteristic and non-characteristic wastewaters) to meet UTS before injection.
        Another option is for the facility to seek a no-migration variance under Sec. 148.20. Thus, EPA is proposing today to amend the provisions under Sec. 148.20 to allow facilities to seek a no-migration variance for their injection well(s). This amendment, however, would simply formalize EPA's existing interpretation that no-migration variances are already available for such wells. See 59 FR at 48013 (September 19, 1994). If these facilities submit a no-migration petition to EPA and effectively demonstrate to EPA that their formerly characteristic wastes (including any hazardous constituents contained in those wastes) will not migrate from the injection zone for 10,000 years or no longer pose any threat to human health and the environment because the wastes are attenuated, transformed, or immobilized by natural means in the injection zone, then they may continue injection without further treatment.
        Each no-migration petition has, to date, taken on average 3 years to process. This time may increase if the Agency receives a large number of petitions. EPA continues to emphasize, however, that interested petitioners need not wait for this rule to be promulgated before pursuing the petition process. Petitions for a no-migration variance for Class I nonhazardous wells receiving decharacterized wastes can be received and evaluated now. Id. EPA is also proposing to extend the availability of case-by-case extensions of the effective date to Class I nonhazardous injection facilities for any applicable Part 148 prohibition. Proposed revisions to Sec. 148.1(c)(1) and Sec. 148.4 will allow Class I well owners and operators on a case-specific basis to follow procedures of Sec. 268.5 to receive a one-year extension, renewable for an additional year, from the effective date of the prohibitions, in order to acquire or construct alternative treatment capacity. EPA today is proposing two other means for facilities with Class I UIC wells to comply with the LDR requirements. The first involves removing the same mass of hazardous constituents from streams to be injected through pollution prevention rather than pre-injection wastewater treatment. The second involves creating an exception for situations when the characteristic wastestreams make only a de minimis contribution to the waste mixture being injected. These two proposed options are described below in more detail.
      3. Pollution Prevention Compliance Option The D.C. Circuit stressed that the equivalency test, if enunciated, is required to ensure that mass loadings of hazardous constituents to permanent disposal units are reduced to the same extent they would be if a prohibited waste was treated exclusively under a RCRA regime. 976 F. 2d at 23 n. 8. EPA is proposing that these reductions in mass loadings can be achieved by removing hazardous constituents from any of the wastestreams that are going to be injected, and that these reductions in mass loadings can be accomplished by means of pollution prevention.\7\ Thus, if a facility can, for example, make process changes that reduce the mass of cadmium by the same amount that would be removed if the prohibited wastestream was treated to satisfy UTS, the facility would have satisfied LDR requirements. The facility would thus no longer have to demonstrate that it is meeting UTS concentration levels. \7\In a 1992 memorandum from F. Henry Habicht, then EPA Deputy Administrator, and reiterated in a June 15, 1993 memorandum from Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, the Agency has defined pollution prevention as ``source reduction'' (as defined in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)), and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through (1) increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources; or (2) protection of natural resources by conservation. The PPA defines ``source reduction'' to mean any practice which (1) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; (2) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
        ``Source reduction'' includes: equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. Recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are not included in the definition of pollution prevention in the PPA.
        
        Under this option, a hazardous constituent could be removed from either the hazardous or nonhazardous portion of the injectate, and could be removed before a waste is generated. The result would be that the mass loading into the injection unit would be reduced by the same amount as it would be reduced by treatment of the prohibited, characteristic portion of the injectate. [[Page 11714]] The mass/day reduction of a particular underlying hazardous constituent can be calculated by comparing the injected baseline with the allowance. The injected baseline is determined by multiplying the volume/day of hazardous waste generated (and subsequently injected) times the concentration of hazardous constituents prior to the pollution prevention measure. The allowance is determined by multiplying the volume/day of a hazardous constituent generated/ injected times the UTS for that constituent. The difference between the injected baseline and the allowance is the mass/day reduction. After successful employment of a pollution prevention measure, the facility must demonstrate that the injected mass achieves the required mass/day reduction. The post-pollution prevention measures would be corrected for production variations by multiplying the mass/day reduction times the ratio of the pre-pollution prevention production baseline divided by the production on the day of sampling after the pollution prevention is successfully implemented. A correction for production variations is needed because the amount of an underlying hazardous constituent in the injectate is dependent upon the level of production. If the initial reading is taken on a day of low production, and the post-pollution prevention reading is taken on a day of high production, then without the correction factor the mass/day reduction calculation would be an underestimate.
        The following is an example to illustrate this discussion: Facility X is daily injecting 1 lb. of benzene (an underlying hazardous constituent in a characteristically hazardous wastestream). The mass allowed for benzene (based on the volume of the hazardous wastestream they inject and the UTS for benzene) is 0.3 lbs. Therefore, the mass of benzene that needs to be removed in order for Facility X to be in compliance with the LDR is 0.7 lb. Facility X decides to use pollution prevention to remove the 0.7 lb. of benzene from their system. Before employing pollution prevention, Facility X monitors and determines that on a day when they produce 10 tons of product, 3 lbs. of benzene is being injected. After employment of pollution prevention, Facility X monitors and determines that 1 lb. of benzene is being injected. On this day of monitoring they are producing 5 tons of product. Therefore: 3 lbs.-1* (10/5)=1 lb. of benzene removed, which means they are in compliance with LDR, since 0.7 lb. was all that was necessary to be removed. EPA is proposing that the results of the monitoring of the underlying hazardous constituent concentration and the volume of the hazardous waste stream being injected, both on the day before employment of pollution prevention, and the day after successful employment of pollution prevention, be reported to the EPA Region or authorized State as a one-time notification. The facility will also include in this report a description of the pollution prevention method used. In addition, the facility will monitor and keep on-site records of the results on a quarterly basis. Quarterly monitoring is already required under SDWA regulations (40 CFR 146.13(b)). The reporting requirements for this option will be a one-time notification; however, if the facility changes its pollution prevention method, they must repeat the initial monitoring and notify the EPA Region or authorized State. The Agency is proposing to consider only those pollution prevention measures taken after the date of publication of this proposed rule.
        EPA is proposing that, at this time, the pollution prevention alternative as described in this section of the preamble, be available only for facilities using Class I nonhazardous injection wells. EPA is not proposing the same alternative for facilities using surface impoundments because until the LDR Phase IV rules are completed, there will not be a test as to what comprises equivalent treatment at such facilities. That is, before EPA determines how such issues as potential releases to air and groundwater are to be resolved, there is no final equivalency standard for these facilities. It thus appears to EPA to be premature to determine how a pollution prevention alternative would fit into such a scheme. EPA also notes that because surface impoundments can pose particularly adverse environmental risks, see RCRA section 1002(b)(7) and CWM v. EPA, 919 F. 2d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Agency in any case may wish to develop alternative approaches for decharacterized wastes being managed in such units. EPA also solicits comment on a number of issues relating to this option. The first is comment on using other production parameters besides or in lieu of volume (e.g., mass, square footage, etc.). The second is comment on use of site-specific non-linear production relationships and multiple production factors to deal with potential differences in underlying hazardous constituents produced in the hazardous and nonhazardous waste streams. Third, EPA solicits comment on whether more than one day is needed for monitoring pre and postemployment of the pollution prevention option (i.e., some pollution prevention methods may require more than one day to show results). EPA also solicits comment on the best means of ensuring that the mass reductions achieved through this pollution prevention alternative are objectively verifiable and enforceable. In particular, EPA solicits comments on the best means of documenting baseline levels, and whether flow reductions (as opposed to hazardous constituent removal) should be allowed as an exclusive means of obtaining the requisite reductions in mass loadings of hazardous constituents. Finally, EPA requests comment as to whether it may eventually be possible to implement this type of alternative by means of a pollutant trading type of approach, whereby the hazardous constituent being removed by means of pollution prevention need not be identical to the hazardous constituent in the characteristic stream. For example, carcinogenic metals could all be grouped rather than evaluated individually. This type of approach may add desirable flexibility if appropriately constructed.
        4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion
        There is a question of whether EPA should require treatment of relatively small decharacterized hazardous waste streams injected into Class I nonhazardous wells when the result will be essentially the same level of contaminants being injected (and thus risks are not measurably reduced). Therefore the Agency is proposing to establish a de minimis volume exclusion for small volumes of formerly hazardous wastes being injected into these wells along with a greater volume of nonhazardous waste.
        There are two existing LDR de minimis provisions (Sec. 268.1(e) (4) and (5)). Both are for ignitable and/or corrosive wastes (D001 and D002); the first is for de minimis losses of D001 or D002 to wastewater treatment systems of commercial chemical products, while the second is for de minimis losses of D001 or D002 laboratory wastes. Under the approach being proposed today, when underlying hazardous constituents are present in ICRT wastes at concentrations less than 10 times UTS at the point of generation, and the combination of all of the characteristically hazardous streams together are less than 1% of the total flow at point of injection and after [[Page 11715]] commingling with the nonhazardous streams, and that the total volume of hazardous streams are no more than 10,000 gallons/day, no segregation and/or treatment would be required. The 1% total flow criteria is consistent with the existing de minimis exemption for laboratory wastes (Sec. 268.1(e)(5)); however, the Agency solicits comment on the 1% criteria, the 10 times UTS criteria as well as the 10,000 gallons/day maximum--should these numbers be higher, lower, or dropped? The Agency intends to continue analyzing collected data that may provide additional justification for, or alternatively, cause the Agency to modify any or all of the criteria on which it has based the de minimis exemption for injected waste. This analysis will be conducted in conjunction with revising the Regulatory Impact Analysis for underground injected wastes, and may include additional computer modeling used in assessing the health risks posed by Class I injection wells. The Agency may conduct this analysis, for example, by varying specific parameters in the modeling, such as well pump rates, total volume of waste injected, and waste concentrations, and by altering postulated exposure scenarios describing health risks posed by injection of Phase III wastes. Upon conclusion, the analysis may support the proposed de minimis criteria or may cause the Agency to revise them in the final rule. The Agency solicits any comment on this planned approach and any alternative suggestions. The Agency is proposing that if a generator determines that he meets the requirements of the de minimis exemption, that he place a one-time notice in his files stating the % flow and concentration of the underlying hazardous constituents, and volumetric flow of prohibited wastestreams (i.e. streams exhibiting a characteristic at the point of generation). The concentration of underlying hazardous constituents would have to be determined through monitoring, and the % flow can be determined through several methods. One method for estimating annual average wastewater stream flow is to use the maximum annual production capacity of the process equipment, along with knowledge of the process and mass balance. A second method would involve using measurements that are representative of average process wastewater generation rates. A third method is to select the highest flow rate of process wastewater from the historical records. Other knowledge-based methods, which would be less expensive alternatives to actual measurement, could also be used. EPA solicits comment on these alternatives.
        D. Point of Generation Discussion
        
        Introduction
        It has long been the rule that land disposal prohibitions apply at the point hazardous wastes are generated. See e.g. 55 FR at 22652 (June 1, 1990); 261.3(a)(2)(iii). Some members of the regulated community, including the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA), have asked EPA to reconsider this issue in light of the Third Third rule and the D.C. Circuit opinion interpreting that rule. See CWM v. EPA (976 F. 2d 2 D.C. Cir. 1992). Among other things, the court held that hazardous constituents present above concentrations ``sufficient to pose a threat to human health and the environment'' in prohibited wastes, including characteristic wastes, must meet LDR treatment standards. See 976 F. 2d at 16.
        The regulated community has argued that continued application of the point of generation rule could lead to situations where prohibitions would attach to particular characteristic wastestreams and trigger a host of potentially disproportionate consequences, without necessarily furthering any of the protective objectives of the LDR program. Many industrial processes consist of hundreds or thousands of streams, some of which exhibit characteristics only for a short time or (for batch processes) intermittently. The streams often exist within the physical confines of an industrial process, and may be collected within a common sump or other aggregation point. If one of the streams should exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, the entire system of wastewater treatment or other management could be affected if the system contains an impoundment or injection well. These commenters have also requested that EPA revisit the current interpretation that prohibitions attach at the instant of generation and that this requires in certain cases knowledge or monitoring of many internal streams. They argue that some of these streams may not be readily amenable to monitoring because everything within the process is hard-piped to a common collection point. It should be noted that EPA previously considered the practical difficulties associated with sampling or monitoring wastes within closed-process units. See 55 FR 25760, 25765 (July 8, 1987).
        The commenters have expressed concern that there are likely to be circumstances where mass loadings of hazardous constituents to the environment are not significantly affected by allowing initial aggregation of residual streams from a process. They also have expressed concern with the practical impacts and achievability of determining the precise content of potentially thousands of internal wastestreams within an industrial facility. In response to these concerns raised by industry groups following the Third Third opinion, the Agency is soliciting comment on a number of approaches to modify the current point of generation approach for making LDR determinations for certain types of wastes. These approaches also could be applied more generally for purposes of subtitle C to determine at what point a waste is generated.
        Background
        EPA has required LDR determinations to be made at the point which hazardous wastes are generated since the Solvents and Dioxins final rule (51 FR 40620, November 7, 1986). EPA asserted the authority to make LDR determinations at either point of generation or point of disposal in the Third Third final rule (55 FR 22652-53). The court invalidated such selectivity (976 F. 2d at 23), but did hold that at least the dilution prohibition did not have to apply to invalidate use of CWA treatment impoundments performing RCRA-equivalent treatment. 2d. at 23-4.
        In the course of finalizing the California list rule, EPA solicited comment on a ``point of aggregation'' approach to assessing when prohibitions attached. (See 52 FR at 22356 (June 11, 1987) where point of aggregation is defined as a point of common aggregation preceding centralized wastewater treatment.) Most commenters at that time criticized such an approach on the grounds that the ``point of aggregation'' was by no means readily determinable and could result in wastes being treated less or, in some cases, being diluted impermissibly. EPA rejected the approach for these reasons. 52 FR at 25766 (July 8, 1987).
        The following options, which are being presented for comment, would narrowly redefine the point at which the land disposal prohibitions attach.
        
        Similar Streams Generated by Similar Processes One possible revision would address situations in which like streams are generated from like processes and combined as a matter of routine practice. An example would be collection of rinses from sequential [[Page 11716]] rinses in a manufacturing process, or multiple rinses from parallel manufacturing lines all making the same product. In these circumstances, all the rinse water could contain the same hazardous constituents in roughly the same concentrations. Variations in hazardous constituent concentrations would reflect normal process variability, so that mass loadings of hazardous constituents to the environment over time would not alter if the rinses are aggregated and disposed. EPA seeks comment on whether or not such collection of like streams from like units should be considered impermissible dilution, since some in the regulated community might view it as counter-intuitive in many cases to even consider these similar process outputs to be separate.
        
        Streams From a Single Process
        Industrial facilities frequently collect residual streams from a process in a common unit such as a sump. In many cases, these streams are similar in composition because they all come from a common unit process. Consequently, although some of the residual streams could exhibit a characteristic before common collection, long-term average mass loadings of hazardous constituents per unit of production may not vary significantly, even though the waste concentrations may vary within a normal range over time.
        Moreover, where residues are generated within a unit process, it might be possible to view these streams as still within the ``normal part of the process that results in the waste'', S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17, and consequently that any routine combination of these streams from the common process would not be impermissible dilution. Id. Of course, there is the possibility of abuse in any approach that allows combination of residues. Characteristic wastestreams not normally generated as part of the unit process could be re-piped in order to dilute the characteristic and avoid treatment of underlying hazardous constituents. This would remain impermissible dilution under any of the approaches EPA is considering. This approach differs from the ``point of aggregation'' approach EPA rejected as part of the California List rule in that it limits the mixing of waste streams to wastes generated within a single unit process. In the initial ``point of accumulation'' approach, wastes from various sources could be mixed in a sump, as long as the sump was the first point of accumulation. This option limits the mixing to single manufacturing steps (unit operations).
        
        ``Battery Limits''
        The CMA has suggested an expanded version of the option discussed above. Instead of limiting aggregation to that normally occurring within a single unit process, they would view an entire battery of processes (associated with making a single product or related group of products) as a single manufacturing step. CMA would use the logic of the approach described in the previous section to allow all residues generated from that sequence of processes to be combined before a determination is made as to whether wastes are prohibited. Under CMA's approach, determinations as to whether characteristic wastes are prohibited could be made at this point where all of the aqueous waste streams from a unique industrial process are aggregated (referred to by CMA as ``battery limits''), or at a point that a stream exits the manufacturing process unit where it is generated (``point of rejection'').
        Such aggregation could, in CMA's view, be considered to be ``part of the normal process that results in the waste'' (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st sess. 17) so that the aggregation within the industrial process battery limits need not be considered to be impermissible dilution. CMA believes that this approach could ease monitoring burdens, simplify point of generation determinations, facilitate legitimate wastewater treatment and avoid accounting for characteristic properties and underlying hazardous constituents in intermittent streams such as streams from batch processes, or from characteristic streams resulting from one-time spills or other process emergencies.^{8
        
        \8\However, spills of commercial chemical products exhibiting a
        characteristic, an example mentioned by CMA, are already not
        considered to be prohibited provided amounts spilled are de minimis,
        as defined at 268.1(e)(4) (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994). See
        generally, CMA's submission to EPA of October 5, 1994, part of the
        record for this proposed rule.
        
        6. Solicitation of Comment
        
        The Agency solicits comment on the composition of internal residual
        streams within discrete processes when one or more of the streams
        exhibits a characteristic in order to determine how frequently such
        streams are similar with respect to identity and concentration of
        hazardous constituents. EPA also solicits comments on how difficult it
        is to identify the physical boundaries of a unit process, and what
        safeguards could be developed to assure that characteristic streams not
        normally part of a unit process are not diluted by re-piping and
        combination with unrelated streams.
        
        The Agency seeks comment on potential difficulties with all three
        options, but mostly the third option. Namely, the various limits do not
        seem to be graphically self-defining, and, hence, could be difficult to
        implement. The Agency is also concerned about the possibility of
        impermissible dilution of non-de minimis characteristic wastewater
        streams whenever large numbers and volumes of wastewaters are brought
        together and characteristics are eliminated without hazardous
        constituents being removed or destroyed.
        7. Situations Where Existing Point of Generation Determinations May
        Remain Appropriate
        
        a. Listed Wastes. In considering the above approaches, as well as
        others, it could be argued that any modification to the point of LDR
        determination should apply only to characteristic wastes and F001-F005
        (spent solvents) listed wastes. In evaluating wastes from other sources
        for listing (including other ``F'' series wastes), EPA has carefully
        evaluated the various waste streams and has defined the point of
        generation as part of the listing description. Therefore, it may be
        inappropriate to modify that description with a more generic point of
        prohibition rule. EPA solicit comment on this issue.
        b. Prohibited Wastes Whose Treatment Standard is a Method of
        Treatment. Section 261.3(b) states that characteristic wastes whose
        treatment standard is a specified method of treatment may not be
        diluted to remove the characteristic in lieu of performing the
        specified method of treatment. Principal examples of such wastes are
        high TOC ignitable wastes, characteristic pesticide wastes, and certain
        characteristic mercury wastes. 55 FR at 22657. EPA indicated that these
        wastes are not typically amenable to adequate treatment by means other
        than the designated treatment methods,^{9 so that aggregation to
        remove the characteristic is impermissible dilution unless treatment by
        the required method follows. Id.}
        
        \9\De minimis losses of the discarded commercial chemical
        product form of these wastes are not considered to be prohibited. 40
        CFR 268.1(e)(4).
        
        EPA's initial view is that these wastestreams should remain
        prohibited at the current point of generation. The Agency has made a
        considered decision that these wastes require a particular type of
        treatment, and the wastestreams themselves are clearly delineated. 55
        FR at 22657. In addition, the treatment [[Page 11717]] methods for a
        number of these wastes (including high TOC ignitable wastes and
        characteristic mercury wastes) include or require resource recovery,
        another reason to ensure that this type of treatment continues to
        occur. Steel Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 27 F. 3d 642, 647 (D.C.
        Cir. 1994). EPA solicits comment as to whether any alteration of the
        point at which LDRs attach to these wastes should be reconsidered.
        8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules
        
        The Agency believes that narrowly redefining the point at which
        wastes are subject to RCRA regulation should be considered because of
        industry's concerns with the impact this approach is having on the
        program currently and what potential impact it may have in the future.
        Strict interpretation of the current point of generation has already
        raised questions with respect to the status of a variety of similar
        wastes that sometimes exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic and
        are routinely mixed (e.g., spent antifreeze from automobiles, boiler
        cleanout wastes, emission control residues). This issue may become even
        more important in the future as EPA adopts exit levels which may be
        established by the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule.
        While absolute clarity of the applicability of RCRA may result from
        the current point of generation requirement, industry commenters feel
        that it could be magnified in the future by this and other rulemakings.
        In considering these concerns, EPA does not wish to undermine the
        effort to segregate the most concentrated wastes for source reduction
        or treatment. EPA solicits comment on whether any of the approaches
        described achieves the proper balance among these goals.
        
        V. Discussion of the Potential Prohibition of Nonamenable Wastes From
        Land-Based Biological Treatment Systems
        
        This section solicits comment on two regulatory frameworks received
        from industry and from treaters of hazardous wastes concerning
        refractory underlying hazardous constituents in land-based biological
        treatment systems. First, the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
        submitted comments to the Agency on EPA's March, 1993 Supplemental
        Information Report on potential responses to CWM v. EPA. The ETC raised
        concern as to whether the constituents from these decharacterized
        wastes when placed into biological impoundments are merely being
        diluted and discharged; volatilized from the surface of the
        impoundment; or simply end up concentrating in the sludge at the bottom
        of the impoundment. The ETC labeled these constituents whose primary
        fate is air or sludge (or discharge without treatment) via one of these
        paths as ``nonamenable to biotreatment.'' The comment suggested several
        criteria for determining whether process streams with ``nonamenable''
        constituents should be kept out of surface impoundments.
        Secondly, CMA provided EPA with similar recommendations in August
        1993. This section also considers CMA's suggestions for managing
        refractory chemicals in land-based biological treatment units.
        
        A. Technical Overview
        
        Many ``decharacterized'' wastes (i.e., wastes that were formerly
        hazardous wastes due to their ignitable, corrosive or reactive
        properties as generated but which no longer exhibit a characteristic by
        the time they are land disposed) are placed in Subtitle D surface
        impoundments for the purpose of biological treatment. In theory,
        microorganisms in the impoundment can degrade organic constituents in
        these wastes (under aerobic and/or anaerobic conditions) to carbon
        dioxide and water.
        
        The ETC comment suggested that EPA identify and prohibit wastes
        containing these ``nonamenable'' constituents from biological treatment
        impoundments. The issue facing EPA is whether there are wastes for
        which biological treatment is not BDAT either because biological
        treatment cannot adequately reduce hazardous constituents or because
        biological treatment simply transfers hazardous constituents to other
        media, and, if so, whether an alternative regulatory scheme is
        appropriate. While the LDR Phase IV rule will specifically address the
        concerns with respect to sludges, leaks and air emissions, EPA has
        committed to raising certain technical issues concerning
        ``nonamenability'' in the LDR Phase III proposed rule and has also
        committed to discuss the suggested regulatory resolutions submitted by
        both the ETC and the CMA, who also submitted comments pertaining to
        this issue.
        
        What follows is EPA's interpretation of the fundamental concerns
        which fostered this option, a discussion of the technical issues
        inherent to this approach and an identification of alternative
        approaches to address these underlying concerns. The issue of whether
        RCRA can require segregation of refractory hazardous wastes streams
        entering land-based surface impoundments is closely connected to the
        Agency's approach to sludges, leaks and air emissions in the LDR Phase
        IV rule. The Agency is therefore delaying any final action on the
        components of the ETC comments, or on the CMA suggestions, until LDR
        Phase IV when more comprehensive decisions can be made on each issue.
        
        B. Summary of the ETC's Position
        
        The full text of the ETC's comments can be found in the
        administrative record for today's rule. This section summarizes that
        document.
        
        The ETC asserts that ``Hazardous constituents in ICR wastes that
        are not amenable to the biological or sedimentation systems used in CWA
        lagoons are not receiving RCRA-equivalent treatment.'' They then
        propose a definition of ``nonamenable waste streams'' and suggest a
        regulatory scheme for keeping these streams out of surface
        impoundments.
        
        In particular, the ETC recommends that EPA should establish
        treatment standards for ICR wastes that require destruction and removal
        of hazardous constituents in the waste as generated, and allow only
        those ICR wastes that contain hazardous constituents for which
        biological treatment is the best method to be managed in nonhazardous
        waste surface impoundments. They provide lists of individual
        constituents and constituent categories that should be segregated and
        restricted from biological units. These include the following
        individual chemicals: mercury, vanadium, chromium, cadmium, lead, and/
        or nickel, or the following groups of chemicals: aromatic compounds;
        acrylates, phenolics, and highly oxidized constituents such as
        phthalates, aldehydes, and ketones; nitrosamines, amines,
        nitrophenolics, and aniline compounds and most chlorinated and
        brominated organic constituents. ETC also recommends segregating the
        following categories of waste: Highly volatile and non-water-soluble
        constituents, because of the likelihood of air emissions during
        biological treatment; and the acutely toxic P-listed wastes, because
        they are poisonous to the biological treatment system. The ETC
        explicitly recommends the following criterion for designating a waste
        stream ``amenable to biological treatment'': the waste must contain
        less than 1% solids, must be free of oil and grease, and must contain
        less than 10 ppm total heavy metals.
        
        ETC then defines ``ICR waste streams not amenable to biological
        treatment'' as: ICR wastes with constituents (from the groups listed
        above) at individual concentrations greater than 100 x F039 wastewater
        treatment standards; and ICR wastes with ``water insoluble and
        [[Page 11718]] highly volatile'' F039 constituents ``that are more
        likely to be released to air and not treated. (ETC did not indicate at
        what point these concentrations should be measured, although they did
        suggest that wastes should be segregated at ``battery limits''.)
        The ETC believes that such ``nonamenable'' wastes should either be
        required to undergo pretreatment prior to aggregation with other
        wastewaters (e.g., steam stripping of volatile compounds), or be
        required to go to other appropriate treatment (e.g., precipitation of
        metals). The ETC argues that such segregation of nonamenable wastes
        will promote pollution prevention because companies will have an
        incentive to modify raw materials or production processes to keep such
        hazardous constituents out of the waste stream.
        
        C. Summary of the CMA's Position
        
        The full text of CMA's comments can be found in the administrative
        record for today's rule. This section summarizes that document. CMA
        describes ``three situations in which characteristically corrosive or
        ignitable hazardous wastes could be sent to biological treatment in
        surface impoundments without jeopardizing the treatment units
        effectiveness by introducing non-amenable compounds''. CMA implicitly
        requests that the LDR Phase III rule allow CWA-permitted biological
        treatment in the following three situations:
        (a) When the stream to the impoundment only contains hazardous
        constituents amenable to biological treatment (listed below);
        (b) When the stream contains hazardous constituents amenable to
        biological treatment plus other (nonamenable) constituents present at
        concentrations equal to some multiple (e.g., 1000) of the F039/UTS
        treatment standards in the influent to the surface impoundment; or,
        (c) The facility can demonstrate on a case-by-case basis that a
        nonamenable hazardous constituent is amenable to treatment occurring in
        the treatment system.
        
        CMA identifies most of the organic UTS constituents as ``amenable
        to biological treatment''. This includes all the constituents for which
        biological treatment is the basis of the F039 wastewater treatment
        standards plus a number of organic constituents generally recognized in
        the literature as biodegradable.
        
        The BDAT List constituents not designated by CMA as ``amenable to
        biological treatment are: all UTS metals, fluoride, sulfide and the
        volatile and semivolatile organics in the table that follows.
        
        Nonamenable Volatile Organics
        
        Bromodichloromethane
        
        Carbon tetrachloride
        
        Chloroethane
        
        2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
        
        Chloroform
        
        Chloromethane
        
        1,2-Dibromoethane
        
        Dichlorodifluoromethane
        
        1,1-Dichloroethane
        
        1,2-Dichloroethane
        
        1,1-Dichloroethylene
        
        trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
        
        1,4-Dioxane
        
        Ethylene oxide
        
        Iodomethane
        
        1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
        
        1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
        
        Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
        
        1,1,1-Trichloroethane
        
        1,1,2-Trichloroethane
        
        Trichloroethene
        
        Trichloromonofluoromethane
        
        Vinyl Chloride
        
        Nonamenable Semivolatile Organics
        
        Benzal chloride
        
        2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
        
        p-Chloroaniline
        
        Chlorobenzilate
        
        p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
        
        1,4-Dinitrobenzene
        
        4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
        
        2,4-Dinitrotoluene
        
        2,6-Dinitrotoluene
        
        Di-n-propylnitrosamine
        
        Isosafrole
        
        Methapyriline
        
        3-Methylcholanthrene
        
        4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)
        
        5-Nitro-o-toluidine
        
        Phenacetin
        
        Pronamide
        
        Safrole
        
        Methoxychlor
        
        D. Summary of EPA's Preliminary Response to CMA's and ETC's Technical
        Concerns
        
        EPA presents its preliminary evaluation of three major issues that
        are raised by both CMA's and ETC's suggestions: the question of feed
        limits for land-based biological treatment units; behavior of
        nonamenable constituents in land-based biological treatment units and
        constituent-specific solubility and toxicity questions.
        
        Feed Limits
        
        The CMA and ETC approaches both suggest constituent-specific
        limitations of decharacterized ICR waste streams entering surface
        impoundments to ensure that certain toxic constituents do not bypass
        treatment by volatilizing into the atmosphere, by adsorbing permanently
        onto sludge sediments at the bottom of the impoundment or by inhibiting
        biodegradation processes in the impoundment. The Agency agrees that all
        three of these mechanisms can hinder treatment.
        While many aspects of both the ETC and CMA positions have technical
        and regulatory merit, there appear to be fundamental technical
        disagreements that need to be resolved. First and primary is the fact
        that ETC and CMA differ on which constituents (and chemical families of
        constituents) are ``amenable'' or ``nonamenable'' to treatment. Second,
        proposing regulations requiring segregation of streams entering
        impoundments would raise the following issues:
        (a) Surface impoundments have traditionally provided an engineering
        advantage--in addition to low energy, maintenance and construction
        costs--in that, they offer a means of ``equilibrating'' and
        ``equalizing'' the relatively frequent variations in chemical
        compositions of process wastes (i.e., aggregated waste streams). As
        such, they receive variable wastes in their capacity as large-volume
        holding units for process upset streams, stormwaters, spill washdown
        and other unscheduled wastewater releases. Segregation of these various
        streams would require construction of holding tanks that may not be
        able to provide the same equalization capability of an impoundment;
        (b) Mandatory analyses and separation may impose considerable added
        expense; and,
        
        (c) EPA, in some cases, assumed that impoundments would be used for
        these purposes by not including the costs of impoundment replacement
        when developing effluent guidelines for affected industries.
        Technical Concern
        
        In theory, EPA agrees that certain RCRA waste streams should be
        kept out of certain types of Subtitle D impoundments. (Listed wastes
        already must go to Subtitle C impoundments, and High TOC D001
        ignitables, as well as high mercury wastes, are also restricted from
        Subtitle D impoundments.) In addition, in 55 FR at 22666 (June 1,
        1990), EPA presented general criteria that could affect amenable/
        nonamenable determinations. All parties seem to agree that certain
        metal-bearing wastes could also be restricted from impoundments.
        However, there are additional factors that need to be considered, such
        as impoundment size, depth, temperature, and retention time. (An
        individual [[Page 11719]] organic compound is more treatable in some
        systems than in others and without information about the extent to
        which the lagoon supports aerobic and anaerobic processes we cannot
        assess how treatable these constituents are.)
        In addition, the overall composition of each waste--i.e. the entire
        matrix--must be considered in order to characterize its relative
        amenability to biological treatment. In particular, waste composition
        can enhance or inhibit a particular organic compound's amenability to
        biological destruction. Enhancement occurs, for example, if
        microorganisms can use one compound as a co-metabolite or co-substrate
        in metabolizing another. A feature story on biological treatment in the
        February 1993 issue of Environmental Science and Technology reports ``*
        
        * highly chlorinated compounds such as trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
        trichloroethane and chloroform will transform under aerobic conditions
        if methane, phenol or toluene is provided as a primary source of carbon
        and energy for biological growth. However, these reactions are cometabolic
        * *. Therefore it is important to define exact conditions
        when discussing biodegradation results.'' Inhibition occurs when one
        compound poisons the metabolic pathway by which another compound is
        otherwise degraded. The degree to which the microbial population in the
        impoundment has been acclimated to a particular constituent is a
        significant factor in determining that constituent's amenability.
        Acclimation determines the balance between inhibition and enhancement
        and is a factor to be defined in discussing biodegradation results.
        The fact that ``consortia'' of microorganisms, rather than members
        of a single bacterial strain, accomplish the degradation of complex
        molecules further complicates the extent to which a compound can
        accurately be labeled ``amenable'' (Rittman and Saez in Levin and Gealt
        Biological Treatment of Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, 1993, McGrawHill,
        New York). The presence of different microorganisms in a
        consortium increases the number of compounds that can be degraded in
        that impoundment by virtue of the wider array of metabolic degradation
        pathways present. However, the various microbial species may require a
        narrower range of pH, dissolved oxygen and other parameters in order to
        function and may therefore be more liable to collapse and fail than a
        simpler more robust microbial strain.
        
        Some of the technical issues that are likely to arise include:
        (a) Biotreatment systems vary. Constituents that are amenable to
        treatment in one system may be nonamenable in another, thus an accurate
        determination of what is a nonamenable waste might have to consider
        site-by-site factors, which would present considerable problems in the
        implementation of the program. If EPA set up a more generic approach,
        other problems are likely to occur, as described below.
        (b) The ETC uses the term ``battery limits'' to describe where
        nonamenable ICR wastes should be segregated. This term, however, is
        undefined and could represent the point where the wastestream leaves
        the production equipment, or a variety of aggregation points.
        (c) What levels of constituents justify requiring segregation and
        recovery?
        
        (d) If EPA required segregation of nonamenable wastes from
        biological treatment impoundments, there is a very good possibility
        that facilities would merely replace the surface impoundments with RCRA
        exempt tanks. Biological treatment in tanks could have the same air
        emissions unless they are properly controlled.
        With respect to specific hazardous organic constituents, EPA is
        currently investigating whether the BDAT list of compounds could be
        ordinally ranked into a series of compounds more or less amenable to
        biological treatment, based on published treatability data.
        ``Amenability'' is a continuous variable. Treatability data shows that
        some compounds are more amenable to biological degradation than are
        other compounds: there are no organic chemicals, other than polymers,
        which are absolutely resistant to biological degradation.
        Due to the technical problems associated with determining which
        wastestreams should be kept out of certain impoundment lagoons, and the
        policy concerns raised by these approaches, we are setting out these
        issues for comment in this proposed rule.
        
        Constituent Properties of Concern
        
        The following three items are criteria ETC suggests in addition to
        individual constituent concentrations. EPA invites comments on means of
        managing these waste properties.
        
        a. Water solubility. EPA does not share ETC's concern that less
        soluble compounds are significantly less amenable to biological
        treatment than relatively hydrophilic compounds. For example, PCB's are
        virtually insoluble; nevertheless the literature documents cases where
        PCB's have been successfully degraded to hydrochloric acid, carbon
        dioxide and water.
        
        b. TC Metals. EPA believes the LDR Phase IV limitations on land
        disposal of wastes that meet the definition of toxicity based on their
        metals concentration will address ETC's and CMA's concerns about the
        inadequacy of surface impoundments for metal treatment.
        c. Toxicity. EPA solicits comments on the suggestion that P-waste
        constituents be managed as particularly toxic and thus likely to poison
        metabolic pathways in the degradation process. EPA further solicits
        comment on additional constituents or categories of constituents that
        are likely to be acutely toxic to biological treatment processes,
        rather than merely resistant to biological treatment.
        The target mass removal approach described earlier in this preamble
        can be applied to biological treatment units to determine whether
        constituents managed in the units are being effectively degraded. The
        application of this approach could address the question of wastes
        nonamenable to biotreatment. The target mass removal approach requires
        a waste determination prior to the waste entering the treatment unit,
        and either (1) a waste determination after treatment in the unit, or
        (2) a determination of the operating efficiency of the treatment unit.
        This approach has been applied to biotreatment units for at least two
        promulgated standards that regulate hazardous organic chemicals: the
        HON and the Subpart CC air rules. Comments are solicited on the
        approach to address the nonamenable waste concerns.
        
        F. Additional Issues
        
        In addition to the issues raised in the section ``Summary of EPA's
        Preliminary Response'' above, there are other technical issues arising
        in developing a list of UTS constituents that are not amenable to
        biological treatment. Another issue concerns those UTS constituents for
        which biological treatment is BDAT: could a wastestream containing such
        constituents have such a high concentration of other compounds known to
        be refractory to biological treatment that biotreatment no longer
        effectively treats the constituents? A third issue considered here is
        the extent to which ``nonamenable'' constituents evade treatment by
        volatilizing into the air or by adsorbing onto sludge, in addition to
        flowing out untreated in effluent.
        
        List of Hazardous Constituents
        
        In order to ensure that all the constituents in a decharacterized
        waste [[Page 11720]] are adequately addressed, the starting point
        should not be the BDAT list but rather the entire list of U and P,
        appendix VIII, and other toxic chemicals present in the hazardous waste
        universe. The next LDR rulemaking (``Phase IV'') will discuss the
        universe of hazardous constituents regulated by RCRA (i.e., a composite
        of the above lists) and may propose which constituents from the
        composite list are considered ``nonamenable'' or ``amenable''. Today's
        preamble, however, raises general issues associated with
        ``amenability'' in order to solicit comments on specific questions.
        These questions will be addressed in LDR Phase IV. For example, the
        Phase IV proposed rule may include a discussion of quantification
        problems and the use of surrogate parameters such as BOD/COD/TOC ratios
        to assist in measuring performance where analytical methods do not
        exist.
        
        Biotreatment as BDAT
        
        EPA has already promulgated biodegradation (BIODG) as a specified
        method of treatment for quite a few U and P waste codes that fall under
        the category that ETC has asked to be classified as ``nonamenable''.
        (For example, nitrosamines easily break down in water to nitroamines.
        Nitrogen-containing organics can typically be biodegraded. Most
        microorganisms flourish in the presence of nitrogen containing
        chemicals.) EPA has also established numerical standards for many
        chemicals based on biotreatment data. EPA is including all of the
        chemicals in both of these cases in this proposed rule and is asking
        for comment on them and seeking data that would refute or support that
        biotreatment is BDAT for these chemicals.
        Toxics Along for the Ride
        
        EPA intends that the Phase IV proposed rule will expand the
        discussion on the concept of ``toxics along for the ride'' in
        biotreatment (i.e., concern about how best to regulate those toxic
        compounds that are not degraded to less toxic compounds and
        consequently pass untreated through the unit and on to land disposal).
        While the concept is environmentally attractive, in order to create a
        regulatory construct prohibiting such constituents from biotreatment,
        the Agency must consider the following constituent-specific factors:
        (a) Is the elemental composition of the chemical such that it is
        truly not ``amenable to biotreatment'' such as for metals?
        (b) Does a low rate of hydrolysis indicate low biodegradability?
        (c) Does high volatility necessarily indicate low biodegradability?
        (d) What retention time is required for biodegradation?
        (e) Is the biological system responsible for degradation of the
        compound sensitive to upsets in either the chemistry of the impoundment
        or its biocomposition?
        
        (f) Is the bioactivity considered ``aggressive''?
        (g) Is the constituent actually chemically treated in the
        impoundment?
        
        (h) Will the constituent encounter treatment after the impoundment?
        (i) Is the waste containing the constituent difficult to segregate
        from other wastes?
        
        (j) Does the chemical occur naturally in the surrounding soil or
        water?
        
        (k) Is the chemical already present in the sludge and could then be
        released by the sludge even though the influent is reduced?
        (l) Is the chemical present in other nonhazardous waste that are
        commingled with the decharacterized wastes?
        (m) Is the chemical generated at concentrations below that which is
        considered neither a chronic nor an acute health risk?
        (n) Is there an ecological risk from the inorganic composition of
        the waste such as the high salinity (dissolved solids) of most D002
        wastes?
        
        (o) Is the chemical a surprise presence from the use of some
        product that contains trace levels that couldn't be measured when the
        product was used (below product specifications)?
        (p) Is the chemical appearing due to corrosion of pipes and
        equipment?
        
        G. Treatment Standard for Wastes With a High Concentration of Organics
        
        In the Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA
        finalized regulations prohibiting the disposal in Class I nonhazardous
        waste injection wells ignitable characteristic wastes with a high total
        organic carbon (TOC) content and toxic characteristic pesticide wastes,
        unless either the well is subject to a no-migration determination, or
        the wastes are treated by the designated the LDR treatment method. The
        treatment method promulgated was either combustion (i.e. incineration
        or fuel substitution) or recovery of organics. Today the Agency is
        raising the option of proposing the same treatment standard for
        characteristic wastes with high concentrations of organics managed in
        surface impoundments. This would result in a prohibition of these
        wastes going into biological impoundments.
        The Agency requests comment on this option, including the question
        of how to define ``high'' levels of organics that would justify
        prohibition from surface impoundments. The Agency believes this option
        provides many of the benefits of segregation of refractory
        ``nonamenable'' streams with significantly lower analytical
        requirements.
        
        VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes
        
        A. Carbamates
        
        Hazardous Wastes from Specific Sources (K Waste Codes)
        
        K156--Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms, light
        ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from the production
        of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
        
        K157--Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters,
        washwaters, and separation waters) from the production of carbamates
        and carbamoyl oximes.
        
        K158--Bag house dust, and filter/separation solids from the
        production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
        K159--Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.
        K160--Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and spent
        catalysts) from the production of thiocarbamates and solids from the
        treatment of thiocarbonate wastes.
        
        K161--Purification solids (including filtration, evaporation, and
        centrifugation solids), baghouse dust, and floor sweepings from the
        production of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts. (This listing
        does not include K125 or K126.)
        
        Acute Hazardous Wastes (P Waste Codes)
        
        P203 Aldicarb sulfone
        
        P127 Carbofuran
        
        P189 Carbosulfan
        
        P202 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
        
        P191 Dimetilan
        
        P198 Formetanate hydrochloride
        
        P197 Formparanate
        
        P192 Isolan
        
        P196 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate
        P199 Methiocarb
        
        P190 Metolcarb
        
        P128 Mexacarbate
        
        P194 Oxamyl
        
        P204 Physostigmine
        
        P188 Physostigmine salicylate
        
        P201 Promecarb
        
        P185 Tirpate
        
        P205 Ziram
        
        Toxic Hazardous Wastes
        
        U394 A2213
        
        U280 Barban
        
        U278 Bendiocarb
        
        U364 Bendiocarb phenol
        
        U271 Benomyl
        
        U400 Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram tetrasulfide [[Page 11721]]
        U392 Butylate
        
        U279 Carbaryl
        
        U372 Carbendazim
        
        U367 Carbofuran phenol
        
        U393 Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate
        
        U386 Cycloate
        
        U366 Dazomet
        
        U395 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
        
        U403 Disulfiram
        
        U390 EPTC
        
        U407 Ethyl Ziram
        
        U396 Ferbam
        
        U375 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
        U384 Metam Sodium
        
        U365 Molinate
        
        U391 Pebulate
        
        U383 Potassium dimethyl dithiocarbamate
        U378 Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-n-methyldithiocarbamate
        U377 Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate
        U373 Propham
        
        U411 Propoxur
        
        U387 Prosulfocarb
        
        U376 Selenium, tetrakis (dimethyldithiocarbamate)
        U379 Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate
        
        U381 Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate
        
        U382 Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
        
        U277 Sulfallate
        
        U402 Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide
        
        U401 Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide
        
        U410 Thiodicarb
        
        U409 Thiophanate-methyl
        
        U389 Triallate
        
        U404 Triethylamine
        
        U385 Vernolate
        
        For background information on waste characterization data, data
        gathering efforts, and applicable technologies, see the Best
        Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Newly
        Listed or Identified Wastes from the Production of Carbamates and
        Organobromines.
        
        Proposed Treatment Standards
        
        The Agency has promulgated the listing of the wastes from the
        carbamate industry specified above. The final listing was signed by the
        administrator on January 31, 1995, and published in the Federal
        Register on February 9, 1995. EPA is today proposing concentrationbased
        treatment standards for these wastes. The concentration limits
        for the regulated constituents are based on both existing and newly
        proposed UTS (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994). UTS standards have
        already been promulgated for 21 of the constituents of concern for
        these waste codes (16 organic constituents and 5 metals). These
        standards were promulgated in the LDR Phase II final rule and are based
        on the following technologies: (1) Incineration was the primary basis
        for organic constituents in nonwastewaters; (2) biological treatment or
        carbon absorption was the basis for organics in wastewaters; (3) high
        temperature metal recovery and stabilization were the basis for metals
        in nonwastewaters; and (4) chemical precipitation was the basis for
        metals in wastewaters. These treatment standards were developed by
        examining essentially all the BDAT treatment data the Agency had at the
        time.
        
        The Agency is proposing new UTS for 42 constituents associated with
        carbamate wastes. 40 of these constituents are chemicals produced by
        this industry which may be grouped into the following categories:
        carbamates and carbamate intermediates, carbamoyl oximes,
        thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates. Please refer to the Background
        Document for definitions of these chemical groups and the
        categorization of these 40 chemicals. The other 2 constituents for
        which new UTS are being proposed (triethylamine, and o-phenylene
        diamine) are not carbamate products, but are hazardous constituents
        present at levels of regulatory concern in carbamate wastes. Note that
        although specific dithiocarbamate chemicals have been added to Appendix
        VII and VIII, the basis for listing K161, and the waste descriptions of
        P196, P205, U277, U366, U376-379, U381-384, U393, U396, U400-U403, and
        U407, the regulated constituent for these chemicals and codes is
        specified as ``Dithiocarbamates (total)'', because the analytical
        method for dithiocarbamates does not distinguish among specific
        dithiocarbamate constituents.
        
        The Agency is proposing to base the UTS for the carbamate,
        carbamate intermediate, carbamoyl oxime, dithiocarbamate, and
        thiocarbamate constituents in wastewaters on data developed by the
        Office of Water for the development of effluent guidelines, and data
        from treatability studies performed by RREL. Wastewater standards for
        carbamate and carbamoyl oxime constituents are based on data from
        alkaline hydrolysis, with the exception of thiodicarb which is based on
        biological treatment. Wastewater standards for thiocarbamates are based
        on GAC adsorption, while wastewater standards for dithiocarbamates are
        based on ozone/UV light oxidation. In cases where data were not
        available for a specific constituent, the standard has been transferred
        from the constituent with the most similar chemical structure and
        properties.
        
        The Agency is proposing to base the UTS for the carbamate,
        carbamate intermediate, carbamoyl oxime, thiocarbamate, and
        dithiocarbamate constituents in nonwastewaters on analytical detection
        limits compiled from sampling and analysis reports prepared to support
        the proposed listing for these wastes. Although data from the treatment
        of these constituents in nonwastewater matrices is not currently
        available, the thermal destruction technologies currently employed to
        treat these nonwastewaters can routinely achieve destruction to levels
        below the detection limit.
        
        In addition, the Agency is proposing UTS standards for
        triethylamine based on data transferred from the treatment of
        methapyrilene. The treatment standards for methapyrilene are 0.081 mg/l
        for wastewaters and 1.5 mg/kg for nonwastewaters. Methapyrilene was
        selected as the basis for this data transfer because it is the only
        tertiary amine for which UTS standards have been promulgated.
        Finally, the Agency is proposing UTS standards for ophenylenediamine
        based on analytical detection limits compiled from
        sampling and analysis reports prepared to support the proposed listing
        for these wastes. For the treatment standards being proposed today for
        waste codes K156-161, P127, P128, P185, P188-192, P194, P196-199, P201-
        205, U271, U277, U279, U280, U364-367, U372, U373, U375-379, U381-387,
        U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411, see Sec. 268.40 table--Treatment
        Standards for Hazardous Wastes in the proposed amendments to the
        regulatory language.
        
        Request for Comments
        
        In the LDR Phase II rule establishing UTS, the Agency was able to
        make modifications to the proposal, where commenters submitted data.
        The Agency strongly encourages parties affected by these proposed
        standards to submit any available treatment data for these newly
        regulated constituents; if such data become available, the Agency will
        make appropriate adjustments to these proposed standards. The Agency is
        soliciting comments, technical descriptions, and performance data
        regarding the characterization and treatability of these wastes and the
        achievability of these proposed standards. EPA is especially interested
        in any information regarding the feasibility of product recovery for
        these wastes, any available treatment data for the new constituents
        being added to the list of UTS, detection limits for these constituents
        in treatment residues, and suggestions for specified methods which
        could be alternatives to the concentration based standards proposed
        today.
        
        Because standards for organics are based on treatment of organic
        constituents to non-detect levels, EPA solicits comment on the use of
        constituent specific detection levels used during the testing of these
        wastes for purposes of the listing [[Page 11722]] determination. The
        Agency recognizes that there may be differences between detection
        limits prior to and after treatment. Detection levels may be lowered
        for these wastes after treatment due to the ``cleaner'' matrix. This
        data has been placed in the docket for today's proposed rule.
        
        B. Organobromines
        
        K140--Waste solids and filter cartridges from the production of
        2,4,6-tribromophenol.
        
        U408--2,4,6-Tribromophenol
        
        For further information on waste characterization data, data
        gathering efforts, and applicable technologies, see the Best
        Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Newly
        Listed or Identified Wastes from the Production of Carbamates and
        Organobromines.
        
        Proposed Treatment Standards for Organobromine Wastes
        EPA proposed to add 2,4,6-Tribromophenol to Appendix VIII of Part
        261 on May 11, 1994, and is today proposing to add this constituent to
        the list of UTS in 40 CFR 268.48. The decision to add 2,4,6-
        tribromophenol to appendix VIII was based on the determination that the
        toxicities of this chemical and its chlorinated analogue, 2,4,6-
        Trichlorophenol, are essentially the same, due to the Quantitative
        Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) between these two compounds.
        Since treatment data is not currently available on 2,4,6-
        tribromophenol, the Agency is proposing to set the UTS for 2,4,6-
        tribromophenol based on data transferred from the treatment of 2,4,6-
        trichlorophenol. The structures of 2,4,6-tribromophenol and 2,4,6-
        trichlorophenol are sufficiently similar to be considered halogenated
        congeners of phenol. Both halogenated phenols contain three
        symmetrically placed bromine or chlorine substituents which are
        difficult to remove by chemical substitution. The chemical behavior and
        mechanisms of action for 2,4,6-tribromophenol is expected to be similar
        to its chlorinated analogue, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Thus, the Agency is
        proposing UTS standards of 7.4 mg/kg for nonwastewaters and 0.035 mg/l
        for wastewaters for 2,4,6-tribromophenol.
        The Agency is soliciting comment regarding the achievability of
        this standard by demonstrated available technologies and regarding the
        analytical detection limit of 2,4,6-tribromophenol in treatment
        residual matrices. The Agency is also soliciting any available data on
        the concentrations 2,4,6-tribromophenol in treatment residuals from the
        recovery or destruction of wastes containing 2,4,6-tribromophenol. The
        analytical method for 2,4,6-Tribromophenol is SW846 method 8270 (GC/MS
        for semivolatiles, capillary column).
        
        Applicable Technology
        
        The lone facility which produces 2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes uses a
        Bromine Recovery Unit (BRU) to recover bromine values from organic
        liquid and vapor waste streams. In this unit, the organics are burned
        and the combustion products are removed by a wet scrubber. The BRU is a
        halogen acid furnace which meets the regulatory definition of
        industrial furnace in 40 CFR 260.10. The combustion of hazardous waste
        in industrial furnaces is regulated under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H,
        which regulates air emissions from these units and requires monitoring
        and analyses. The facility which produces 2,4,6-tribromophenol burns
        listed spent solvents and still bottoms in this BRU; therefore, it is
        already subject to the performance standards of part 266, subpart H.
        Treatment of 2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes in the BRU should be effective
        in destroying the phenolic component of 2,4,6-tribromophenol and
        providing for recovery of bromine. Based on available information, EPA
        proposes that treatment by BRU is BDAT for 2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes.
        EPA solicits comment on this assertion and on the potential
        applicability of other technologies which destroy 2,4,6-tribromophenol
        and provide recovery of bromine.
        
        C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)
        
        K088--Spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction.
        
        For background information on waste characterization, see the Best
        Demonstrated Available Technology Background Document (BDAT) for Newly
        Listed or Identified Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.
        
        Possible Determination of Inherently Waste-Like
        Certain current and potential K088 management methods have features
        of both recycling and conventional treatment. For example, there are a
        number of management methods involving some type of combustion process
        that produce a treatment residue from which resources may be recovered
        and reused. These management methods either destroy or drive off
        cyanides and toxic organics. Nevertheless, the technologies may useful
        alternative management methods for K088 if valuable resources are
        recovered. The Agency has a long-standing preference for recovery over
        simple treatment. This position is based on the preference in RCRA for
        environmentally protective recovery versus waste treatment. Any
        consideration of relative safety must include not just the recovery
        step, but transport and storage preceding recovery, and proper
        management of all residues from recovery. RCRA section 1003(a)(6) as
        well as S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17.
        EPA is considering how best to balance the potential promise of
        spent potliner recovery technologies with their similarities to
        conventional treatment technologies, especially with respect to the
        fate of (and risks generated by) hazardous constituents present in the
        waste. The Agency would prefer to provide consistent regulatory
        requirements for these recovery as well as for conventional treatment
        technologies in order to ensure both safe recovery and treatment.
        However, the existing regulatory framework may make it difficult to
        achieve this objective. For example, many of these recovery
        technologies already could be subject to the existing regulations for
        industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste (the so-called BIF
        rules).^{10 See 56 FR at 7142 (Feb. 21, 1991); 50 FR at 49171-174
        (Nov. 29, 1985).
        
        \10\ Because the Agency is not fully aware of all of the details
        of some of the projected potliner treatment/recovery technologies,
        we cannot state at this time whether the technologies will meet the
        regulatory definition of an industrial furnace. It should be noted
        that processes recovering both energy and material values from a
        waste are subject to BIF rules, and energy recovery in an industrial
        furnace need not involve any export of energy).
        
        For K088 recovery technologies subject to BIF regulations, only
        those facilities in existence on the effective date of the BIF rules
        (August 21, 1991) could operate without first obtaining a permit. This
        could create a significant barrier to commercial operation of the
        technology in the near term. If, however, these units operate in a
        manner that does not subject them to the BIF regulations, then it is
        possible that they could operate with little or no oversight under
        RCRA.
        
        The regulatory classification of residues as hazardous or
        nonhazardous wastes is another area where there would be dissimilar
        requirements under current rules. For example, one company has obtained
        from EPA a delisting determination that residues from their
        conventional treatment process are at levels low enough to no longer be
        classified as listed hazardous wastes. Other companies have not
        obtained such determinations, even though they potentially could treat
        spent potliners to delisting levels. As a result, these companies face
        the cost [[Page 11723]] and time of seeking a delisting petition, or
        the cost disadvantage of disposal of all residuals as hazardous waste.
        Because of the similarities in risks, EPA is soliciting comment on
        whether there are ways to subject all of these technologies to the
        same, or nearly the same, regulatory requirements, while assuring that
        the ultimate goals of protecting human health and the environment are
        not compromised. The Agency has discussed with aluminum industry
        representatives the possibility of achieving this objective by
        designating spent aluminum potliners as inherently waste-like materials
        pursuant to 261.2(d),^{11 and using this designation as a triggering
        event for a determination of ``substantial confusion'' pursuant to
        270.10(e)(2), which could establish a date for eligibility for interim
        status after August 21, 1991. See generally 56 FR at 7142 making this
        type of designation and finding of ``substantial confusion'' for
        halogen acid furnaces. The Agency solicits comment on this possibility.
        The benefit of this approach would be to guarantee that these
        technologies all would be subject to a minimum level of RCRA oversight,
        especially with respect to design of storage equipment, control of air
        emissions from the process, minimum treatment standards for residuals,
        and mandatory corrective action in response to releases of hazardous
        constituents to the environment.}
        
        \11\ The basis for such a designation would be that spent
        potliners contain cyanides and polyaromatic hydrocarbons which are
        destroyed rather than recycled, even by recovery technologies. These
        hazardous constituents are present in concentrations not ordinarily
        found in raw materials or products for which the spent potliners
        would be substituting, and the spent potliners could pose a
        substantial hazard to human health and the environment when
        recycled. The combustion process itself, for example, would seem to
        pose all of the risks the BIF rule is intended to address. Past
        storage practices for spent potliners also have led to significant
        environmental damage (although much of this storage utilized open
        piles).
        
        A designation of inherently waste-like, incidentally, would only
        apply to the potliners and not to legitimate products obtained by
        processing the potliner (so long as those products were not burned
        as fuels or used directly on the land). 56 FR at 7141. Another
        option, therefore, would be to designate the use of K088 in certain
        types of recycling (e.g., all processes involving thermal
        destruction of cyanide, processes that incorporate cyanide/PAHs into
        product unchanged) as inherently waste-like.
        
        In order to mitigate some of the potential delay and costs in
        complying with RCRA, EPA also requests comment on the feasibility of
        establishing uniform delisting levels for residues from processing
        spent potliners, much as it did for residues from processing K061
        wastes in high temperature metal recovery furnaces. Under this
        approach, we believe, levels would need to be established for organics,
        metals, cyanide and fluoride.
        
        Another possibility for assuring safe processing of the potliners
        would be to develop air emission standards for the processing units
        pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. This alternative would
        have to be implemented in such a way as to assure proper management of
        the potliners before processing, and satisfactory treatment and
        management of residues from the processing. EPA solicits comment on all
        of these issues.
        
        EPA wishes to add that its Region 10 office and the Washington
        State Department of Ecology have already evaluated the spent potliner
        recovery process used by one vender (Enviroscience). Washington State
        determined that it is an excluded recycling process, and EPA Region 10
        determined that the process is not required to meet emission standards
        for BIFs, provided the process is conducted pursuant to certain
        conditions.\12\ In light of the existing industry reliance on this
        determination, any decision made regarding designation of spent
        potliners in this rulemaking would not change the specific decisions
        concerning the Enviroscience process that have been completed to date.
        
        \12\These evaluations were conducted at the express, voluntary
        request of Enviroscience.
        
        2. Overview of Today's Proposal
        
        EPA is proposing treatment standards for K088 expressed as the
        maximum concentration of specific constituents that would be allowed
        for land disposal. The tables at the end of this section summarize the
        constituents proposed for regulation and the maximum allowable
        concentrations. These maximum concentrations are the UTS for metals,
        cyanides, and other organics that were developed in the LDR Phase II
        final rule. These standards are based on a variety of technologies as
        follows: (1) Alkaline chlorination was the basis for the cyanide
        wastewater standards; (2) alkaline chlorination of the wastewater to
        destroy the cyanide prior to the generation of the nonwastewater
        residual was the basis for the cyanide nonwastewater standard; (3)
        incineration was the primary basis for other organic constituents in
        nonwastewaters; (4) biological treatment or carbon absorption was the
        basis for organics in wastewaters; (5) high temperature metal recovery
        and stabilization were the basis for metals in nonwastewaters; (6)
        chemical precipitation was the basis for fluorides and metals in
        wastewaters; and (7) immobilization through either vitrification or the
        addition of calcium as a stabilization reagent was the basis for
        fluorides in nonwastewaters.
        
        These treatment standards were developed by examining essentially
        all the BDAT treatment data the Agency had at the time. The Agency is
        also proposing new nonwastewater treatment standards based on leachate
        tests for fluoride. The leach tests must be conducted using the TCLP
        (SW-846 Method 1311 as described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II).
        These leach standards were developed by the Agency when granting a
        delisting for certain K088 wastes. The treatment standard for fluoride
        wastewaters is taken from the UTS promulgated in the LDR Phase II final
        rule. More information on the development of these treatment standards
        can be found in the docket to today's rule.
        Treatment and recycling technologies such as mineral wool cupolas,
        metallurgical processes, iron and steel industrial furnaces, and other
        recovery and recycling technologies should be able to meet the proposed
        standards. K088 treatment data from Reynolds Metals, Comalco Aluminum
        Ltd., Ormet Corporation and the EPA Combustion Research Facility (CRF)
        show that K088 can be treated to meet the UTS. Because EPA is proposing
        numerical treatment standards, any recycling or treatment technologies
        can be used as long as the treatment standards are met by actual
        treatment, rather than impermissible dilution. More discussion on these
        various technologies is presented later in this preamble.
        a. Proposed Regulated Constituents. EPA is proposing to regulate
        the following constituents: acenapthene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene,
        benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
        benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)-anthracene, fluoranthene,
        indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, pyrene, antimony, arsenic,
        barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
        silver, cyanide and fluoride. Based on the available waste
        characterization data (see Best Demonstrated Available Technology
        Background Document (BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for
        K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners found in the docket to this rule for
        details), these constituents were found to be present in either the
        untreated K088 wastes or in the K088 treatment residuals at levels
        exceeding the UTS. See the proposed delisting of K088 for Reynolds
        Metals at 56 FR 33004 and 33005, July 19, 1991, and the corresponding
        docket for that [[Page 11724]] rulemaking. See also the docket for
        today's proposal for more data on constituent concentrations in
        untreated and treated K088. EPA is specifically requesting comment on
        regulating the phthalates: bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl
        phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate. These constituents can show up in
        the untreated potliner and the treated residue; however, there is some
        question that their presence may simply be due to lab contamination.
        Treatment technologies for K088 are also designed to recover or
        stabilize the fluoride. Therefore, EPA is proposing to regulate
        fluoride in K088 in order to ensure that the fluoride is actually
        recovered or that it is properly treated. Fluoride is also being
        regulated because of its toxicity and the high concentrations found in
        untreated K088 (see Tables 2 and 3 in 56 FR 33004 (July 19, 1991)--the
        proposed delisting of K088 generated by Reynolds Aluminum Company). If
        a treatment standard is promulgated for fluoride, the Agency will add
        fluoride to the UTS for K088. EPA has some data on the toxicity of
        fluoride (see the docket for today's proposed rule), and is in the
        process of gathering more information. For more information on
        regulated constituents see the Best Demonstrated Available Technology
        Background Document (BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for
        K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners found in the docket to this rule.
        Section 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), and (g)(5) require that land disposal
        of hazardous wastes is prohibited unless a prohibition is no longer
        warranted to protect human health and the environment. EPA reads this
        language to require that land disposal may still be prohibited after
        treatment of hazardous constituents if the waste might still pose
        substantial hazards due to presence of other constituents or
        properties. 56 FR at 41168 (August 19, 1991); NRDC v. EPA, 907 F. 2d
        1146, 1171-72 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (dissenting opinion). These hazards
        could be posed due to lack of treatment of other constituents in the
        waste, in this case, fluoride. It should be noted that this action is
        consistent with previous Agency actions, since EPA regulated fluoride
        in the delisting granted to treatment residues from the Reynolds Metals
        treatment process, and also regulates discharge of fluorides in the CWA
        effluent limitation guidelines for the primary aluminum subcategory.
        Consequently, the Agency is proposing a treatment standard for fluoride
        to assure that ultimate disposal of treated K088 is protective.
        EPA is proposing treatment standards for fluoride, as well as the
        hazardous constituents contained in the waste. Flouride is present in
        these wastes in very high concentrations: upwards of 10%. Untreated
        concentrations of this magnitude can cause significant adverse effects
        to human health and the environment if improperly land disposed. The
        Agency requests comment on whether fluoride should be added to Appendix
        VIII, as well.
        
        b. Specific Companies Investigating K088 Recovery/Treatment
        Technologies. It has been mentioned earlier that there are numerous
        technologies either available or being developed that recycle or
        recover the value (carbon, fluoride, etc.) in K088. Some of these
        technologies are described below. This is by no means a comprehensive
        discussion on those technologies, but rather is intended to give the
        public some idea of treatment options that are, or may be, available.
        These technologies or companies are only those of which the Agency has
        been made aware. EPA has placed in the RCRA Docket of this proposed
        rule all the recycling/treatment studies, as well as literature and
        videos submitted to the Agency on the various technologies. The EPA
        requests comment and data on these technologies and any other recycling
        or recovery technologies applicable to K088.
        • Enviroscience, Inc. (ESI) has completed a pilot plant
        demonstration sponsored by Kaiser Aluminum, Vanalco and Columbia Falls
        Aluminum Company. Their process uses K088, K061 (electric arc furnace
        dust) and F006 (electroplating sludges) to produce zinc oxide, mineral
        wool fiber and pig iron. The K088 is first formed into briquettes and
        then heated to approximately 3000 F in a furnace, with lime and silica
        being added to attain an optimal acid:base ratio for proper fiber
        formation. The carbon and the cyanide from the potliner are used to
        reduce the metals in the K061 and F006. The non-reducible metal oxides
        are spun into a mineral wool from the molten slag.
        • Alcan International Limited has developed a Low Caustic
        Leach and Liming hydrometallurgical process to treat K088. This process
        converts the fluorides to acid grade fluorspar and recovers the sodium
        and aluminum as sodium aluminate and caustic feed to be used in
        aluminum smelter operations. Alcan claims that the remaining brick and
        carbon fraction constitutes a high ash solid fuel whose reduced sodium
        content enhances its value as a chemical reducing agent.
        • Ormet Corporation has used a pilot-scale melting system
        vitrification process to treat K088 wastes. The process involves the
        rapid suspension heating of the waste and other additives in a
        preheater prior to physical and chemical melting which occur within a
        cyclone reactor. Ormet has submitted a petition to the EPA requesting a
        delisting of their residues from this process. They intend to scale-up
        this plant upon receiving a delisting of their waste. They claim the
        process produces a nonhazardous reusable product with the qualities of
        industrial glass that can be used as glass insulation material, roofing
        shingle granules or in the manufacture of tiles.
        • Comalco Aluminum Ltd. (CAL), an Australian company, has
        developed the Comtor process, which is a full-scale calcination process
        which thermally destroys the cyanide in K088. This process also
        recovers the fluoride and carbon values in K088 by using
        hydrometallurgical techniques with lime dewatering. The precipitate can
        be used as a fluxing agent or in cement making. The caustic liquor may
        be recycled to the alumina plant or can be used as a scrubbing agent.
        Comalco has plans to upgrade their plant to 10,000 ton/yr and build a
        second plant in New Zealand. They have a licensing agreement with Aisco
        Systems of Canada to commercialize the technology.
        • Elkem Technology is a Norwegian company which has done
        bench-scale testing consisting of smelting K088 along with iron ore to
        produce pig iron and a slag which they hope to get delisted. The
        process uses the carbon in K088 to act as a reducing agent and destroy
        the cyanides and other toxic organics, while rendering all other
        constituents immobile in a glassified, inert slag. For each ton of
        K088, they produce 0.85 ton of iron. Elkem plans a demonstration plant
        in the U.S. next year. They also plan to pilot a process to recover
        fluoride from the molten slag.
        
        • Ausmelt Limited is an Australian company which has
        performed pilot scale tests using their submerged lance technology,
        which is a pyrometallurgical process, to destroy the toxic constituents
        in K088 and produce a stable slag. Fluorides are recovered for re-use
        in the aluminum smelting process. Ausmelt has plans to build a facility
        which could process approximately 15,000 tons per year of K088.
        For more specific information on these technologies, see the Best
        Demonstrated Available Technology Background Document (BDAT) for Newly
        Listed or Identified Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.
        For the treatment standards being proposed today for K088, see
        Sec. 268.40 table-- Treatment Standards for [[Page 11725]] Hazardous
        Wastes in the proposed amendments to the regulatory language. For
        performance data supporting these standards, see the aforementioned
        K088 Background Document.
        
        VII. Improvements to the Existing Land Disposal Restrictions Program
        
        A major part of today's rule is designed to improve the quality and
        efficiency in the LDR program. Areas that are addressed in this
        proposed rule include: Completion/adjustments to UTS and expansion/
        consolidation of certain required methods of treatment.
        
        A. Completion of Universal Treatment Standards
        
        Today's rule proposes further streamlining and simplification of
        the LDR treatment standards based on the UTS promulgated in the LDR
        Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994). The proposed
        modifications apply to: (1) all UTS and therefore to all hazardous
        wastes regulated with numerical treatment standards included in the UTS
        as summarized in the Consolidated Standards Table at Sec. 268.40, and
        (2) the numerical treatment standards proposed for carbamate,
        organobromine and spent aluminum potliner wastes. These proposed
        changes to UTS therefore extend to all F-, K-, U- and P- waste codes
        with individually regulated constituents plus ignitable, corrosive,
        reactive and characteristically toxic wastes with underlying hazardous
        constituents.
        
        Expansion to Cover All Components of Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates
        and Organobromines)
        
        A number of constituents regulated with numerical treatment
        standards in certain waste codes are not represented in UTS. EPA lacked
        adequate data to cover all the BDAT List with UTS in the LDR Phase II
        final rule and today the Agency is proposing numerical treatment
        standards for additional constituents in carbamate and organobromine
        wastes which are not yet on the current BDAT List. These 43
        constituents are:
        
        A2213
        
        Aldicarb sulfone
        
        Barban
        
        Bendiocarb
        
        Bendiocarb phenol
        
        Benomyl
        
        Butylate
        
        Carbaryl
        
        Carbenzadim
        
        Carbofuran
        
        Carbofuran phenol
        
        Carbosulfan
        
        Cycloate
        
        Dimetilan
        
        Dithiocarbamates (total)
        
        EPTC
        
        Formetanate hydrochloride
        
        Formparanate
        
        m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
        
        Isolan
        
        Methiocarb
        
        Methomyl
        
        Metolcarb
        
        Mexacarbate
        
        Molinate
        
        Oxamyl
        
        Pebulate
        
        o-Phenylenediamine
        
        Physostigmine
        
        Physostigmine salicylate
        
        Promecarb
        
        Propham
        
        Propoxur
        
        Prosulfocarb
        
        Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
        
        Thiodicarb
        
        Thiophanate-methyl
        
        Tirpate
        
        Triallate
        
        2,4,6-Tribromophenol
        
        Triethylamine
        
        3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
        
        Vernolate
        
        The proposed UTS for these constituents can be found in Sec. 268.48
        of today's proposed rule.
        
        2. UTS for Constituents in Wastewater and Nonwastewater Forms
        For a number of constituents, there exist UTS in wastewater forms
        of wastes but none in nonwastewaters. EPA believes that these
        constituents should be controlled in both sets of waste streams
        associated with a given waste code. This enhances consistent and
        complete treatment. The organic constituents for which EPA has
        promulgated wastewater UTS but no nonwastewater UTS include acrolein,
        4-aminobiphenyl, aramite, chlorobenzilate, 2-chlorovinylethyl ether,
        1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene oxide, methyl methanesulfonate, pdimethylaminoazobenzene,
        and 2-naphthylamine.
        
        Today's rule requests comment on potential UTS values for these
        constituents in nonwastewaters. Although EPA does not have definitive
        treatability data on hand at the time of proposal, EPA believes that
        nonwastewater UTS for these constituents would close gaps in the
        current LDR framework and ensure adequate treatment of all waste
        streams.
        
        a. Nonwastewaters.
        
        (i) The Environmental Technology Council Data. EPA is soliciting
        comment on the treatment standards originally proposed, but not
        promulgated, in the Third Third F039 standards for acrolein, 4-
        aminobiphenyl, chlorobenzilate, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene, aramite, and
        2-naphthylamine. EPA had withdrawn these as constituents of
        nonwastewater forms of F039 following comments from the ETC that these
        were analytically problematic. Specifically, in a study reporting
        detection limits and spike recoveries in incinerator ash from the
        combustion of hazardous wastes (as analyzed by six different
        laboratories), ETC reported anomalous levels of detection limits or
        spike recoveries for these compounds. Detection limits and spike
        recoveries are of concern because the numerical treatment standard for
        any constituent in incinerator ash is equal to the product of the
        detection limit times the accuracy correction factor, the inverse of
        the percent recovery times a variability factor representing the extent
        of the data.
        
        ETC reported detection limits and percent recovery values for
        acrolein, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB), 4-aminobiphenyl (4AB),
        aramite, chlorobenzilate (CB), methylmethanesulfonate (MMS) and 2-
        naphthylamine (2NA), and also for dibenzo(a,e)pyrene (DBP). The
        detection limit results are labeled LIMITS A-F to represent the six
        different laboratories and the percent recovery results are similarly
        labeled % REC A-F to represent the six different laboratories. These
        data, together with the complete ETC investigations for the Third Third
        proposed rule and the subsequent pesticide study are available for
        inspection in the RCRA Docket for the LDR Phase II final rule.
        
        Table 1.--Detection Limits
        
        Constituent
        Limit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA
        
        A........................................................ 0.029 1.82 6.94 17.18 4.87 9999 2.438 12.561
        B........................................................ 9999 3.2 9999 614.43 8.29 9999 1.85 26.82
        C........................................................ 0.161 9.43 26.89 243.05 7.98 18.72 2.3 6.96
        D........................................................ 9999 1.38 14.06 4.52 2.61 9999 0.75 2.214
        [[Page 11726]]
        
        E........................................................ 9999 48.26 0.065 2.37 11.34 9999 9999 2.43
        F........................................................ 9999 1.78 14.18 9999 10.53 9999 1.37 9999
        
        Table 2.--Percent Recovery
        
        Constituent
        % Rec ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA
        
        A........................................................ 1.6 36 13.661 5.47 138.04 0 50.7 8.77
        B........................................................ 0 118.87 473.41 79.23 175.85 0 63.54 125.48
        C........................................................ 1.954 40.77 34.95 120.34 105.99 27.34 100.38 18.73
        D........................................................ 0 126.74 1.69 0.11 160.43 0 74.11 3.98
        E........................................................ 0 134.65 31.54 80 247.725 0 0 8.89
        F........................................................ 0 558.13 17.55 330.24 436.82 0 33.31 3.08
        
        Although ETC reports relatively few detection limits for acrolein,
        the consistently problematic low recoveries, all below 2% were the
        basis of EPA's concern in the Third Third rule. Similarly,
        dibenzo(a,e)pyrene exhibits extremely and consistently low recoveries
        while several detection limits are missing from the report. Aramite
        exhibited several extremely high detection limits plus an erratic set
        of percent recoveries ranging from very high to very low. The other
        four constituents, p-dimethylaminoazo-
        
        benzene, 4-aminobiphenyl, chlorobenzilate and 2-naphthylamine show a
        pattern of generally high detection limits and high recoveries, with
        much variation in recoveries and with several significantly high values
        in each set. The methylmethanesulfonate data were supplied by ETC
        despite the fact that EPA did not propose a nonwastewater standard for
        this constituent in the Third Third rule; this data is presented here
        for completeness and to stimulate comment on the development of today's
        proposed methylmethanesulfonate nonwastewater standard discussed below.
        (ii) EPA's Treatability Data Detection Limits and Recoveries. High
        or erratic detection limits and recoveries are of concern to EPA. For
        both parameters, high values indicate a barrier to quantification and
        erratic values indicate unreliable quantification.
        Analysis of the fourteen EPA incinerator burns used to generate
        nonwastewater treatability data shows both a narrower range of
        detection limits and lower values of detection limits than the ETC
        study achieved. The following table presents the ranges of detection
        limits achieved.
        
        In generating treatability data for listed hazardous wastes EPA
        undertook a series of fourteen incinerator burns. Analysis of ash from
        these burns provided the numerical basis for nonwastewater standards.
        Detection limit data were obtained from the ash itself for all
        constituents. However, recovery levels were determined for only a
        handful of constituents. After these recoveries were determined by
        spiking ash with the selected constituents and measuring the percentage
        of the spike which was recovered, these recovery values were
        transferred to chemically similar constituents and incorporated into
        the nonwastewater treatment standard calculations. EPA generally
        rejected recoveries ranging outside the 20% to 200% range following the
        guidance of the BDAT program's Quality Assurance Project Plan.
        
        Original EPA Nonwastewater Incinerator Burn Detection Limits
        
        Detection Detection
        limits for limits for
        EPA test burn volatile semivolatile
        organics organics
        
        Test #1...................................... 0.1-10.0 0.11-10.0
        Test #2...................................... 0.2-50.0 0.08-5.0
        Test #3...................................... 0.05-10.0 0.01-10.1
        Test #4...................................... 2.0-10.0 2.0-50.0
        Test #5...................................... ^{a2.0-50.0 0.5-10.0
        Test #6...................................... ^{b0.2-50.0 0.4-7.0
        Test #7...................................... ^{c2.0-20 0.2-5
        Test #8...................................... 0.025-2.0 1.0-10.0
        Test #9...................................... 0.005-0.4 0.42-4.0
        Test #10..................................... ^{c1.5-30 1.00-5.0
        Test #11..................................... 0.005-0.4 0.531-4.0
        Test #13..................................... 0.01-2.0 0.36-1.8
        Test #14..................................... ^{a0.010-2 0.36-1.8
        
        ^{aExcluding one outlier out of 40 analytes.
        ^{bExcluding five outliers out of 40 analytes.
        ^{cExcluding two outliers out of 40 analytes.}}}
        
        (iii) Solicitation of Treatability Data. EPA solicits additional
        treatability and analytical data concerning nonwastewater forms of
        these constituents. By taking comment on whether to promulgate
        nonwastewater standards for these constituents, EPA is reopening the
        discussion of the issues of detection limits and recoveries raised by
        ETC in the comments following the Third Third proposal. EPA opens the
        question of whether advances in detectability, notably the use of HLPC
        (high pressure liquid phase chromatography) may allow reliable
        measurement. EPA also solicits comment whether more reliable recovery
        values have been achieved for these constituents, and at what detection
        level are reliable results achieved.
        
        (iv) Additional Potential Nonwastewater UTS Based on Treatability
        Groups. EPA is also soliciting comment on potential treatment standards
        for 2-chlorovinyl ether, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene oxide and
        methyl methanesulfonate based on the Treatability Group categories
        outlined in the LDR Phase II Final Background Document for Universal
        Standards, Volume A, Universal Standards for Nonwastewater Forms of
        Listed Hazardous Wastes. Specifically, for each of the constituents
        listed above, EPA is considering as potential UTS the lowest
        nonwastewater treatment standard for the treatability group to which
        that constituent belongs.
        
        Treatability groups collect the UTS constituents into sets of
        chemically similar compounds with similar behavior in treatment
        processes and analytical instruments. UTS for nonwastewater UTS are
        based on the detection limits of that compound in incinerator ash.
        Since these detection limits reflect the constituent's ``fate and
        transport'' in the analytical unit according to its chemical structure
        and composition, transferring treatability data among members of
        treatability groups accounts for similarities in analytical
        quantification as well as in treatment.
        
        Nonwastewater UTS
        
        NW UTS (mg/
        Compound l)
        
        Acrolein.................................................... 2.8
        4-Aminobiphenyl............................................. 13
        Aramite..................................................... 2.5
        Chlorobenzilate............................................. 6.6
        2-Chlorovinyl ether......................................... 5.6
        Dibenz(a,e)pyrene........................................... 22
        1,2-Diphenylhydrazine....................................... 1.5
        Ethylene oxide.............................................. 0.75
        Methyl methanesulfonate..................................... 4.6
        p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene................................... 29
        2-Naphthylamine............................................. 15
        
        (v) UTS for Sulfide in Nonwastewater Form.
        EPA is soliciting treatability data for nonwastewater forms of
        sulfide. In the absence of treatability data for this inorganic ion in
        nonwastewater matrices, EPA is not proposing treatment standards but is
        requesting treatability and analytical data on which to develop a
        standard.
        
        (vi) UTS for Fluoride in Nonwastewater Form.
        EPA is today proposing a 48 mg/l as the UTS for the fluoride ion
        identical to that proposed today for fluoride in K088 nonwastewaters.
        The basis of the K088 standard is discussed in the section of today's
        preamble proposing treatment standards for K088 wastes. Today's
        proposed fluoride nonwastewater UTS, like the K088 fluoride standard,
        is based on the use of SW-846 leachate method 1311. Fluoride, like
        zinc, is not an underlying hazardous constituent in characteristic
        wastes, according to the definition at Sec. 268.2(i).
        b. Wastewaters. Additionally, today's rule proposes a wastewater
        treatment standard for 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is the only UTS
        constituent for which EPA had promulgated a nonwastewater standard but
        not a wastewater standard. Commenters reported analytical difficulties
        in quantifying 1,4-dioxane at the wastewater standard proposed in the
        LDR Phase II UTS (0.12 mg/l); this standard was based on a transfer
        from ethyl ether. EPA consequently withdrew that standard in the LDR
        Phase II final rule. The docket for today's rule includes treatability
        data submitted by one such commenter.
        
        Today's rule proposes a wastewater UTS of 0.22 mg/l for 1,4-
        dioxane. This standard is being proposed as the maximum daily limit for
        1,4-dioxane in the proposed effluent guidelines for the pharmaceuticals
        industry, based on the performance of steam stripping followed by
        biological treatment.
        
        EPA also solicits comment on a wastewater standard for 1,4-dioxane
        of 8.67 mg/l, followed by biological treatment. The basis of this
        alternative standard is treatability data for distillation, which was
        developed for the proposed pharmaceutical effluent guidelines. The data
        supporting this standard represents a transfer of distillation
        performance data with methanol to 1,4-dioxane.^{13 [[Page 11727]]}
        
        \13\ At the time of signature of this rule, further data on
        these effluent guidelines were forthcoming. This additional data, if
        not available at the time of publication of this rule, will be made
        available shortly thereafter.
        
        Wastewater UTS
        
        Compound WW UTS
        
        1,4-Dioxane.............................................. 0.22 mg/l
        
        3. Application to Listed Waste
        
        a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs. There are several cases where a
        constituent is regulated in wastewater forms of particular listed
        wastes with UTS but not in nonwastewater and a nonwastewater UTS exists
        for these constituents, having been promulgated in LDR Phase II. For
        these constituents, EPA proposes to extend the UTS to nonwastewaters,
        and vice versa. In other words, in cases where the 40 CFR 268.40--Table
        of Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes lists a numerical treatment
        standard for a constituent in one form of a listed waste but not in the
        other, today's rule proposes the UTS as the standard for the other
        form. This section of today's rule does not propose new UTS, rather it
        extends existing UTS to gaps in the media-specific standards for
        individual constituents in listed wastes. An example is K019 where pdichlorobenzene,
        fluorene and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene are regulated
        with UTS in wastewater forms of K019 but are not regulated--indicated
        in the Consolidated Table as ``NA''--in nonwastewater forms of K019.
        Today's rule proposes filling in these ``NA's'' for p-dichlorobenzene,
        fluorene and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene in nonwastewater for K019 with
        the UTS and similarly applying UTS in other cases where UTS now apply
        to a constituent in either wastewaters and nonwastewaters but do not
        apply to both. The gaps between wastewater and nonwastewater coverage
        for individual constituents in listed wastes occurred because the
        Agency decided on a waste code-by-waste code basis whether to include
        constituents in wastewater, nonwastewater or both forms of a waste. EPA
        now believes that applying UTS to wastewaters and nonwastewaters
        consistently ensures treatment of regulated constituents regardless of
        the physical form of the waste or the waste treatment residual
        regulated under the ``derived-from'' rule.
        The following tables show those regulated constituents, by waste
        code, where either a wastewater or a nonwastewater UTS is added by
        today's proposal.
        
        Wastewater
        Waste code Constituent standard
        (mg/l)
        
        F006........ Silver........................................ 0.43
        F007........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
        Silver........................................ 0.43
        F008........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
        Silver........................................ 0.43
        F009........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
        Silver........................................ 0.43
        F011........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
        Silver........................................ 0.43
        F012........ Cadmium....................................... 0.69
        Silver........................................ 0.43
        F038........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
        [[Page 11728]]
        
        K018........ Pentachloroethane............................. 0.055
        K030........ Hexachlorpropylene............................ 0.035
        Pentachlorobenzene............................ 0.055
        Pentachloroethane............................. 0.055
        K035........ Acenaphthene.................................. 0.059
        Anthracene.................................... 0.059
        Dibenz(a,h)anthracene......................... 0.055
        Fluorene...................................... 0.068
        Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene........................ 0.0055
        K048........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
        K049........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
        K050........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
        K051........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
        K052........ Nickel........................................ 3.98
        K061........ Antimony...................................... 1.9
        Arsenic....................................... 1.4
        Barium........................................ 1.2
        Beryllium..................................... 0.82
        Mercury....................................... 0.15
        Selenium...................................... 0.82
        Silver........................................ 0.43
        Thallium...................................... 1.4
        Zinc.......................................... 2.61
        P013........ Barium........................................ 1.2
        
        Nonwastewater standard
        
        Waste code Constituent (mg/kg unless otherwise
        noted)
        
        F001-5...... Carbon disulfide................ 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
        Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        Methanol........................ 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        F037........ Acenaphthene.................... 3.4
        Fluorene........................ 3.4
        
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        F038........ Fluorene........................ 3.4
        
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        F039........ Acetonitrile.................... 38
        Acrolein........................ 2.8
        4-Aminobiphenyl................. 13
        Aramite......................... 2.5
        
        Carbon disulfide................ 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
        Chlorobenzilate................. 6.6
        2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene.......... 0.28
        
        Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        Dibenz(a,e)pyrene............... 22
        Diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamin 13
        e.
        1,2-Diphenylhydrazine........... 1.5
        Ethylene oxide.................. 0.75
        
        Methanol........................ 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        Methyl methanesulfonate......... 4.6
        2-Naphthylamine................. 15
        N-Nitrosodimethylamine.......... 2.3
        Phthalic anhydride.............. 28
        tris-(2,3- 0.10
        Dibromopropyl)phosphate.
        
        Beryllium....................... 0.014 (mg/l TCLP)
        Fluoride........................ 48
        
        Thallium........................ 0.078 (mg/l TCLP)
        Vanadium........................ 0.23 (mg/l TCLP)
        K006........ Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        K018........ Chloromethane................... 30
        K019........ p-Dichlorobenzene............... 6.0
        Fluorene........................ 3.4
        1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene...... 14
        
        K028........ Cadmium......................... 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)
        K030........ o-Dichlorobenzene............... 6.0
        p-Dichlorobenzene............... 6.0
        K048........ Fluorene........................ 3.4
        
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        K049........ Carbon disulfide................ 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
        2,4-Dimethylphenol.............. 14
        [[Page 11729]]
        
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        K050........ Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        K051........ Acenaphthene.................... 3.4
        Fluorene........................ 3.4
        
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        K052........ 2,4-Dimethylphenol.............. 14
        
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        K083........ Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        K086........ Cyclohexanone................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        Methanol........................ 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
        K101........ Cadmium......................... 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        Mercury......................... 0.025 (mg/l TCLP)
        K102........ Cadmium......................... 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)
        Lead............................ 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
        Mercury......................... 0.025 (mg/l TCLP)
        P003........ Acrolein........................ 2.8
        P056........ Fluoride........................ 48
        U038........ Chlorobenzilate................. 6.6
        U042........ 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether....... 5.6
        U093........ p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene....... 29
        U134........ Fluoride........................ 48
        U168........ 2-Naphthylamine................. 15
        
        b. Elimination of Redundant Methods of Treatment. Several
        constituents had been regulated with UTS in one medium (wastewaters or
        nonwastewaters) but were regulated with a method of treatment in the
        other as alternatives, namely P022 carbon disulfide (nonwastewaters),
        U003 acetonitrile (nonwastewaters), U057 cyclohexanone
        (nonwastewaters), U108 1,4-dioxane (wastewaters and nonwastewaters),
        U110 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (wastewaters), U115 ethylene oxide
        (wastewaters), U154 methanol (wastewaters and nonwastewaters). The LDR
        Phase II proposal did not suggest that the specified methods be
        replaced with the UTS. However, in comments received on the proposal,
        commenters requested that EPA apply the UTS to these wastes. Because
        EPA had not specifically proposed such a change, the LDR Phase II final
        rule allowed both the specified method or the UTS.
        EPA believes that the UTS are appropriate so that the alternative
        specified method is now unnecessary. Numerical treatment standards,
        such as UTS, ensure treatment more reliably than do standards expressed
        as methods of treatment because the target concentrations allow for
        verification that the waste has been treated. Consequently, EPA intends
        to replace required methods of treatment with numerical standards
        whenever possible. EPA believes UTS for these constituents provides
        such an opportunity. Therefore today's rule proposes to eliminate the
        alternative methods of treatment and establishes UTS for both
        wastewater and nonwastewater constituents.
        4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
        a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater standard. EPA reviewed the
        constituent-specific standard for acetonitrile nonwastewaters, and
        believes that this standard should be raised from 1.8 mg/kg to 38 mg/
        kg. The 1.8 mg/kg standard, which was based on incineration, is not
        consistent with treatment data and standards for other structurally
        related organo-nitrogen UTS compounds. For example, the nonwastewater
        treatment standard for both acrylonitrile and methacrylonitrile is 84
        mg/kg. The nonwastewater standards for ethyl methacrylate and methyl
        methacrylate are 160 mg/kg.
        
        Acetonitrile is one of the compounds singled out by the ETC as
        being problematic to analyze for in combustion residues (i.e.,
        nonwastewaters). In response to the Third Third Rulemaking, the ETC had
        submitted data from which they calculated a method detection limit of
        6.678 mg/kg for other combustion residues.
        The Agency is soliciting data and comment specifically on the
        analytical achievability of the 1.8 mg/kg acetonitrile nonwastewater
        standard in combustion residues and the ability of non-combustion
        technologies to achieve the 1.8 mg/kg and the proposed standard of 38
        mg/kg for acetonitrile in nonwastewaters.
        b. Revoking the special wastewater/nonwastewater definition for
        acrylonitrile wastes. The Agency also recognizes that K011/13/14
        nonwastewaters could consist of over 90% water, and that wastewater
        treatment is an appropriate means of treating these wastes. For the
        above reasons, the Agency is proposing to revise the treatment standard
        for acetonitrile in nonwastewaters to 38 mg/kg based on the existing
        treatment data, which comes from treating K011/13/14 wastes containing
        greater than 1% TOC by steam stripping. (See the background documents
        for K011/13/14 nonwastewaters in the Second Third Final Rule Docket and
        the background documents for K011/13/14 ``wastewaters'' in the Third
        Third Final Rule Docket).
        
        5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as BDAT for Petroleum Refinery
        Wastes
        
        EPA solicits comment whether to specify aggressive biological
        treatment as the treatment standard for decharacterized petroleum
        refining wastewaters. Aggressive biological treatment is defined in
        Sec. 261.31(b)(2) as one of the following four processes: activated
        sludge, trickling filters, rotating biological contactors or high-rate
        mechanical aeration. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has
        submitted data to the Agency on ten of its facilities using aggressive
        biological treatment. Along with the data API requested that EPA
        specify aggressive biological treatment as the treatment standard for
        their wastes. Such a standard, which would operate in lieu of UTS, may
        reduce the monitoring burden. EPA [[Page 11730]] solicits comment on
        proposing aggressive biological treatment as BDAT for these wastes.
        However, because monitoring is required under CWA permits, EPA is also
        soliciting comment on whether a reduction in the number of constituents
        monitored is significant. The data which API submitted demonstrate that
        aggressive biological treatment in the industry may consistently meet
        UTS. There was one observation, however, for which a constituent
        exceeded UTS, and other observations which involved detection limits
        which exceeded UTS. This data is available in the docket for today's
        rule.
        
        B. Dilution Prohibition
        
        Under the existing LDR dilution prohibition (40 CFR 268.3), burning
        inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes can be a form of impermissible
        dilution. On May 27, 1994, the Assistant Administrator for the Office
        of Solid Waste and Emergency Response issued a Statement of Policy
        which clarified this point (59 FR 27546-7). Today the Agency is
        proposing to codify and quantify these principles.
        
        Dilution Prohibited as a Method of Treatment
        Under RCRA, the LDR prohibition on dilution states generally that
        no person ``shall in any way dilute a restricted waste * * * as a
        substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with (a
        treatment standard for that waste)''. 40 CFR 268.3(a). This prohibition
        implements the requirement of section 3004(m) of RCRA, which requires
        that hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes be destroyed, removed
        or immobilized before these wastes can be land disposed. Hazardous
        constituents are not destroyed, removed or immobilized if they are
        diluted. CWM v. EPA, 976 F.2d at 16, 17, 19-20; see also S. Rep. No.
        298, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17 (1983) (``the dilution of wastes by the
        addition of other hazardous waste or any other materials during waste
        handling, transportation, treatment or storage is not an acceptable
        method of treatment to reduce the concentration of hazardous
        constituents'').
        
        Consistent with these authorities, the Agency has stated that the
        dilution prohibition serves one chief purpose--``to ensure that
        prohibited wastes\14\ are treated by methods that are appropriate for
        that type of waste.'' (55 FR 22532, June 1, 1990). Impermissible
        dilution can occur under a number of circumstances. The most obvious is
        when solid wastes are added to a prohibited waste to reduce
        concentrations but not volumes of hazardous constituents, or to mask
        their presence. Impermissible dilution also may occur when wastes not
        amenable to treatment by a certain method (i.e., treated very
        ineffectively by that treatment method) are nevertheless `treated' by
        that method (55 FR 22666, June 1, 1990) (biological treatment does not
        effectively remove toxic metals from wastes; therefore, prohibited
        wastes with treatment standards for metals ordinarily would be
        impermissibly diluted if managed in biological treatment systems
        providing no separate treatment for the metals). See also 52 FR at
        25778-79 (July 8, 1987) (impoundments which primarily evaporate
        hazardous constituents do not qualify as section 3005(j)(11)
        impoundments which may receive otherwise-prohibited hazardous wastes
        that have not met the treatment standard).
        
        \14\A ``prohibited'' hazardous waste is one which is actually
        subject to a prohibition on land disposal without first being
        treated, or disposed in a no-migration unit. See 54 FR 36968 (Sept.
        6, 1989).
        
        This proposed rule gives a general distinction between ``adequate
        treatment'' and potential violations of the dilution prohibition. The
        Agency has evaluated the listed wastes and has determined that 43 of
        the RCRA listed wastes (as set forth in 40 CFR 261) typically appear to
        be such inorganic hazardous wastes; i.e., they typically do not contain
        organics, or contain only insignificant amounts of organics, and are
        not regulated for organics\15\. BDAT for these inorganic, metal-bearing
        listed wastes is metal recovery or stabilization. Thus, impermissible
        dilution may result when these wastes are combusted.
        
        \15\To the extent that these wastes or residues of these wastes
        (i.e., biological treatment sludges) contain significant organic
        content, combustion may be an appropriate treatment technology. See
        later discussion regarding this point.
        
        This proposed rule reflects the Agency's concerns about the hazard
        presented by toxic metals in the environment. When an inorganic metalbearing
        hazardous waste with insignificant organics is placed in a
        combustion unit, legitimate treatment for purposes of LDR ordinarily is
        not occurring. No treatment of the inorganic component occurs during
        combustion, and therefore, metals are not destroyed, removed, or
        immobilized. Since there are no significant concentrations of organic
        compounds in inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes, it cannot be
        maintained that the waste is being properly or effectively treated via
        combustion (i.e., thermally treated or destroyed, removed, or
        immobilized).
        
        In terms of the dilution prohibition, if combustion is allowed as a
        method to achieve a treatment standard for these wastes, metals in
        these wastes will be dispersed to the ambient air and will be diluted
        by being mixed in with combustion ash from other waste streams.
        Adequate treatment (stabilization or metal recovery to meet LDR
        treatment standards) has not been performed and dilution has occurred.
        It is also inappropriate to regard eventual stabilizing of such
        combustion ash as providing adequate treatment for purposes of the
        LDRs. Simply meeting the numerical BDAT standards for the ash fails to
        account for metals in the original waste stream that were emitted to
        the air and for reductions achieved by dilution with other materials in
        the ash. (In most cases, of course, the metal-bearing wastes will have
        been mixed with other wastes before combustion, which mixing itself
        could be viewed as impermissible dilution).
        These inorganic, metal-bearing hazardous wastes should be and are
        usually treated by metal recovery or stabilization technologies. These
        technologies remove hazardous constituents through recovery in
        products, or immobilize them, and are therefore permissible BDAT
        treatment methods.
        
        There are eight characteristic metal wastes; however, only wastes
        that exhibit the TC as measured by both the TCLP and the EP for D004-
        D011 are presently prohibited (see 55 FR 22660-02, June 1, 1990).
        Characteristic wastes, of course, cannot be generically characterized
        as easily as listed wastes because they can be generated from many
        different types of processes. For example, although some characteristic
        metal wastes do not contain organics or cyanide or contain only
        insignificant amounts, others may have organics or cyanide present
        which justify combustion, such as a used oil exhibiting the TC
        characteristic for a metal. Thus, it is difficult to say which D004-
        D011 wastes would be impermissibly diluted when combusted, beyond
        stating that as a general matter, impermissible dilution would occur if
        the D004-D011 waste does not have significant organic or cyanide
        content but is nevertheless combusted.
        
        2. Permissible Dilution
        
        EPA ordinarily would not consider the following hazardous wastes to
        contain ``significant organic or cyanide content'', for which
        combustion would otherwise be impermissible dilution (the Agency is
        adding criteria beyond that included in the May 27, 1994 policy
        memorandum to clarify situations raised in comments received).
        Combustion of the following inorganic metal-bearing wastes is therefore
        not [[Page 11731]] prohibited under the LDR dilution prohibition: (1)
        Wastes that, at the point of generation, or after any bona fide
        treatment such as cyanide destruction prior to combustion, contain
        hazardous organic constituents or cyanide at levels exceeding the
        constituent-specific treatment standard for UTS; (2) organic, debrislike
        materials (e.g., wood, paper, plastic, or cloth) contaminated with
        an inorganic metal-bearing hazardous waste; (3) wastes that, at point
        of generation, have reasonable heating value such as greater than or
        equal to 5000 Btu/lb (see 48 FR 11157, March 16, 1983); (4) wastes cogenerated
        with wastes that specify combustion as a required method of
        treatment; (5) wastes, including soil, subject to Federal and/or State
        requirements necessitating reduction of organics (including biological
        agents); and (6) wastes with greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon
        (TOC). An ``inorganic metal-bearing waste'' is one for which EPA has
        established treatment standards for metal hazardous constituents, and
        which does not otherwise contain significant organic or cyanide
        content. (See 40 CFR Appendix XI proposed in today's rule for a list of
        waste codes which EPA tentatively believes satisfies this definition.)
        The foregoing six categories of waste typically would contain
        sufficient organic content to indicate that combustion can be a
        reasonable means of treating the wastes prior to land disposal. EPA
        solicits comments on whether there are other inorganic wastes that
        would technically justify combustion as a means of complying with BDAT.
        For example, are there metal bearing organic wastes or complexing
        agents not covered by the above criteria that prevent effective
        stabilization of metals due to the presence of unregulated organics?
        However, as noted above, mixing practices such as fuel blending to add
        organics to inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes ordinarily would
        be considered to be impermissible dilution. This is because, under
        current rules, the dilution prohibition applies at the point a
        hazardous waste is generated. CWM v. EPA 976 F.2d at 22-3; see also 48
        FR 11158, 11159 and nn. 2 and 4 (March 16, 1983); 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8,
        1988) determinations of legitimacy of recycling are made on a waste-bywaste
        basis before any blending occurs.
        
        The Agency is aware of a practice within the foundry industry that
        recycles foundry sand by thermally oxidizing impurities. It is EPA's
        view that this process would violate the policy against combustion of
        inorganics, unless the foundry sand being oxidized contains toxic
        organic constituents or has a significant organic component (as
        described above).
        
        3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and Combustion
        A commenter questioned why EPA allows the presence of cyanide to
        justify combustion when there are adequate alternative treatment
        methods. This approach was adopted because cyanide is destroyed by
        combustion. Existing LDR rules, in many cases, identify combustion as
        an appropriate BDAT for destruction of cyanide-bearing wastes. The May
        27, 1994 policy statement did not change BDAT determinations and thus
        reflected that combustion could be appropriate for destroying certain
        cyanide-bearing wastes. EPA, however, solicits comments on whether the
        cyanide criterion should be dropped.
        
        While cyanide is effectively treated in combustion devices, EPA has
        received comments that non-combustion technologies such as alkaline
        chlorination are available to effectively treat metal bearing wastes
        that contain cyanide and that BDAT for these wastes should not include
        combustion. EPA solicits comments on the relative effectiveness and
        risks of combustion versus alkaline chlorination in treating cyanides
        in inorganic metal bearing wastes.
        
        4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes
        The table being proposed in 40 CFR part 268, Appendix XI today
        indicates the list of waste codes for which EPA regulates only metals
        and/or cyanides that would be affected by this proposed rule. Except
        for P122, this list is identical to the list originally published in
        the aforementioned Policy Statement on this subject. The Agency is
        removing P122 (Zinc Phosphide greater than 10%) from the list of
        restricted inorganic metal-bearing wastes, because the Agency has
        previously promulgated a treatment standard of INCIN for the
        nonwastewater forms of this waste. See 40 CFR 268.40. The policy memo
        was in error on this point. The Agency solicits comment on this issue,
        particularly with respect to costs associated with the segregation of
        these wastes.
        
        5. The Addition of Iron Dust To Stabilize Characteristic Hazardous
        Wastes: Potential Classification as Impermissible Dilution
        The Agency has become aware that certain industries may be adding
        iron dust or iron filings to some characteristic hazardous wastes as a
        form of treatment. For example, foundries are known to mix iron dust or
        filing with the D008 waste sand generated from their spent casting
        molds, viewing this practice as a form of stabilization. The Agency
        believes, however, that such stabilization is inadequate to minimize
        the threats posed by land disposal of metal-containing hazardous
        wastes, and is today proposing to clarify that this waste management
        practice is ``impermissible dilution'' under 40 CFR 268.3, for reasons
        discussed below.
        
        In particular, when iron dust or filings are added to a
        characteristic waste foundry sand, it is considered ``treatment'' under
        the definition in 40 CFR 260.10. Nevertheless, the Agency does not
        believe it to be adequate treatment; rather, it is merely the addition
        of material as a substitute for adequate treatment, and thus
        constitutes impermissible dilution. See Sec. 268.3(b), 54 FR at 48494
        (Nov. 1989), and 55 FR at 22532 (June 1, 1990). The Agency believes it
        is unlikely that any chemical reactions are taking place when iron dust
        or iron filings are added, because the waste foundry sand would likely
        contain only lead, silica, microscopic pieces of castings, and binders
        (clays, phenols, and tars) from the molds. The Agency does not believe
        that simply adding iron would provide treatment for either the lead or
        the organics (i.e., phenol and tar).
        
        While it is arguable that iron could form temporary, weak, ionic
        complexes with silica and/or phenate, so that when analyzed by the TCLP
        test the lead appears to have been stabilized, the Agency believes that
        this ``stabilization'' is temporary, based upon the nature of the
        complexing. In fact, a report prepared by EPA on Iron Chemistry in Lead
        Contaminated Materials (Feb. 22, 1994), which specifically addressed
        this issue, found that iron lead bonds are weak, adsorptive surface
        bonds, and therefore not likely to be permanent. Furthermore, as this
        iron-rich mixture is exposed to moisture and oxidative conditions over
        time, interstitial water would likely acidify, which could potentially
        reverse any temporary stabilization, as well as increase the
        leachability of the lead from the foundry sand. Therefore, the addition
        of iron dust or filings to characteristic waste foundry sand does not
        appear to provide long-term treatment.
        
        Another related concern is that the addition of iron has been
        demonstrated to result in false negatives for lead when wastes are
        analyzed by means of the [[Page 11732]] TCLP^{.16. This significant
        interference with the analytical method for detecting lead, in
        conjunction with the concerns about the temporary nature of any
        stabilization that would occur, fully supports identifying this
        practice as impermissible dilution or otherwise failing to satisfy the
        requirements of RCRA section 3004(m) to minimize short- and long-term
        threats to human health and the environment. Comments and data are
        solicited on whether this type of stabilization is effective in
        achieving long-term treatment. Comments and data are also solicited on
        whether a test method other than the TCLP is more appropriate for
        measuring compliance for this waste.}
        
        \16\See memo from John V. Cignatta, Datanet to John Gauthier,
        EPA Region 1, dated September 8, 1992.
        
        D. Expansion of Methods Requiring Incineration
        
        EPA is proposing to modify the treatment standard expressed as
        INCIN, which specifies hazardous waste incineration, to, CMBST, which
        allows combustion in incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces.
        The INCIN requirement was set before EPA had issued air emission
        requirements for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). Now that BIF
        regulations are in place, the need to constrain treatment to one type
        of combustion device is no longer appropriate. With the development of
        innovative technologies, EPA also solicits comment on whether the
        Catalytic Extraction Process, for which Molten Metal Technology
        received a determination of equivalent treatment under
        Sec. 268.42(b)^{17, should also be allowed for all wastes which have
        a treatment standard of CMBST, and whether there are other technologies
        which are equivalent to CMBST.}
        
        \17\The Catalytic Extraction Process, used by Molten Metal
        Technology, involves a molten metal bath, with temperatures around
        3000 deg.F, into which liquid wastes are injected, and solid wastes
        are fed with a carrier gas (Ar). The process treats the wastes in a
        high temperature reduction environment, which reduces the compounds
        to their elemental state. The metallic, inorganic ceramic, and
        gaseous phases which result are then reused, or purified and
        released.
        
        E. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
        
        EPA is proposing further changes to the LDR program to achieve the
        goal of simplified regulations. The Agency is committed to improving
        the LDR program by implementing participant suggestions from the LDR
        Roundtable held on January 12-14, 1993.
        The LDR requirements are found, primarily, in 40 CFR Part 268. EPA
        intends to remove language that is out-of-date, and to clarify language
        which may be confusing, in an effort to make the LDR program easier to
        understand, implement, and enforce. This effort will continue in the
        LDR Phase IV rule, scheduled for proposal in June 1995.
        
        Section 268.8
        
        Section 268.8 stated that First and Second Third wastes for which
        EPA did not promulgate treatment standards by their respective
        effective dates could continue to be disposed of in landfill and
        surface impoundment units until May 8, 1990 (see 55 FR 22526). Because
        treatment standards for all scheduled wastes were promulgated in the
        Third Third rule in 1990, these ``soft hammer'' requirements are no
        longer necessary. Therefore, Sec. 268.8 is proposed to be removed from
        part 268.
        
        Sections 268.10-268.12
        
        The purpose of Subpart B of Sec. 268 was to set out a schedule for
        hazardous wastes by the date when treatment standards were to be
        established. Sections 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 of Subpart B included
        the First Third, Second Third, and Third Third scheduled wastes
        respectively. Deadlines in all three of these sections were met on
        time, and the wastes are subject to treatment standards. Therefore,
        these three sections are no longer necessary, and are proposed to be
        removed.
        
        Section 268.2(f)
        
        The existing wastewater definition found in Sec. 268.2(f) includes
        wastes that have less than 1% TOC and less than 1% TSS. There are three
        exceptions given to this definition: (1) F001-F005 wastewaters have no
        criteria for TSS, and must contain less than 1% solvent constituents,
        (2) K011, K013, K014 wastewaters must contain less than 5% TOC and less
        than 1% TSS, and (3) K103 and K104 wastewaters must contain less than
        4% TOC and less than 1% TSS. With the promulgation of UTS in the LDR
        Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994), such
        distinctions are inconsistent and an unnecessary complication of the
        regulations. While such initial classifications may have had some
        meaning, after effective BDAT treatment the residuals are appropriately
        regulated by the wastewater or nonwastewater limit as specified by the
        1% TOC and TSS criteria. The Agency is therefore proposing to remove
        paragraphs (1)-(3) from Sec. 268.2(f).
        
        VIII. Proposed Prohibition of Hazardous Waste as Fill Material
        
        EPA is also proposing today to amend the LDR rules so as to
        prohibit the placement of hazardous waste as a fill material unless the
        prohibited waste is treated so that short- and long-term threats have
        been minimized. By ``fill material'', the Agency means uses^{18 of
        waste as a substitute for low grade material (such as sand or dirt) to
        raise the level of land, occupy space, or otherwise fill in
        depressions. Hazardous waste includes, of course, any waste that is
        identified or listed as hazardous under Sec. 261.3, and so includes
        wastes (such as residues from treating listed wastes) that are
        hazardous by virtue of the mixture and derived-from rules. The result
        of this rule, if finalized, would thus be to confirm that such uses are
        prohibited and therefore illegal unless the fill area is a regulated
        unit (i.e., a subtitle C landfill).}
        
        \18\Incidentally, the term ``use'' here has no specific meaning
        other than the normal dictionary definition. It is not meant to
        connote the phrase ``used or reused'' found in Sec. 261.1(c)(5),
        which is a term of art for determining the scope of the exclusion in
        Sec. 261.2(e)(1) (i) and (ii).
        
        EPA in fact already interprets current rules as ordinarily
        providing a similar result. In the preamble to the May 19, 1980 rules
        establishing the subtitle C hazardous waste management program, EPA
        stated that an exemption from regulation for legitimate recycling
        activities does not apply to ``sham uses and recovery or reclamation--
        e.g. `landfilling' or `land reclamation'''. 45 FR at 33093. In the
        April 4, 1983 Federal Register Notice proposing a separate regulatory
        regime for hazardous wastes legitimately recycled in a manner
        constituting disposal (ultimately promulgated as 40 CFR 260.20-.23),
        the Agency stated that this provision would not apply to hazardous
        wastes used as fill material, the specific example provided being
        ``waste stabilization processes where the stabilized material is then
        used as fill.'' 48 FR at 14985. The Agency further stated that it was
        ``convinced that these waste treatment operations are not production
        processes and can therefore be regulated as waste management.'' Id.
        The reasons for the Agency's interpretation are evident. The wastes
        are being put into the environment without any safeguards to prevent
        exposure. Hazardous constituents can migrate into the environment and
        reach human and environmental receptors by any number of direct
        pathways, including inhalation, dermal contact, surface runoff, and
        leaching to groundwater. Indirect exposure pathways exist as well.
        The amended rule, if adopted, would prohibit the use of hazardous
        waste as fill material, and add a conforming amendment to
        Sec. 266.20(b) stating that [[Page 11733]] disposal of hazardous waste
        as fill material is not a type of use constituting disposal subject to
        the special standards of Part 266 subpart C, but rather disposal plain
        and simple, and hence illegal unless occurring in a regulated unit; or,
        as explained below, if the prohibited waste can be shown to be treated
        to satisfy section 3004(m). Section 3004(m) of the statute states that
        EPA is to establish ``levels or methods of treatment, if any, which
        substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
        constituents from the wastes so that short-term and long-term threats
        to human health and the environment are minimized.'' (Emphasis added).
        In this case, the Agency is unable to determine any level of treatment
        of hazardous wastes which can guarantee the requisite minimization of
        short-term and long-term threats when prohibited hazardous wastes are
        used as fill material.
        
        Because there are no specifications or constraints on placement of
        fill material, reliable assessments pose particular uncertainties and
        difficulties. These uncertainties relate to release, transport, and
        ultimate exposure, and include uncertainties regarding release
        mechanisms, types and amounts of hazardous constituents released due to
        potential waste variability, location of human and environmental
        receptors, and transport mechanisms. cf. HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 1362-
        63. The existing LDR treatment standards do not fully address these
        potential problems for at least two reasons. First, the LDR standards
        are technology-based, not risk-based standards. Second, for metal
        hazardous constituents, the LDR standards do not regulate the total
        metal content of hazardous wastes. Total metal content is relevant to
        many possible exposure pathways when hazardous waste is used as fill
        material, including inhalation and direct ingestion pathways. See also
        59 FR at 43499 (August 24, 1994), where EPA made similar findings with
        respect to use of hazardous waste K061 as anti-skid or deicing material
        (uses which are better defined, and hence more assessable, than use as
        fill material). Similarly, this type of disposal does not appear to
        satisfy the ultimate protectiveness standard in sections 3004 (d), (e),
        and (g) (which requires that disposal of hazardous waste that meets a
        treatment standard must nevertheless still be protective, taking into
        account enumerated uncertainties--including long-term uncertainties
        associated with the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
        bioaccumulate--of land disposed hazardous waste and hazardous
        constituents). See 56 FR at 41168 (August 19, 1991), adopting this
        standard, which was first articulated in NRDC v. EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146,
        1171-2 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (dissenting opinion).
        EPA is not, in this notice, proposing to prohibit other uses of
        hazardous waste that involve placement on the land. Thus, hazardous
        waste presently placed on the land as fill material can be diverted to
        a less risky, more acceptable activity. See 59 FR 8583 (Feb. 23, 1994)
        noting availability of safer alternatives as justification for the
        then-proposed prohibition on non-encapsulated uses of hazardous waste
        K061. Nor would the agency preclude the possibility that particular
        types of prohibited waste could be used as fill material, provided that
        it can be established that threats to human health and the environment
        have been minimized, taking into account all of the statutorilyenumerated
        uncertainties cited above.
        
        In a recent proposed rule on the product use of High Temperature
        Metal Recovery slags derived from K061, F006, and K062 hazardous waste,
        the Agency initially evaluated the risks that result from a variety of
        uses of these slags, including use as road subbase, an ingredient in
        cement and asphalt, top grade material for roads, etc. (59 FR 67256,
        December 29, 1994). While this evaluation considered the possible
        release and transport of waste constituents, the uses examined did not
        include the unrestricted use of the waste-derived product as fill
        material. Use as fill could result in placement of the waste residual
        in almost any location, including a residential setting. Therefore, an
        evaluation of the risks posed by use of waste-derived products as fill
        would need to consider the potential for direct exposure to receptors
        located on-site (e.g., direct ingestion or inhalation of the material),
        in addition to the potential for movement of the material off-site to
        other receptors. Such an evaluation would need to consider at a minimum
        the volume of material used as fill, the levels of toxic constituents
        in the material (both total and leachable), the placement site and
        proximity to receptors, and activity at the site that would promote
        release, transport, and exposure. Indirect exposure pathways also could
        be relevant, particularly for hazardous wastes containing
        bioaccumulative hazardous constituents (including dioxins and
        dibenzofurans).
        
        IX. Capacity Determinations
        
        A. Introduction
        
        This section summarizes the results of the capacity analysis for
        the wastes covered by this proposal. For background information on data
        sources, methodology, and a summary of each analysis, see the
        Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
        Restrictions, Phase III--Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and
        Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners, found in the docket for
        today's rule.
        
        In general, EPA's capacity analysis methodologies focus on the
        amount of waste to be restricted from land disposal that is currently
        managed in land-based units and that will require alternative treatment
        as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that are not managed in
        land-based units (e.g., wastewaters managed only in RCRA exempt tanks,
        with direct discharge to a POTW) is not included in the quantities
        requiring alternative treatment as a result of the LDRs. Also, wastes
        that do not require alternative treatment (e.g., those that are
        currently treated using an appropriate treatment technology) are not
        included in these quantity estimates.
        
        EPA's decisions on whether to grant a national capacity variance
        are based on the availability of alternative treatment or recovery
        technologies. Consequently, the methodology focuses on deriving
        estimates of the quantities of waste that will require either
        commercial treatment or the construction of new on-site treatment
        systems as a result of the LDRs--quantities of waste that will be
        treated adequately either on site in existing systems or off site by
        facilities owned by the same company as the generator (i.e., captive
        facilities) are omitted from the required capacity estimates.¹⁹
        
        \19\Traditionally, capacity analyses have focused on the demand
        for alternative capacity once existing on-site capacity and captive
        off-site capacity have been accounted for. However, for some of the
        wastes at issue in this rule it may not be feasible to ship wastes
        off site to a commercial facility. In particular, facilities with
        large volumes of wastewaters may not readily be able to transport
        their waste to treatment facilities. Alternative treatment for these
        wastes may need to be constructed on site.
        
        B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
        
        For the decharacterized ICR and TC wastes managed in CWA, CWAequivalent,
        and Class I injection well systems, EPA estimates that
        between 3.5 and 15 billion tons will be affected as a result of today's
        proposal. EPA believes that some affected facilities need time to build
        treatment capacity for these wastes, as wastewater volumes
        [[Page 11734]] generally make off-site treatment impractical. EPA has
        determined that sufficient alternative treatment capacity is not
        available, and today is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity
        variance for decharacterized wastewaters.
        EPA estimates that approximately 90,000 tons of newly listed wastes
        included in today's proposal will require alternative treatment. In
        particular, approximately 4,500 tons of carbamate wastes (K156-K161,
        P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
        U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-
        U404, U407, U409-U411) will require alternative treatment. Less than
        100 tons of organobromine wastes (K140, U408) are expected to require
        alternative treatment capacity. In addition, 85,000 tons of spent
        aluminum potliners (K088) will require alternative treatment capacity.
        Sufficient commercial capacity exists to manage all of these wastes, so
        EPA is not proposing to grant a national capacity variance for these
        wastes.
        
        The quantities of radioactive wastes mixed with wastes included in
        today's proposal are generated primarily by the U.S. Department of
        Energy. EPA estimates that 820 tons of high-level waste and 360 tons of
        mixed low-level waste that may be affected by this proposal will be
        generated annually by DOE. In addition, there are currently 7,000 tons
        of high-level waste, 10 tons of mixed transuranic waste, and 2,700 tons
        of mixed low-level waste in storage that may be affected by this
        proposal. DOE currently faces treatment capacity shortfalls for highlevel
        wastes and mixed transuranic wastes. Although DOE does have some
        available treatment capacity for mixed low-level wastes, most of this
        capacity is limited to treatment of wastewaters with less than one
        percent total suspended solids and is not readily adaptable for other
        waste forms. DOE has indicated that it will generally give treatment
        priority to mixed wastes that are already restricted under previous LDR
        rules. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant a two-year national
        capacity variance to radioactive wastes mixed with the hazardous wastes
        affected by today's proposal.
        
        Table 1 lists each RCRA hazardous waste code for which EPA is today
        proposing LDR standards. For each code, this table indicates whether
        EPA is proposing to grant a national capacity variance for landdisposed
        wastes.^{20 Also, EPA is proposing to grant a three month
        national capacity variance for all wastes in this proposed rule to
        handle logistical problems associated with complying with the new
        standards. EPA is soliciting comment on these variance determinations.}
        Table 1.--Variances for Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
        [``Yes'' Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance]
        
        Surface-disposed Deep well-injected
        Waste description wastes wastes
        
        Ignitable Wastes\1\(D001)......................................... YES.................. YES.
        Corrosive Wastes\1\ (D002)........................................ YES.................. YES.
        Reactive Wastes\1\ (D003)......................................... YES.................. YES.
        Newly Identified Pesticide Wastes\2\ (D012-D017).................. YES.................. YES.
        Newly Identified TC Organic Wastewaters (D018-D043)............... YES.................. YES.
        Spent Aluminum Potliners (K088)................................... NO................... NO.
        Carbamate Production Wastes (K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188- NO................... NO.
        P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367,
        U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404, U407,
        U409-U411).
        
        Organobromine Wastes (K140, U408)................................. NO................... NO.
        Mixed Radioactive Wastes\3\....................................... YES.................. YES.
        
        \1\The variance determinations listed here apply only to decharacterized wastewaters managed in CWA, CWAequivalent,
        and SDWA systems.
        
        \2\The variance determinations listed here apply only to newly identified decharacterized D012-D017 wastewaters
        managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems.
        
        \3\The variance determinations given listed apply only to radioactive wastes mixed with decharacterized D001-
        D003 or newly identified D012-D017 wastes managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems; to radioactive
        wastes mixed with newly identified TC organic wastewaters; and to radioactive wastes mixed with spent aluminum
        potliners, carbamate production wastes, or organobromine production wastes.
        
        EPA is also proposing in this notice to prohibit placement of
        hazardous waste as fill material. To the extent this can be viewed as a
        new prohibition (which, given EPA's consistent interpretation that this
        activity should be occurring in regulated units, is unclear), EPA would
        not propose any type of capacity variance. Hazardous waste treatment
        residues satisfying LDR standards can be land disposed in subtitle C
        units, and there is no shortage of such disposal capacity. In addition,
        there may be opportunities for recycling hazardous waste treatment
        residues presently placed as fill (such as use in asphalt, cement, or
        as light weight aggregate) which would provide adequate capacity.
        
        \20\The term ``land-disposed wastes'' denotes wastes that are
        managed in land-based units at any time during the waste's storage,
        treatment, or disposal.
        
        C. Requests for Comment
        
        EPA is soliciting general comment and data on sources, quantities,
        and management practices of characteristic wastes, as well as presence
        and quantities of underlying hazardous constituents, from facilities
        managing their wastes using Subtitle D surface impoundments (CWA), or
        subsequent land disposal of treated wastewaters (CWA-equivalent), or
        Class I nonhazardous injection wells, or tanks. EPA requests specific
        information from facilities managing de minimis ICRT wastes, including
        information on waste sources, quantities, and management practices, as
        well as underlying hazardous constituents.
        EPA requests specific information on volumes of carbamate and
        organobromine wastes that are recycled, mixed with, or co-managed with
        other wastes, and the volumes and types of residuals that are generated
        by the various management practices applicable to these wastes. EPA is
        also soliciting information, including quantities, management
        practices, and waste characteristics, for soil and debris contaminated
        with carbamate and/or organobromine wastes. EPA also seeks comments
        from the aluminum industry on volumes of K088 generated and future
        management of this waste.
        
        EPA is soliciting specific data on reactive wastes which are
        deactivated [[Page 11735]] using processes that may cause explosions,
        including quantities, management practices, and waste characteristics,
        and is requesting data for mixed TC/radioactive wastes which are
        deepwell injected.
        
        X. State Authority
        
        A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
        
        Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
        administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State. Following
        authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008,
        3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary
        enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for
        authorization are found in 40 CFR Part 271.
        Prior to HSWA, a State with final authorization administered its
        hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA administering the Federal
        program in that State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in
        the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for any
        facilities that the State was authorized to permit. When new, more
        stringent Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State
        was obliged to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames.
        New Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State
        until the State adopted the requirements as State law.
        In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
        requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized
        States at the same time that they take effect in nonauthorized States.
        EPA is directed to carry out these requirements and prohibitions in
        authorized States, including the issuance of permits, until the State
        is granted authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWArelated
        provisions as State law to retain final authorization, HSWA
        applies in authorized States in the interim.
        Today's rule is being proposed pursuant to sections 3004 (d)
        through (k), and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(d) through (k), and (m)).
        It is proposed to be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
        identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated
        pursuant to HSWA and that take effect in all States, regardless of
        their authorization status. States may apply for final authorization
        for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as discussed in the following
        section of this preamble. Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1(j) is also modified
        to indicate that this rule is a self-implementing provision of HSWA.
        EPA's proposal to prohibit hazardous waste as fill material is also
        a HSWA regulation. It implements RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5),
        and (m), which provisions require EPA to prohibit all land disposal of
        hazardous waste that is not capable of being done in a manner that is
        protective and that minimizes short-term and long-term threats to human
        health and the environment from hazardous waste disposal. See also 59
        FR 43499 (August 24, 1994), which is a HSWA rule prohibiting K061 as
        anti-skid/de-icing material and implements these same LDR provisions.
        Consequently, this provision, if enacted, would be effective
        immediately in authorized states.
        
        B. Effect on State Authorization
        
        As noted above, EPA is today proposing a rule that, when final,
        will be implemented in authorized States until their programs are
        modified to adopt these rules and the modification is approved by EPA.
        Because the rule is proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
        program modification may apply to receive interim or final
        authorization under RCRA section 3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively,
        on the basis of requirements that are substantially equivalent or
        equivalent to EPA's. The procedures and schedule for State program
        modifications for final authorization are described in 40 CFR 271.21.
        Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that States with final authorization
        must modify their programs to reflect Federal program changes and to
        subsequently submit the modification to EPA for approval. The deadline
        by which the State would have to modify its program to adopt these
        regulations is specified in section 271.21(e). This deadline can be
        extended in certain cases (see section 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves
        the modification, the State requirements become Subtitle C RCRA
        requirements.
        
        States with authorized RCRA programs may already have requirements
        similar to those in today's proposed rule. These State regulations have
        not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed today
        to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a
        State is not authorized to implement these requirements in lieu of EPA
        until the State program modifications are approved. Of course, states
        with existing standards could continue to administer and enforce their
        standards as a matter of State law. In implementing the Federal
        program, EPA will work with States under agreements to minimize
        duplication of efforts. In many cases, EPA will be able to defer to the
        States in their efforts to implement their programs rather than take
        separate actions under Federal authority.
        States that submit official applications for final authorization
        less than 12 months after the effective date of these regulations are
        not required to include standards equivalent to these regulations in
        their application. However, the State must modify its program by the
        deadline set forth in Sec. 271.21(e). States that submit official
        applications for final authorization 12 months after the effective date
        of these regulations must include standards equivalent to these
        regulations in their application. The requirements a state must meet
        when submitting its final authorization application are set forth in 40
        CFR 271.3.
        
        The regulations being proposed today need not affect the State's
        UIC primacy status. A State currently authorized to administer the UIC
        program under the SDWA could continue to do so without seeking
        authority to administer the amendments that will be promulgated at a
        future date. However, a State which wished to implement Part 148 and
        receive authorization to grant exemptions from the LDRs would have to
        demonstrate that it had the requisite authority to administer sections
        3004(f) and (g) of RCRA. The conditions under which such an
        authorization may take place are discussed in a July 15, 1985 final
        rule (50 FR 28728).
        
        XI. Regulatory Requirements
        
        A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
        
        Executive Order No. 12866 requires agencies to determine whether a
        regulatory action is ``significant'' The Order defines a
        ``significant'' regulatory action as one that ``is likely to result in
        a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100
        million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a
        sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
        environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
        governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or
        otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
        fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
        (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
        the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
        Executive Order.''
        
        The Agency estimated the costs of today's proposed rule to
        determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by
        [[Page 11736]] the Executive Order. The analysis considers compliance
        cost and economic impacts for both characteristic wastes and newly
        listed wastes affected by this rule. For characteristic wastes, the
        potential cost impacts of this rule depend on whether facilities'
        current wastewater treatment systems will meet the UTS levels or if
        additional treatment will be required. If current treatments are
        adequate, facilities will only incur administrative costs to have their
        permits revised. A rough estimate would be that there would be one-time
        incremental costs of $0.9 to $2.9 million for all incrementally
        impacted facilities. However, at the high end, if current wastewater
        treatment systems need to be augmented with additional treatment steps,
        the incremental compliance costs for today's rule could be as high as
        $1 million per affected facility. If 20% of the firms comply by
        installing additional treatment, treatment costs are estimated to be
        $6.5-$18.1 million/year. The Agency does not have adequate data to
        estimate how many, if any, facilities may require modification to their
        treatment facilities. The Agency requests comment and data on how often
        additional treatment may be required and what type of treatment may be
        needed.
        
        For newly listed wastes, the costs are substantially higher and
        will be incurred each year. These costs range from approximately $11.9
        million to $47.3 million and are attributable primarily to thermal
        treatment of spent aluminum potliner wastes (K088). Therefore, today's
        proposed rule may be considered an economically significant rule.
        Because today's proposed rule is significant, the Agency analyzed the
        costs, economic impacts, and benefits.
        
        This section of the preamble for today's proposed rule provides a
        discussion of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic
        impacts and the benefits attributable to today's proposed rule,
        followed by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit
        results. More detailed discussions of the methodology and results may
        be found in the background document, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of
        the Proposed Rule for the LDR Phase III Newly Listed and Identified
        Wastes,'' which has been placed in the docket for today's proposed
        rule.
        
        Methodology Section
        
        In today's proposed rule, the Agency is establishing treatment
        standards for the following wastes: end-of-pipe standards for ICR
        wastewaters managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems, and Class I
        nonhazardous UIC wells, TC pesticide (D012-17) and organic (D018-43)
        wastewaters managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems, and Class I
        nonhazardous UIC wells (all UIC managed volumes are covered under a
        different section of the preamble for today's rule), and newly listed
        wastes from three industries - organobromines, spent aluminum
        potliners, and carbamates.
        
        a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected Universe. In determining
        the costs, economic impacts, and benefits associated with today's rule,
        the Agency estimated the volumes of waste affected by today's rule. The
        procedure for estimating the volumes of ICR waste and TC organic and
        pesticide waste, and newly listed wastes affected by today's rule is
        summarized below.
        
        First, the Agency examined all industries which might be likely to
        produce wastes covered under today's standards. Through reviewing
        comments to the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability published by
        the Agency in 1993, reviewing runs from the Biennial Reporting System
        (BRS) of volumes generated from particular industry sectors, as well as
        discussions with industry, and discussions with the Office of Water at
        EPA HQ, the Agency narrowed it down to 16 industries which would
        potentially have significant volumes of wastewater affected by today's
        rule.
        
        Using a host of databases and/or sources, the Agency collected data
        on the quantities, constituents, and concentrations of the volumes
        affected from each of the 16 industries. In addition, the Agency
        gathered any data on current management practices, plant design, etc.
        The following sources were used: Section 308 data from the Office of
        Water, Industrial Studies Database (ISDB), 1991 Biennial Reporting
        System (BRS), primary summary and development documents from effluent
        guidelines, Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Impact Analysis
        documents, data gathered in the capacity analysis performed for today's
        rule, as well as comments from potentially affected industries.
        The Agency obtained volume information for the newly listed
        wastes--organobromines (K140), spent aluminum potliners (K088), and
        carbamate wastes (K156-161)--from the listing documents prepared for
        these wastes during the listing procedure.
        b. Cost Methodology. The cost analysis estimates the national level
        incremental costs which will be incurred as a result of today's rule.
        The cost estimates for both the baseline and post-regulatory scenarios
        are calculated employing: (i) The facility wastestream volume, (ii) the
        management practice (baseline or post-regulatory) assigned to that
        wastestream, and (iii) the unit cost associated with that practice.
        Summing the costs for all facilities produces the total costs for the
        given waste and scenario. Subtracting the baseline cost from the postregulatory
        cost produces the national incremental cost associated with
        today's rule for the given waste.
        
        The cost methodology section includes three subsections: (i) ICR
        and TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes Managed in CWA and CWA-Equivalent
        Systems, (ii) Newly Listed Wastes, (iii) Testing and Recordkeeping
        Costs. (The costs for wastes managed in Class I nonhazardous waste deep
        wells are discussed in section B.)
        
        (i) ICR and TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes Managed in CWA and CWAEquivalent
        Systems. The Agency employed the following approach to
        estimate the incremental costs for the ICR and TC wastes. First, using
        information available on the affected industries, the Agency created
        average-sized model facilities for each industry. Second, for a given
        model facility in an affected industry, the Agency used available unit
        cost data to develop costs for the baseline management practices
        (usually treatment in surface impoundments followed by discharge into
        receiving waters through a NPDES permit). Third, the Agency used data
        on the constituents and waste quantities for each industry, where
        applicable, to determine the necessary treatment required to reduce to
        UTS levels the constituents present. Fourth, the Agency used unit costs
        to develop costs for the post-regulatory management practices for the
        treatment requirements determined in the third step. Fifth, subtracting
        the baseline from the post-regulatory costs for an average facility in
        an industry sector and using the data available on the number of
        facilities affected within each industry, the Agency was able calculate
        the incremental cost for a given industry. Sixth, summing costs across
        affected industries, the Agency determined the incremental cost for the
        rule for the end-of-pipe treatment standards.
        (ii) Newly Listed Wastes. The costs for treatment of organobromines
        (K140), spent aluminum potliners (K088), and carbamate wastes (K156-
        will be determined using data from the listings on baseline
        management practices, judgment on the technology(s) required to meet
        the UTS standards for these wastes, and available unit cost data.
        (iii) Testing and Recordkeeping Costs. Testing and recordkeeping
        costs, including costs that facilities will incur for ensuring that
        hazardous constituents [[Page 11737]] in characteristic waste are
        meeting new treatment standards and costs associated with permit
        modifications will be based upon an average, one-time testing cost and
        an Information Collection Request, respectively.
        c. Economic Impact Methodology. The economic effects of today's
        proposed rule are defined as the difference between the industrial
        activity under post-regulatory conditions and the industrial activity
        in the absence of regulation (i.e., baseline conditions).
        The Agency used (1) historic average capital expenditures for each
        industry, (2) historic average operating expenditures for each
        industry, (3) historic revenues, and (4) historic average pollution
        abatement and control expenditures (PACE) to determine the economic
        impacts. However, the Agency was unable to examine the impacts on a
        facility-specific basis due to lack of data. Therefore, the impacts are
        assessed on an industry-specific basis.
        d. Benefits Methodology. The approach for estimating benefits
        associated with today's rule involves three components: (i) estimation
        of pollutant loadings reductions, (ii) estimation of reductions in
        exceedances of health-based levels, and, (iii) qualitative description
        of the potential benefits. The benefits assessment is based upon the
        waste quantity and concentration data collected for the cost analysis.
        This incremental assessment focuses upon reductions in toxic
        concentrations at the point of discharge and does not consider any
        potential benefits resulting from reductions in air emissions or
        impacts on impoundment leaks and sludges which may occur as part of
        treating wastes to comply with the LDRs.
        EPA has not conducted an assessment of the benefits related to the
        effects of the proposed rule on newly listed wastes. These benefits
        depend on the incremental risk reductions that may result from
        treatment of the wastes prior to disposal at a subtitle C facility. EPA
        data indicate that between 100,000 and 118,000 tons of spent aluminum
        potliners are generated annually. Improper management of these wastes
        has caused many serious past damage incidents. (See listing Background
        Document for K088). However, data are limited with regard to current
        management practices and risk levels for these wastes. Therefore, EPA
        is not yet able to evaluate the benefits resulting under the proposed
        rule for these wastes. Because the quantity of waste is very small,
        benefits for newly listed organobromine and carbamate wastes are
        expected to be minimal.
        
        (i) Estimation of Pollutant Loadings Reductions. An incremental
        approach was used to estimate reductions in pollutant loadings. For the
        baseline scenario, contaminant concentrations were based upon data or
        estimates of current effluent discharge concentration levels. For the
        post-regulatory scenario, concentration levels were assumed to equal
        UTS levels.
        
        (ii) Estimation of Reductions in Exceedances of Health-Based
        Levels. The methods used for evaluating the benefits associated with
        cancer and noncancer risk reductions resulting from the proposed rule
        entail comparing constituent concentration levels to health-based
        standards to evaluate whether implementation of the proposed rule
        reduces concentration levels below levels that pose risk to human
        health.
        
        To estimate benefits from cancer risk reductions resulting from the
        proposed rule, a simple screening analysis was performed. This analysis
        compared contaminant concentrations for the baseline and postregulatory
        scenario to health-based levels for carcinogens. Further
        analysis may be undertaken to quantify benefits associated with
        facility/ wastestream combinations identified in the contaminant
        concentration comparisons.
        
        Benefits associated with reductions in non-cancer exceedances are
        estimated based upon comparisons of contaminant concentration levels in
        effluent discharges of the affected wastestreams to the reference
        health levels. These benefits are expressed in terms of the number of
        exceedances of health-based levels under the baseline scenario compared
        to the number of exceedances under the proposed rule.
        (iii) Qualitative Description of the Potential Benefits. A
        qualitative assessment of potential benefits likely to result from the
        proposed rule is used where data are limited. The Agency acknowledges
        limited data availability in developing waste volumes affected,
        constituents, concentrations, cost estimates, economic impacts, and
        benefits estimates for the proposed LDR Phase III rulemaking. The
        Agency respectfully requests comment from industry regarding
        constituents, concentrations, waste volumes, and current management
        practices.
        
        Results
        
        a. Volume Results. The Agency has estimated the volumes of formerly
        characteristic wastes potentially affected by today's rule to total in
        the range of 33.5 to 500 million tons. The Agency requests comment on
        waste volumes affected by the proposed LDR Phase III rule. For newly
        listed wastes, the analyses supporting the listing determination showed
        about 4,500 tons of carbamate wastes, less than 100 tons of
        organobromine wastes, and 100,000 to 118,000 tons of spent aluminum
        potliners are potentially affected by this rule.
        b. Cost Results. For characteristic wastes, the potential cost
        impacts of this rule depend on whether facilities' current wastewater
        treatment systems will meet the UTS levels or if additional treatment
        will be required. If current treatments are adequate, facilities will
        only incur administrative costs to have their permits revised. A rough
        estimate would be that there would be one-time incremental costs of
        $0.9 to $2.9 million for all incrementally impacted facilities.
        However, at the high end, if current wastewater treatment systems need
        to be augmented with additional treatment steps, the incremental
        compliance costs could be as high as $1 million per affected facility.
        The Agency does not have adequate data to estimate how many, if any,
        facilities may require modification to their treatment facilities. The
        Agency requests comment and data on how often additional treatment may
        be required.
        
        For newly listed wastes, the costs are substantially higher and
        will be incurred each year. These costs range from approximately $11.9
        million to $47.3 million and are attributable primarily to thermal
        treatment of spent aluminum potliner wastes (K088). The Agency requests
        comment on these estimates.
        
        c. Economic Impact Results. The Agency has estimated the economic
        impacts of today's rule to represent less than one percent of historic
        pollution control and operating costs for the organic chemical and
        petroleum refining industries. However, for those facilities that may
        need to treat to UTS to comply with today's rule, costs could be more
        significant. The estimated compliance costs for treating newly listed
        spent aluminum potliners represents 40 percent of pollution control
        operating costs for aluminum reducers; however, treatment costs
        represent only one percent of total historic operating costs. The
        Agency requests comment on anticipated economic impacts resulting from
        the proposed LDR Phase III rule.
        
        d. Benefit Estimate Results. The Agency has estimated the benefits
        associated with today's rule to be small. Assuming facilities comply
        with the proposed rule by treating their affected wastestreams,
        loadings reductions [[Page 11738]] estimates range between 36 and 407
        tons per year for direct dischargers, and between 1,490 and 24,391 tons
        per year for indirect dischargers. For direct dischargers, loadings
        reductions represent between .03 to .30 percent of total Toxic Release
        Inventory (TRI) chemical loadings to surface waters. For indirect
        dischargers, loadings reductions represent between .8 and 12.8 percent
        of all TRI loadings transferred to POTWs. Based upon the results of
        this screening, and more detailed risk assessments, the estimated
        baseline risks associated with only four wastestreams exceed commonly
        assumed threshold cancer and noncancer risk levels. EPA estimated that
        three wastestreams containing aniline pose baseline cancer risks
        ranging from 1 x 10^{-5 to 1 x 10^{-4 which potentially would be
        reduced to between 8 x 10^{-8 and 3 x 10^{-6 under the Phase III
        rule. A fourth wastestream containing acrylamide poses baseline cancer
        risk at a level of 2 x 10^{-3. The proposed rule is estimated to
        reduce this risk to between 2 x 10^{-4 and P4 x 10^{-3. All four
        of these wastestreams are currently discharged to POTWs; if POTW
        treatment removes these constituents from the wastewater prior to
        discharge to surface water and/or if no drinking water intake is
        located downstream from the POTW's outfall, baseline risks will be
        lower than those estimated above. The Agency requests comment and any
        available information related to these wastestreams.
        
        B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Underground Injected Wastes
        
        The Agency has completed a separate regulatory impact analysis for
        underground injected wastes affected by the LDR Phase III proposed
        rule. This analysis describes and evaluates the regulatory impacts only
        to the Class I injection well universe. The new proposed Phase III LDRs
        cover decharaterized ICR and TC organic wastes, and other newlyidentified
        hazardous wastes that are distinctly industrial wastes
        injected by owners and operators of only Class I hazardous and nonhazardous
        injection wells.
        
        According to the available data outlined in the RIA, indications
        are that of the 223 Class I injection facilities in the nation, up to
        154 could be affected by the new Phase III LDRs. Of these facilities,
        101 inject nonhazardous waste and 53 inject hazardous waste. Combined,
        these facilities may inject up to 14 billion gallons of waste annually
        into Class I wells. These Class I injection facilities will now be
        required to either treat wastes, or file no migration petitions as
        outlined in 40 CFR 148 (See 53 FR 28118 (July 26, 1988)) preamble for a
        more thorough discussion of the no migration petition review process).
        Additional options for compliance with the proposed Phase III LDRs,
        including a de minimis exemption and a pollution prevention option are
        discussed in more detail in the RIA.
        
        Of these newly affected Class I facilities, 38 already have no
        migration exemptions approved by EPA, but may face additional
        requirements requiring some modifications of their petitions due to the
        proposed LDR Phase III rule. For the facilities which do not have
        approved no migration exemptions, today's proposed rule will add
        compliance costs to those currently incurred as a result of previous
        rulemakings. The Agency analyzed costs and benefits for today's rule by
        using the same approach and methodology developed in the Regulatory
        Impact Analysis of the Underground Injection Control Program: Proposed
        Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions used for the final rule
        (53 FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking. An analysis was performed to
        assess the economic effect of associated compliance costs for the
        additional volumes of injected wastes attributable to this proposed
        rule.
        
        In general, Class I injection facilities affected by the LDR Phase
        III rule will have several options. As previously mentioned, some
        facilities will modify existing no migration petitions already approved
        by the Agency, other facilities may submit entirely new petitions, and
        still others may accept the prohibitions and either continue to inject
        wastes after treatment or cease injection operations altogether, EPA
        assessed compliance costs for Class I facilities submitting nomigration
        petitions, employing alternative treatment, and/or
        implementing pollution prevention measures. Although facilities using
        pollution prevention/waste minimization to comply with the Phase III
        LDRs will likely lower overall regulatory compliance costs, these
        situations are site-specific and, therefore, EPA cannot estimate these
        cost savings.
        
        For Class I facilities opting to use alternative treatment, the
        Agency derived costs for both treating wastes on-site, and/or shipping
        wastes and treating them off-site at a commercial facility. However,
        the Agency believes that transportation of large volumes of liquid
        wastes off-site is not practical. This makes the off-site treatment
        scenario, at best, a highly conservative analysis. EPA expects most
        facilities that treat their wastes will do so on-site. Preliminary EPA
        estimates show that the total annual compliance cost for petitions and
        alternative on-site treatment to industry affected by the new LDR Phase
        III prohibitions will range between $9.2 million to $13.2 million. The
        noncommercial facilities choosing to segregate their wastes may incur
        additional costs totaling $2.98 million. The average annual compliance
        costs per affected facility employing on-site alternative treatment
        ranges from $59,740 to $85,714. The overall annual regulatory
        compliance cost to industry for petitions and alternatively treating
        wastes off-site will range between $486.5 million to $805.3 million.
        The range of costs for alternative treatment is the result of applying
        a sensitivity analysis. Only the incremental treatment costs for the
        new waste listings are calculated in this RIA. All of these costs will
        be incurred by Class I injection well owners and operators. The
        estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule were based on the
        random assignment of injection facilities to petition and treatment
        outcomes using a decision tree analysis method described in the RIA.
        The Agency requests comment as to how frequently facilities with Class
        I nonhazardous injection wells will be able to receive a no-migration
        variance. The Agency also requests comment on how frequently owners
        will choose to treat their waste and whether that treatment will occur
        on-site.
        
        The benefits to human health and the environment in the RIA are
        generally defined as reduced human health risk resulting from fewer
        instances of ground water contamination. In general, potential health
        risks from Class I injection wells are extremely low. EPA conducted a
        preliminary quantitative assessment of the potential human health risks
        associated with two worst-case scenarios involving well malfunction.
        EPA applied the approach taken in an earlier study to measure health
        risks of two LDR Phase III contaminants: benzene and carbon
        tetrachloride. The results of this preliminary analysis show that all
        of the cancer and noncancer risks calculated are below regulatory
        concern, with the exception of the cancer risk and hazard index
        calculated for carbon tetrachloride, assuming an abandoned borehole is
        near the injection well, drinking water pumping is occurring, and the
        local geology is typical of the East Gulf Coast Region. The assumptions
        used in deriving these results were based on conservative, upper-bound
        estimates. The Agency intends to expand this analysis in the final rule
        to include other constituents [[Page 11739]] and facilities. The Agency
        is interested in comments on this methodology and any data on actual
        injection volumes and constituents.
        
        The economic analysis of LDR Phase III compliance costs suggests
        that publicly traded companies affected by the rule will probably not
        be significantly economically impacted. The limited data available for
        the privately held companies suggests, however, that they may face
        significant impacts due to the proportionally larger expenses they may
        face as a result of the proposed rule.
        
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
        seq., when an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking, for a rule that
        will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small
        entities, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment
        a regulatory flexibility analysis that considers the effect of the rule
        on small entities (i.e.: small businesses, small organizations, and
        small governmental jurisdictions). Under the Agency's Revised
        Guidelines for Implementing The Regulatory Flexibility Act (May 4,
        1992), the Agency committed to considering regulatory alternatives in
        rulemakings when there were any economic impacts estimated on any small
        entities. See RCRA sections 3004(d), (e), and (g)(5), which apply
        uniformly to all hazardous wastes. Previous guidance required
        regulatory alternatives to be examined only when significant economic
        effects were estimated on a substantial number of small entities.
        In assessing the regulatory approach for dealing with small
        entities in today's proposed rule, for both surface disposal of wastes
        and underground injection control, the Agency considered two factors.
        First, data on potentially affected small entities are unavailable.
        Second, due to the statutory requirements of the RCRA LDR program, no
        legal avenues exist for the Agency to provide relief from the LDR's for
        small entities. The only relief available for small entities is the
        existing small quantity generator provisions and conditionally exempt
        small quantity generator exemptions found in 40 CFR 262.11-12, and
        261.5, respectively. These exemptions basically prescribe 100 kg per
        calendar month generation of hazardous waste as the limit below which
        one is exempted from complying with the RCRA standards.
        Given these two factors, the Agency was unable to frame a series of
        small entity options from which to select the lowest cost approach;
        rather, the Agency was legally bound to regulate the land disposal of
        the hazardous wastes covered in today's rule without regard to the size
        of the entity being regulated. See also Sec. 268.1(c)(1), which states
        that LDR rules do not apply to small quantity generators.
        
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act
        
        The new information collection requirements in this proposed rule
        have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
        under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Four
        Information Collection Request (ICR) documents has been prepared by
        EPA, covering the three programs impacted (i.e., the LDR program, the
        UIC program, and the CWA NPDES program: LDR ICR# 1442.08; UIC ICR#
        1738.01; NPDES Application ICR# 0226.11; and NPDES Discharge Monitoring
        Report ICR# 0229.10). The overall reporting and recordkeeping burden is
        estimated to be approximately 632,500 hours (sum from the four ICRs).
        The average burden per respondent is slightly more than 4,000 hours
        (sum from the four ICRs.). Only incremental burdens are discussed in
        the ICRs. These incremental burdens will eventually be merged with: the
        UIC program ICR, the LDR program ICR, the NPDES permit program ICR, and
        the Discharge Monitoring Report program ICR.
        The public reporting burden for these collections is estimated to
        average: for the LDR program, 75 hours per respondent; for the UIC
        program, 3800 hours per respondent; for the NPDES application program,
        37.5 hours per respondent; and for the NPDES discharge monitoring
        report, 211.5 hours per respondent. This includes time for reviewing
        instructions, gathering and compiling data, maintaining the data, and
        preparing and submitting all data.
        
        A copy of the ICRs for this rule may be obtained from the Sandy
        Farmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Information Policy Branch, 401
        M Street, S.W. (Mail Code 2136), Washington D.C. 20460 or by calling
        (202) 260-2740. The public should send comments regarding the burden
        estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information,
        including suggestions for reducing burden to EPA; and to the Office of
        Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
        Washington, D.C. 20460, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
        
        List of Subjects
        
        40 CFR Part 148
        
        Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting
        and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
        
        40 CFR Part 266
        
        Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
        
        40 CFR Part 268
        
        Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
        
        40 CFR Part 271
        
        Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials
        transportation, Hazardous waste, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
        requirements.
        
        Dated: February 16, 1995.
        
        Carol M. Browner,
        
        Administrator.
        
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
        Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
        
        PART 148--HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
        
        The authority citation for part 148 continues to read as
        follows:
        
        Authority: Secs. 3004, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
        42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.
        
        2. Section 148.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (d)
        to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 148.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
        
        * * * *
        
        (a) This part identifies wastes that are restricted from disposal
        into Class I wells and defines those circumstances under which a waste,
        otherwise prohibited from injection, may be injected.
        (b) The requirements of this part apply to owners or operators of
        Class I hazardous waste injection wells used to inject hazardous waste;
        and, owners or operators of Class I injection wells used to inject
        wastes which once exhibited a prohibited characteristic of hazardous
        waste identified in subpart C of part 261 of this chapter, at the point
        of generation, and no longer exhibit the characteristic at the point of
        injection.
        
        * * * *
        
        (d) Wastes that are only characteristically hazardous and otherwise
        prohibited are not prohibited if the wastes are disposed into a
        nonhazardous injection well defined under 40 CFR 144.6(a) and do not
        [[Page 11740]] exhibit any prohibited characteristic of hazardous waste
        identified in subpart C of part 261 of this chapter, and do not contain
        any hazardous constituents identified in 40 CFR 268.48 diluted below
        the Universal Treatment Standard levels prior to injection.
        Section 148.3 is revised to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 148.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute for treatment.
        
        (a) The provisions of Sec. 268.3 of this chapter shall apply to
        owners or operators of Class I wells used to inject a waste which is
        hazardous at the point of generation whether or not the waste is
        hazardous at the point of injection.
        
        (b) Owners or operators of Class I nonhazardous waste injection
        wells which inject waste formerly exhibiting a hazardous characteristic
        which has been removed by dilution, may address underlying hazardous
        constituents by treating the hazardous waste, obtaining an exemption
        pursuant to a petition filed under Sec. 148.20, or complying with the
        provisions set forth in Sec. 268.9 of this chapter.
        4. Section 148.4 is revised to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 148.4 Procedures for case-by-case extensions to an effective
        date.
        
        The owner or operator of a Class I hazardous or nonhazardous waste
        injection well may submit an application to the Administrator for an
        extension of the effective date of any applicable prohibition
        established under subpart B of this part according to the procedures of
        Sec. 268.5 of this chapter.
        
        5. Section 148.18 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions--Newly Identified Wastes.
        
        (a) On [Insert date 90 days from date of publication of final
        rule], the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
        waste numbers K088, K140, K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
        P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
        U379, U381-387, U389-U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are prohibited from
        underground injection.
        
        (b) On [Insert date 2 years from effective date of the final rule],
        the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA Hazardous waste numbers
        D018-043, and Mixed TC/Radioactive wastes, are prohibited from
        underground injection.
        
        (c) On [Insert date 2 years from effective date of the final rule],
        the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA Hazardous waste numbers
        D001-D003 are prohibited from underground injection.
        6. Section 148.20 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
        text to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 148.20 Petitions to allow injection of a waste prohibited under
        Subpart B.
        
        (a) Any person seeking an exemption from a prohibition under
        subpart B of this part for the injection of a restricted hazardous
        waste, including a hazardous waste exhibiting a characteristic and
        containing underlying hazardous constituents at the point of
        generation, but no longer exhibiting a characteristic when injected
        into a Class I injection well or wells, shall submit a petition to the
        Director demonstrating that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there
        will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone
        for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This demonstration requires
        a showing that:
        
        * * * *
        
        PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
        AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
        
        7. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as
        follows:
        
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6934.
        
        8. In Subpart C, Sec. 266.20, paragraph (b) is amended by adding
        one sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 266.20 Applicability.
        
        * * * *
        
        (b) * * * This provision does not apply to hazardous waste used as
        a fill material (i.e., a substitute for sand, dirt or comparable
        material) to fill in holes, occupy space, raise land levels, or be used
        for other similar purposes.
        
        * * * *
        
        PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
        
        9. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as
        follows:
        
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.
        
        Subpart A--General
        
        10. Section 268.1 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4) and by
        removing paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
        
        * * * *
        
        (e) * * *
        
        (4) De minimis losses of characteristic wastes to wastewaters are
        defined as:
        
        (i) Losses from normal material handling operations (e.g. spills
        from the unloading or transfer of materials from bins or other
        containers, leaks from pipes, valves or other devices used to transfer
        materials); minor leaks of process equipment, storage tanks or
        containers; leaks from well-maintained pump packings and seals; sample
        purgings; and relief device discharges; discharges from safety showers
        and rinsing and cleaning of personal safety equipment; rinsate from
        empty containers or from containers that are rendered empty by that
        rinsing; and laboratory wastes not exceeding one per cent of the flow
        of wastewater into the facility's headworks on an annual basis; or
        (ii) Characteristic wastes which are injected into Class I
        nonhazardous wells whose combined volume is less than one per cent of
        the total flow at the wellhead on an annualized basis, and which any
        underlying hazardous constituents in the characteristic wastes are
        present at the point of generation at levels less than ten times the
        treatment standards found at Sec. 268.48.
        Section 268.2 is amended by revising the introductory text to
        paragraph (f), by removing paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3), and
        by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 268.2 Definitions applicable in this part.
        
        * * * *
        
        (f) Wastewaters are wastes that contain less than 1% by weight
        total organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1% by weight total suspended
        solids (TSS).
        
        * * * *
        
        (j) Inorganic metal-bearing waste is one for which EPA has
        established treatment standards for metal hazardous constituents, and
        which does not otherwise contain significant organic or cyanide content
        as described in Sec. 268.3(b)(1), and is specifically listed in
        appendix XI of this part.
        
        Section 268.3 is revised to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute for treatment.
        
        (a) No generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a
        treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall in any way dilute a
        restricted waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste
        as a substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with
        subpart D of this part, to circumvent the effective date of a
        prohibition in subpart C of this part, to otherwise avoid a prohibition
        in subpart C of this part, or to circumvent a land disposal
        [[Page 11741]] prohibition imposed by RCRA section 3004.
        (b) Combustion of hazardous waste is prohibited, unless the waste,
        at the point of generation, or after any bona fide treatment such as
        cyanide destruction prior to combustion, can be demonstrated to comply
        with one or more of the following criteria (unless otherwise
        specifically prohibited from combustion):
        (1) The waste contains hazardous organic constituents or cyanide at
        levels exceeding the constituent-specific treatment standard found in
        Sec. 268.48;
        
        (2) The waste consists of organic, debris-like materials (e.g.,
        wood, paper, plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an inorganic metalbearing
        hazardous waste;
        
        (3) The waste, at point of generation, has reasonable heating value
        such as greater than or equal to 5000 BTU per pound;
        (4) The waste is co-generated with wastes for which combustion is a
        required method of treatment;
        
        (5) The waste is subject to Federal and/or State requirements
        necessitating reduction of organics (including biological agents); or
        (6) The waste contains greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
        13. Section 268.7 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5)(v) to read
        as follows:
        
        Sec. 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.
        
        * * * *
        
        (b) * * *
        
        (5) * * *
        
        (v) For characteristic wastes D001, D002, D003 and D012-D043 that
        contain underlying hazardous constituents as defined in Sec. 268.2(i)
        that are treated on-site to remove the hazardous characteristic and to
        treat underlying hazardous constituents to levels in Sec. 268.48
        Universal Treatment Standards, the certification must state the
        following:
        
        I certify under penalty of law that the waste has been treated
        in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove the
        hazardous characteristic. This decharacterized waste contained
        underlying hazardous constituents that have been treated on-site to
        meet Sec. 268.48 Universal Treatment Standards. I am aware that
        there are significant penalties for submitting a false
        certification, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
        
        * * * *
        
        Sec. 268.8 [Removed and Reserved]
        
        14. Section 268.8 is removed and reserved.
        15. Section 268.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
        (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2) introductory text; and by adding
        paragraphs (d)(3), (e) and (f) to read as follows:
        
        Sec. 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that exhibit a
        characteristic.
        
        (a) The initial generator of a solid waste must determine each EPA
        Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) applicable to the waste in order to
        determine the applicable treatment standards under subpart D of this
        part. For purposes of part 268, the waste will carry the waste code for
        any applicable listing under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. In addition,
        the waste will carry one or more of the waste codes under 40 CFR part
        261, subpart C, where the waste exhibits a characteristic, except in
        the case when the treatment standard for the waste code listed in 40
        CFR part 261, subpart D operates in lieu of the standard for the waste
        code under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in paragraph (b) of
        this section. If the generator determines that his waste displays a
        hazardous characteristic (and the waste is not a D004--D011 waste, a
        High TOC D001, or is not treated by CMBST, or RORGS of Sec. 268.42,
        Table 1), the generator must determine what underlying hazardous
        constituents (as defined in Sec. 268.2 of this Part), are reasonably
        expected to be present above the universal treatment standards found in
        Sec. 268.48 of this part.
        
        (b) Where a prohibited waste is both listed under 40 CFR part 261,
        subpart D and exhibits a characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart
        C, the treatment standard for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part 261,
        subpart D will operate in lieu of the standard for the waste code under
        40 CFR part 261, subpart C, provided that the treatment standard for
        the listed waste includes a treatment standard for the constituent that
        causes the waste to exhibit the characteristic and for any underlying
        hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present in the waste.
        Otherwise, the waste must meet the treatment standards for all
        applicable listed and characteristic waste codes.
        
        * * * *
        
        (d) * * *
        
        (1) * * *
        
        (i) For characteristic wastes other than those managed on-site in a
        wastewater treatment system subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), zerodischargers
        engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment, or Class I
        nonhazardous injection wells, the name and address of the Subtitle D
        facility receiving the waste shipment;
        
        (ii) For all characteristic wastes, a description of the waste as
        initially generated, including the applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
        Number(s), treatability group(s), and underlying hazardous
        constituents;
        
        (2) The certification must be signed by an authorized
        representative and must state the language found in Sec. 268.7(b)(5).
        * * * *
        
        (3) For characteristic wastes whose ultimate disposal will be into
        a Class I nonhazardous injection well, and compliance with the
        treatment standards found in Sec. 268.48 for underlying hazardous
        constituents is achieved through pollution prevention, the following
        information must also be included:
        
        (i) A description of the pollution prevention mechanism;
        (ii) The mass of each underlying hazardous constituent before
        pollution prevention;
        
        (iii) The mass of each underlying hazardous constituent that must
        be removed, normalized for production; and,
        (iv) The mass reduction of each underlying hazardous constituent
        that is achieved.
        
        (e) For decharacterized wastes managed on-site in a wastewater
        treatment system subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers
        engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment, or Class I nonhazardous injection
        wells, compliance with the treatment standards found at Sec. 268.48
        must be monitored quarterly. Monitoring results must be kept in on-site
        files for 5 years.
        
        (f) For characteristic wastes whose ultimate disposal will be into
        a Class I nonhazardous injection well which qualifies for the de
        minimis exclusion described in Sec. 268.1, information supporting that
        qualification must be kept in on-site files.
        
        Sec. 268.10--Sec. 268.12 [Removed and Reserved]
        
        16. Sections 268.10 through 268.12 are removed and reserved.
        17. In subpart C, Sec. 268.39 is added to read as follows:
        
        * * * *
        
        Sec. 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions--spent aluminum potliners,
        carbamates and organobromine wastes.
        
        (a) On [Insert date 90 days from date of publication of the final
        rule], the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
        numbers K088, K140, K156-K161; and in 40 CFR 261.33 as EPA Hazardous
        Waste numbers P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205,
        U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-
        U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are prohibited from land disposal. In
        addition, soil and debris contaminated [[Page 11742]] with these wastes
        are prohibited from land disposal.
        
        (b) On [Insert date two years from date of publication of the final
        rule], characteristic wastes that are managed in systems whose
        discharge is regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or that are
        zero dischargers that engage in CWA-equivalent treatment before
        ultimate land disposal, are prohibited from land disposal. Radioactive
        wastes mixed with K088, K140, K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-P192,
        P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373,
        U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are also
        prohibited from land disposal. In addition, soil and debris
        contaminated with these radioactive mixed wastes are prohibited from
        land disposal.
        
        (c) Between [Insert date 90 days from date of publication of the
        final rule] and [Insert date two years from date of publication of the
        final rule], the wastes included in paragraph (b) of this section may
        be disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, only if such unit is
        in compliance with the requirements specified in Sec. 268.5(h)(2).
        (d) The requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
        section do not apply if:
        
        (1) The wastes meet the applicable treatment standards specified in
        subpart D of this part;
        
        (2) Persons have been granted an exemption from a prohibition
        pursuant to a petition under Sec. 268.6, with respect to those wastes
        and units covered by the petition;
        
        (3) The wastes meet the applicable alternate treatment standards
        established pursuant to a petition granted under Sec. 268.44;
        (4) Persons have been granted an extension to the effective date of
        a prohibition pursuant to Sec. 268.5, with respect to these wastes
        covered by the extension.
        
        (e) To determine whether a hazardous waste identified in this
        section exceeds the applicable treatment standards specified in
        Sec. 268.40, the initial generator must test a sample of the waste
        extract or the entire waste, depending on whether the treatment
        standards are expressed as concentrations in the waste extract or the
        waste, or the generator may use knowledge of the waste. If the waste
        contains constituents in excess of the applicable subpart D levels, the
        waste is prohibited from land disposal, and all requirements of part
        268 are applicable, except as otherwise specified.
        18. The table in Sec. 268.40 is amended as follows:
        a. By revising the entries for D001 through F012, F037 through
        F039, K006, K018, K019, K028, K030, K035, K048 through K052, K061,
        K083, K086, K101, K102, P003, P013, P056, U038, U042, U093, U134, and
        U168.
        
        b. By adding in alpha-numerical order entries for K088, K140, K156
        through K161, P127, P128, P185, P188 through P192, P194, P196 through
        P199, P201 through P205, U271, U277 through U280, U364 through U367,
        U372, U373, U375 through U379, U381 through U387, U389 through U396,
        U400 through U404, and U407 through U411.
        
        Sec. 268.40 Applicability of treatment standards.
        
        * * * *
        
        Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes
        
        Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Waste description and Concentration in
        Waste code treatment/regulatory Concentration in mg/kg\5\ unless
        subcategory\1\ Common name CAS\2\ No. mg/l\3\; or noted as ``mg/l
        technology TCLP''; or
        code\4\ technology code
        
        D001............ Ignitable NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
        Characteristic Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        Wastes, except for standards; or standards; or
        the Sec. 261.21(a)(1) RORGS; or CMBST. RORGS; or
        High TOC Subcategory. CMBST.
        
        High TOC Ignitable NA............... NA NA............... RORGS; or CMBST.
        Characteristic
        Liquids Subcategory
        based on 40 CFR
        261.21(a)(1)--Greater
        than or equal to 10%
        total organic carbon.
        (Note: This
        subcategory consists
        of nonwastewaters
        only.).
        
        D002............ Corrosive NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
        Characteristic Wastes. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        standards. standards.
        
        D002, D004, Radioactive high level Corrosivity (pH). NA NA............... HLVIT.
        D005, D006, wastes generated Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 NA............... HLVIT.
        D007, D008, during the Barium........... 7440-39-3 NA............... HLVIT.
        D009, D010, reprocessing of fuel Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 NA............... HLVIT.
        D011. rods. (Note: This Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 NA............... HLVIT.
        subcategory consists
        of nonwastewaters
        only.).
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 NA............... HLVIT.
        Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... HLVIT.
        Selenium......... 7782-49-2 NA............... HLVIT.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 NA............... HLVIT.
        
        D003............ Reactive Sulfides NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
        Subcategory based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        Sec. 261.23(a)(5). standards. standards.
        
        Explosives Subcategory NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
        based on Sec. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        261.23(a)(6), (7), standards. standards.
        and (8).
        [[Page 11743]]
        
        Other Reactives NA............... NA DEACT and meet DEACT and meet
        Subcategory based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        Sec. 261.23(a)(1). standards. standards.
        
        Water Reactive NA............... NA NA............... DEACT and meet
        Subcategory based on Sec. 268.48
        Sec. 261.23(a)(2), standards.
        (3), and (4). (Note:
        This subcategory
        consists of
        nonwastewaters only.).
        
        Reactive Cyanides Cyanides 57-12-5 Reserved......... 590.
        Subcategory based on (Total)\7\. 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        Sec. 261.23(a)(5). Cyanides
        (Amenable)\7\.
        
        D004............ Wastes that exhibit, Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l EP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for arsenic
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        Arsenic; 7440-38-2 NA............... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        altermate\6\
        standard for
        nonwastewaters
        only.
        
        D005............ Wastes that exhibit, Barium........... 7440-39-3 100.............. 100 mg/l TCLP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for barium
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        
        D006............ Wastes that exhibit, Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 NA............... 1.0 mg/l TCLP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for cadmium
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        
        Cadmium Containing Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 NA............... RTHRM.
        Batteries
        Subcategory. (Note:
        This subcategory
        consists of
        nonwastewaters only.).
        
        D007............ Wastes that exhibit, Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for chromium
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        
        D008............ Wastes that exhibit, Lead............. 7439-92-1 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l EP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for lead
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        Lead; 7439-92-1 NA............... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        altermate\6\
        standard for
        nonwastewaters
        only.
        
        Lead Acid Batteries Lead............. 7439-92-1 NA............... RLEAD.
        Subcategory (Note:
        This standard only
        applies to lead acid
        batteries that are
        identified as RCRA
        hazardous wastes and
        that are not excluded
        elsewhere from
        regulation under the
        land disposal
        restrictions of 40
        CFR 268 or exempted
        under other EPA
        regulations (see 40
        CFR 266.80). This
        subcategory consists
        of nonwastewaters
        only.).
        [[Page 11744]]
        
        Radioactive Lead Lead............. 7439-92-1 NA............... MACRO.
        Solids Subcategory
        (Note: these lead
        solids include, but
        are not limited to,
        all forms of lead
        shielding and other
        elemental forms of
        lead. These lead
        solids do not include
        treatment residuals
        such as hydroxide
        sludges, other
        wastewater treatment
        residuals, or
        incinerator ashes
        that can undergo
        conventional
        pozzolanic
        stabilization, nor do
        they include organo-
        lead materials that
        can be incinerated
        and stabilized as
        ash. This subcategory
        consists of
        nonwastewaters only.).
        
        D009............ Nonwastewaters that Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... IMERC; or RMERC.
        exhibit, or are
        expected to exhibit,
        the characteristic of
        toxicity for mercury
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310; and contain
        greater than or equal
        to 260 mg/kg total
        mercury that also
        contain organics and
        are not incinerator
        residues. (High
        Mercury-Organic
        Subcategory).
        
        Nonwastewaters that Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... RMERC.
        exhibit, or are
        expected to exhibit,
        the characteristic of
        toxicity for mercury
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310; and contain
        greater than or equal
        to 260 mg/kg total
        mercury that are
        inorganic, including
        incinerator residues
        and residues from
        RMERC. (High Mercury-
        Inorganic
        Subcategory).
        
        Nonwastewaters that Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... 0.20 mg/l TCLP.
        exhibit, or are
        expected to exhibit,
        the characterisitc of
        toxicity for mercury
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310; and contain
        less than 260 mg/kg
        total mercury. (Low
        Mercury Subcategory).
        
        All D009 wastewaters.. Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.20............. NA.
        Elemental mercury Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... AMLGM.
        contaminated with
        radioactive
        materials. (Note:
        This subcategory
        consists of
        nonwastewaters only.).
        
        Hydraulic oil Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 NA............... IMERC.
        contaminated with
        Mercury Radioactive
        Materials
        Subcategory. (Note:
        This subcategory
        consists of
        nonwastewaters only.).
        
        D010............ Wastes that exhibit, Selenium......... 7782-49-2 1.0.............. 5.7 mg/l TCLP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for selenium
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        
        D011............ Wastes that exhibit, Silver........... 7440-22-4 5.0.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        or are expected to
        exhibit, the
        characteristic of
        toxicity for silver
        based on the
        extraction procedure
        (EP) in SW846 Method
        1310.
        [[Page 11745]]
        
        D012............ Wastes that are TC for Endrin........... 72-20-8 BIODG; or INCIN.. 0.13 and meet
        Endrin based on the Endrin aldehyde.. 7421-93-4 BIODG; or INCIN.. Sec. 268.48
        TCLP in SW846 Method standards.
        1311. 0.13 and meet
        Sec. 268.48
        standards.
        
        D013............ Wastes that are TC for alpha-BHC........ 319-84-6 CARBN; or INCIN.. 0.066 and meet
        Lindane based on the beta-BHC......... 319-85-7 CARBN; or INCIN.. Sec. 268.48
        TCLP in SW846 Method standards.
        1311. 0.066 and meet
        Sec. 268.48
        standards.
        delta-BHC........ 319-86-8 CARBN; or INCIN.. 0.066 and meet
        Sec. 268.48
        standards.
        gamma-BHC 58-89-9 CARBN; or INCIN.. 0.066 and meet
        (Lindane). Sec. 268.48
        standards.
        
        D014............ Wastes that are TC for Methoxychlor..... 72-43-5 WETOX or INCIN... 0.18 and meet
        Methoxychlor based on Sec. 268.48
        the TCLP in SW846 standards.
        Method 1311.
        
        D015............ Wastes that are TC for Toxaphene........ 8001-35-2 BIODG or INCIN... 2.6 and meet
        Toxaphene based on Sec. 268.48
        the TCLP in SW846 standards.
        Method 1311.
        
        D016............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4-D (2,4- 94-75-7 CHOXD, BIODG, or 10 and meet Sec.
        2,4-D (2,4- Dichlorophenoxy- INCIN. 268.48
        Dichlorophenoxyacetic acetic acid). standards.
        acid) based on the
        TCLP in SW846 Method
        1311.
        
        D017............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 93-72-1 CHOXD or INCIN... 7.9 and meet
        2,4,5-TP (Silvex) Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D018............ Wastes that are TC for Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14 and meet 10 and meet Sec.
        Benzene based on the Sec. 268.48 268.48
        TCLP in SW846 Method standards. standards.
        1311.
        D019............ Wastes that are TC for Carbon 56-23-5 0.057 and meet 6.0 and meet
        Carbon tetrachloride tetrachloride. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D020............ Wastes that are TC for Chlordane (alpha 57-74-9 0.0033 and meet 0.26 and meet
        Chlordane based on and gamma Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        the TCLP in SW846 isomers). standards. standards.
        Method 1311.
        
        D021............ Wastes that are TC for Chlorobenzene.... 108-90-7 0.057 and meet 6.0 and meet
        Chlorobenzene based Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        on the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
        Method 1311.
        
        D022............ Wastes that are TC for Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046 and meet 6.0 and meet
        Chloroform based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
        Method 1311.
        
        D023............ Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11 and meet 5.6 and meet
        o-Cresol based on the Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        TCLP in SW846 Method standards. standards.
        1311.
        
        D024............ Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77 and meet 5.6 and meet
        m-Cresol based on the (difficult to Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        
        TCLP in SW846 Method distinguish from standards. standards.
        1311. p-cresol).
        
        D025............ Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77 and meet 5.6 and meet
        p-Cresol based on the (difficult to Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        
        TCLP in SW846 Method distinguish from standards. standards.
        1311. m-cresol).
        
        D026............ Wastes that are TC for Cresol-mixed 1319-77-3 0.88 and meet 11.2 and meet
        Cresols (Total) based isomers Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        on the TCLP in SW846 (Cresylic acid) standards. standards.
        Method 1311. (sum of o-, m-,
        and p-cresol
        concentrations).
        
        D027............ Wastes that are TC for p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090 and meet 6.0 and meet
        p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4- Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        
        based on the TCLP in Dichlorobenzene). standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        D028............ Wastes that are TC for 1,2- 107-06-2 0.21 and meet 6.0 and meet
        1,2-Dichloroethane Dichloroethane. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        [[Page 11746]]
        
        D029............ Wastes that are TC for 1,1- 75-35-4 0.025 and meet 6.0 and meet
        
        1,1-Dichloroethylene Dichloroethylene. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        D030............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4- 121-14-2 0.32 and meet 140 and meet
        2,4-Dinitrotoluene Dinitrotoluene. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D031............ Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor....... 76-44-8 0.0012 and meet 0.066 and meet
        Heptachlor based on Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
        Method 1311.
        Heptachlor 1024-57-3 0.016 and meet 0.066 and meet
        epoxide. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        standards. standards.
        
        D032............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.055 and meet 10 and meet Sec.
        Hexachlorobenzene Sec. 268.48 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D033............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055 and meet 5.6 and meet
        Hexachlorobutadiene ne. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D034............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055 and meet 30 and meet Sec.
        Hexachloroethane Sec. 268.48 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D035............ Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28 and meet 36 and meet Sec.
        Methyl ethyl ketone ketone. Sec. 268.48 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D036............ Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068 and meet 14 and meet Sec.
        Nitrobenzene based on Sec. 268.48 268.48
        the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
        Method 1311.
        
        D037............ Wastes that are TC for Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.089 and meet 7.4 and meet
        Pentachlorophenol Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D038............ Wastes that are TC for Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014 and meet 16 and meet Sec.
        Pyridine based on the Sec. 268.48 268.48
        TCLP in SW846 Method standards. standards.
        1311.
        
        D039............ Wastes that are TC for Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056 and meet 6.0 and meet
        Tetrachloroethylene ne. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D040............ Wastes that are TC for Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054 and meet 6.0 and meet
        Trichloroethylene Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        D041............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5- 95-95-4 0.18 and meet 7.4 and meet
        
        2,4,5-Trichlorophenol Trichlorophenol. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        D042............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6- 88-06-2 0.035 and meet 7.4 and meet
        
        2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Trichlorophenol. Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        based on the TCLP in standards. standards.
        SW846 Method 1311.
        
        D043............ Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride... 75-01-4 0.27 and meet 6.0 and meet
        Vinyl chloride based Sec. 268.48 Sec. 268.48
        on the TCLP in SW846 standards. standards.
        Method 1311.
        [[Page 11747]]
        
        F001, F002, F001, F002, F003, F004 Acetone.......... 67-64-1 0.28............. 160.
        F003, F004 & and/or F005 solvent Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        F005. wastes that contain n-Butyl alcohol.. 71-36-3 5.6.............. 2.6.
        any combination of Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
        one or more of the Carbon 56-23-5 0.057............ 6.0.
        
        following spent tetrachloride. 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
        solvents: acetone, Chlorobenzene.... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
        benzene, n-butyl o-Cresol......... 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
        alcohol, carbon m-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6.
        disulfide, carbon (difficult to
        tetrachloride, distinguish from
        chlorinated p-cresol).
        fluorocarbons,
        chlorobenzene, o-
        cresol, m-cresol, p-
        cresol,
        cyclohexanone, o-
        dichlorobenzene, 2-
        ethoxyethanol, ethyl
        acetate, ethyl
        benzene, ethyl ether,
        isobutyl alcohol,
        methanol, methylene
        chloride, methyl
        ethyl ketone, methyl
        isobutyl ketone,
        nitrobenzene, 2-
        nitropropane,
        pyridine,
        tetrachloroethylene,
        toluene, 1,1,1-
        trichloroethane,
        1,1,2-
        trichloroethane,
        1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
        trifluorethane,
        trichloroethylene,
        trichloromonofluorome
        thane, and/or xylenes
        [except as
        specifically noted in
        other subcategories].
        See further details
        of these listings in
        Sec. 261.31.
        p-Cresol 1319-77-3 0.88............. 11.2.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        m-cresol).
        Cresol-mixed
        isomers
        (Cresylic acid)
        (sum of o-, m-,
        and p-cresol
        concentrations).
        Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
        Ethyl acetate.... 141-78-6 0.34............. 33.
        Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        Ethyl ether...... 60-29-7 0.12............. 160.
        Isobutyl alcohol. 78-83-1 5.6.............. 170.
        Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        Methylene 75-9-2 0.089............ 30.
        chloride.
        Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
        ketone.
        Methyl isobutyl 108-10-1 0.14............. 33.
        ketone.
        Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
        Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
        Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
        ne.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        1,1,2- 79-00-5 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        1,1,2-Trichloro- 76-13-1 0.057............ 30.
        1,2,2-
        trifluoroethane.
        Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloromonofluo 75-69-4 0.020............ 30.
        romethane.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sum of
        o-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        
        F003 and/or F005 Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
        solvent wastes that Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        contain any Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        combination of one or
        more of the following
        three solvents as the
        only listed F001-5
        solvents: carbon
        disulfide,
        cyclohexanone, and/or
        methanol. (formerly
        Sec. 268.41(c)).
        
        F005 solvent waste 2-Nitropropane... 79-46-9 (WETOX or CHOXD) INCIN.
        containing 2- fb CARBN; or
        Nitropropane as the INCIN.
        only listed F001-5
        solvent.
        [[Page 11748]]
        
        F005 solvent waste 2-Ethoxyethanol.. 110-80-5 BIODG: or INCIN.. INCIN.
        containing 2-
        Ethoxyethanol as the
        only listed F001-5
        solvent.
        
        F006............ Wastewater treatment Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        sludges from Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        electroplating Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        operations except (Total)\7\. 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        from the following Cyanides 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        processes: (1) (Amenable)\7\. 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Sulfuric acid Lead............. 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        anodizing or Nickel...........
        aluminum; (2) tin Silver...........
        plating on carbon
        steel; (3) zinc
        plating (segregated
        basis) on carbon
        steel; (4) aluminum
        or zinc-aluminum
        plating on carbon
        steel; (5) cleaning/
        stripping associated
        with tin, zinc and
        aluminum plating on
        carbon steel; and (6)
        chemical etching and
        milling of aluminum.
        
        F007............ Spent cyanide plating Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        bath solutions from Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        electroplating
        operations.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        
        F008............ Plating bath residues Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        from the bottom of Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        plating baths from Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        electroplating (Total)\7\.
        operations where
        cyanides are used in
        the process.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        
        F009............ Spent stripping and Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        cleaning bath Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        solutions from Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        electroplating (Total)\7\.
        operations where
        cyanides are used in
        the process.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        
        F010............ Quenching bath Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        residues from oil (Total)\7\. 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        baths from metal heat Cyanides
        treating operations (Amenable)\7\.
        where cyanides are
        used in the process.
        
        F011............ Spent cyanide Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        solutions from salt Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        bath pot cleaning Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        from metal heat (Total)\7\.
        treating operations.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        
        F012............ Quenching wastewater Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        treatment sludges Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        from metal heat Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        treating operations (Total)\7\.
        where cyanides are
        used in the process.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        
        [[Page 11749]]
        
        *
        
        F037............ Petroleum refinery Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        primary oil/water/ Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        solids separation Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        sludge-Any sludge Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
        generated from the Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        gravitational bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        separation of oil/ phthalate. 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        water/solids during Chrysene......... 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
        the storage or Di-n-butyl 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        treatment of process phthalate. 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        wastewaters and oily Ethylbenzene..... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        cooling wastewaters Fluorene......... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        from petroleum Naphthalene...... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        refineries. Such Phenanthrene..... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        sludges include, but Phenol........... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        are not limited to, Pyrene........... 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        those generated in: Toluene.......... 7440-47-3
        oil/water/solids Xylenes-mixed 57-12-5
        
        separators; tanks and isomers. 7439-92-1 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        impoundments; ditches (sum of o-, m-, p- 7440-02-0 1.2.............. 590.
        and other xylene 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        
        conveyances; sumps; concentrations). 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        and stormwater units Chromium (Total).
        receiving dry weather Cyanides
        flow. Sludge (Total)\7\.
        generated in Lead.............
        stormwater units that Nickel...........
        do not receive dry
        weather flow, sludges
        generated from non-
        contact once-through
        cooling waters
        segregated from
        treatment form other
        process or oily
        cooling waters,
        sludges generated in
        aggressive biological
        treatment units as
        defined in Sec.
        261.31(b)(2)
        (including sludges
        generated in one or
        more additional units
        after wastewaters
        have been treated in
        aggressive biological
        treatment units) and
        K051 wastes are not
        included in this
        listing.
        
        F038............ Petroleum refinery Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        secondary Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        (emulsified) oil/ bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        water/solids phthalate. 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        separation sludge and/ Chrysene......... 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
        or float generated Di-n-butyl 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        from the physical and/ phthalate. 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        or chemical Ethylbenzene..... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        separation of oil/ Fluorene......... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        water/solids in Naphthalene...... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        process wastewaters Phenanthrene..... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        and oil cooling Phenol........... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        wastewaters from Pyrene........... 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        petroleum refineries. Toluene.......... 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Such wastes include, Xylenes-mixed 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        but are not limited isomers (sum of 7439-92-1 0.069............ 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        to, all sludges and o-, m-, and p- 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        floats generated in: xylene
        induced air concentrations)..
        floatation (IAF) Chromium (Total).
        units, tanks and Cyanides (Total)7
        impoundments, and all Lead.............
        sludges generated in Nickel...........
        DAF units. Sludges
        generated in
        stormwater units that
        do not receive dry
        weather flow, sludges
        generated from non-
        contact once-through
        cooling waters
        segregated for
        treatment from other
        process or oily
        cooling waters,
        sludges and floats
        generated in
        aggressive biological
        treatment units as
        defined in Sec.
        261.31(b)(2)
        (including sludges
        and floats generated
        in one or more
        additional units
        after wastewaters
        have been treated in
        aggressive biological
        units) and F037,
        K048, and K051 are
        not included in this
        listing.
        [[Page 11750]]
        
        F039............ Leachate (liquids that Acenaphthylene... 208-96-8 0.059............ 3.4.
        have percolated Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        through land disposed Acetone.......... 67-64-1 0.28............. 160.
        wastes) resulting Acetonitrile..... 75-05-8 5.6.............. 38.
        from the disposal of Acetophenone..... 96-86-2 0.010............ 9.7.
        more than one 2- 53-96-3 0.059............ 140
        
        restricted waste Acetylaminofluor 107-02-8 0.29............. 2.9.
        classified as ene. 107-13-1 0.24............. 84.
        
        hazardous under Acrolein......... 309-00-2 0.021............ 0.066.
        subpart D of this Acrylonitrile.... 92-67-1 0.13............. 13.
        part. (Leachate Aldrin........... 62-53-3 0.81............. 14.
        resulting from the 4-Aminobiphenyl..
        disposal of one or Aniline..........
        more of the following
        EPA Hazardous Wastes
        and no other
        Hazardous Wastes
        retains its EPA
        Hazardous Waste
        Number(s): F020,
        F021, F022, F026,
        F027, and/or F028.).
        Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        Aramite.......... 140-57-8 0.36............. 2.5.
        alpha-BHC........ 319-84-6 0.00014.......... 0.066.
        beta-BHC......... 319-85-7 0.00014.......... 0.066.
        delta-BHC........ 319-86-8 0.023............ 0.066.
        gamma-BHC........ 58-89-9 0.0017........... 0.066.
        Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
        Benzo (b) 207-08-9 0.11............. 6.8.
        fluoranthene
        (difficult to
        distinguiah from
        benzo (k)
        fluoranthene).
        Benzo(g,h,i)peryl 191-24-2 0.0055........... 1.8.
        ene.
        Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        Bromodichlorometh 75-27-4 0.35............. 15.
        ane.
        Methyl bromide 74-83-9 0.11............. 15.
        (Bromomethane).
        4-Bromophenyl 101-55-3 0.055............ 15.
        phenyl ether.
        n-Butyl alcohol.. 71-36-3 5.6.............. 2.6.
        Butyl benzyl 85-68-7 0.017............ 28.
        ohthalate.
        2-sec-Butyl-4, 6- 88-85-7 0.066............ 2.5.
        dinitrophenol
        (Dinoseb).
        Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
        Carbon 56-23-5 0.057............ 6.0.
        tetrachloride.
        Chlordane (alpha 57-74-9 0.0033........... 0.26.
        and gamma
        isomers).
        p-Chloroaniline.. 106-47-8 0.46............. 16.
        Chlorobenzene.... 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
        Chlorobenzilate.. 510-15-6 0.10............. 6.6.
        2-Chloro-1, 3- 126-99-8 0.057............ 0.28.
        butadiene.
        Chlorodibromometh 124-48-1 0.057............ 15.
        ane.
        Chloroethane..... 75-00-3 0.27............. 6.0.
        bis(2- 111-91-1 0.036............ 7.2.
        Chloroethoxy)met
        hane.
        bis(2- 111-44-4 0.033............ 6.0.
        Chloroethyl)ethe
        r.
        Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
        bis(2- 39638-32-9 0.055............ 7.2.
        Chloroisopropyl)
        ether.
        p-Chloro-m-cresol 59-50-7 0.018............ 14.
        Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.19............. 30.
        (Methyl
        chloride).
        2- 91-58-7 0.055............ 5.6.
        Chloronaphthalen
        e.
        2-Chlorophenol... 95-57-8 0.044............ 5.7.
        3- 107-05-1 0.036............ 30.
        Chloroprophylene.
        Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
        m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        p-cresol).
        p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        m-cresol.
        Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        1,2-Dibromo-3- 96-12-8 0.11............. 15.
        chloropropane.
        Ethylene 106-93-4 0.028............ 15.
        dibromide (1,2-
        Dibromoethane).
        Dibromomethane... 74-95-3 0.11............. 15.
        [[Page 11751]]
        
        2,4-D (2,4- 94-75-7 0.72............. 10.
        Dichlorophenoxya
        cetic acid).
        o,p#-DDD......... 53-19-0 0.023............ 0.087.
        p,p#-DDD......... 72-54-8 0.023............ 0.087.
        o,p#-DDE......... 3424-82-6 0.031............ 0.087.
        p,p#-DDE......... 72-55-9 0.031............ 0.087.
        o,p#-DDT......... 789-02-6 0.0039........... 0.087.
        p,p#-DDT......... 50-29-3 0.0039........... 0.087.
        Dibenz(a,h) 53-70-3 0.055............ 8.2.
        anthracene.
        Dibenz(a,e)pyrene 192-65-4 0.061............ 22.
        m-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.036............ 6.0.
        o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
        p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090............ 6.0.
        Dichlorodifluorom 75-71-8 0.23............. 7.2.
        ethane.
        1,1- 75-34-3 0.059............ 6.0.
        Dichloroethane.
        1,2- 107-06-2 0.21............. 6.0.
        Dichloroethane.
        1,1- 75-35-4 0.025............ 6.0.
        Dichloroethylene.
        trans-1,2- 156-60-5 0.054............ 30.
        Dichloroethylene.
        2,4- 120-83-2 0.044............ 14.
        Dichlorophenol.
        2,6- 87-65-0 0.044............ 14.
        Dichlorophenol.
        1,2- 78-87-5 0.85............. 18.
        Dichloropropane.
        cis-1,3- 10061-01-5 0.036............ 18.
        Dichloropropylen
        e.
        trans-1,3- 10061-02-6 0.036............ 18.
        Dichloropropylen
        e.
        Dieldrin......... 60-57-1 0.017............ 0.13.
        Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 0.20............. 28.
        2,4-Dimethyl 105-67-9 0.036............ 14.
        phenol.
        Dimethyl 131-11-3 0.047............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Di-n-butyl 64-74-2 0.057............ 28.
        phthalate.
        1,4- 100-25-4 0.32............. 2.3.
        Dinitrobenzene.
        4,6-Dinitro-o- 534-52-1 0.28............. 160.
        cresol.
        2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 0.12............. 160.
        2,4- 121-14-2 0.32............. 140.
        Dinitrotoluene.
        2,6- 606-20-2 0.55............. 28.
        Dinitrotoluene.
        Di-n-octyl 117-84-0 0.017............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Di-n- 621-64-7 0.40............. 14.
        propylnitrosamin
        e.
        1,4-Dioxane...... 123-91-1 8.67............. 170.
        Diphenylamine 122-39-4 0.92............. 13.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        diphenylnitrosam
        ine).
        Diphenylnitrosami 86-30-6 0.92............. 13.
        ne (diffult to
        distinguish from
        diphenylamine).
        1,2- 122-66-7 0.087............ 1.5.
        Diphenylhydrazin
        e.
        Disulfoton....... 298-04-4 0.017............ 6.2.
        Endosulfan I..... 939-98-8 0.023............ 0.066
        Endosulfan II.... 33213-6-5 0.029............ 0.13.
        Endosulfan 1-31-07-8 0.029............ 0.13.
        sulfate.
        Endrin........... 72-20-8 0.0028........... 0.13.
        Endrin aldehyde.. 7421-93-4 0.025............ 0.13
        Ethyl acetate.... 141-78-6 0.34............. 33.
        Ethyl cyanide 107-12-0 0.24............. 360.
        (Propanenitrile).
        Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        Ethyl ether...... 60-29-7 0.12............. 160.
        bis(2- 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        Ethylhexyl)phtha
        late.
        Ethyl 97-63-2 0.14............. 160.
        methacrylate.
        Ethylene oxide... 75-21-8 0.12............. 0.75.
        Famphur.......... 52-85-7 0.017............ 15.
        Fluoranthene..... 206-44-0 0.068............ 3.4.
        Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        Heptachlor....... 76-44-8 0.0012........... 0.066.
        Heptachlor 1024-57-3 0.016............ 0.066.
        epoxide.
        Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.055............ 10.
        Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
        ne.
        Hexachlorocyclope 77-47-4 0.057............ 2.4.
        ntadiene.
        [[Page 11752]]
        
        HxCDDs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
        Hexachlorodibenz
        o-p-dioxins).
        HxCDFs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
        Hexachlorodibenz
        ofurans).
        Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
        Hexachloropropyle 1888-71-7 0.035............ 30.
        ne.
        Indeno (1,2,3- 193-39-5 0.0055........... 3.4.
        c,d) pyrene.
        Iodomethane...... 74-88-4 0.19............. 65.
        Isobutyl alcohol. 78-83-1 5.6.............. 170.
        Isodrin.......... 465-73-6 0.021............ 0.066.
        Isosafrole....... 120-58-1 0.081............ 2.6.
        Kepone........... 143-50-8 0.0011........... 0.13.
        Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7 0.24............. 84.
        Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        Methapyrilene.... 91-80-5 0.081............ 1.5.
        Methoxychlor..... 72-43-5 0.25............. 0.18.
        3- 56-49-5 0.0055........... 15.
        Methylcholanthre
        ne.
        4,4-Methylene 101-14-4 0.50............. 30.
        bis(2-
        chloroaniline).
        Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
        chloride.
        Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
        ketone.
        Methyl isobutyl 108-10-1 0.14............. 33.
        ketone.
        Methyl 80-62-6 0.14............. 160.
        methacrylate.
        Methyl 66-27-3 0.018............ 4.6.
        methansulfonate.
        Methyl parathion. 298-00-0 0.014............ 4.6.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        2-Naphthylamine.. 91-59-8 0.52............. 15.
        p-Nitroaniline... 100-01-6 0.028............ 28.
        Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
        5-Nitro-o- 99-55-8 0.32............. 28.
        toluidine.
        p-Nitrophenol.... 100-02-7 0.12............. 29.
        N- 55-18-5 0.40............. 28.
        Nitrosodiethylam
        ine.
        N- 62-75-9 0.40............. 2.3.
        Nitrosodimethyla
        mine.
        N-Nitroso-di-n- 924-16-3 0.40............. 17.
        butylamine.
        N- 10595-95-6 0.40............. 2.3.
        Nitrosomethyleth
        ylamine.
        N- 59-89-2 0.40............. 2.3.
        Nitrosomorpholin
        e.
        N- 100-75-4 0.013............ 35.
        Nitrosopiperidin
        e.
        N- 930-55-2 0.013............ 35.
        Nitrosopyrrolidi
        ne.
        Parathion........ 56-38-2 0.014............ 4.6.
        Total PCBs (sum 1336-36-3 0.10............. 10.
        of all PCB
        isomers, or all
        Aroclors).
        Pentachlorobenzen 608-93-5 0.055............ 10.
        e.
        PeCDDs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
        Pentachlorodiben
        zo-p-dioxins).
        PeCDFs (All NA 0.000035......... 0.001.
        Pentachlorodiben
        zofurans).
        Pentachloronitrob 82-68-8 0.055............ 4.8.
        enzene.
        Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.089............ 7.4.
        Phenacetin....... 62-44-2 0.081............ 16.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Phorate.......... 298-02-2 0.021............ 4.6.
        Phthalic 85-44-9 0.055............ 28.
        anhydride.
        Pronamide........ 23950-58-5 0.093............ 1.5.
        Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
        Safrole.......... 94-59-7 0.081............ 22.
        Silvex (2,4,5-TP) 93-72-1 0.72............. 7.9.
        2,4,5-T.......... 93-76-5 0.72............. 7.9.
        1,2,4,5- 95-94-3 0.055............ 14.
        Tetrachlorobenze
        ne.
        TCDDs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
        Tetrachlorodiben
        zo-p-dioxins).
        [[Page 11753]]
        
        TCDFs (All NA 0.000063......... 0.001.
        Tetrachlorodiben
        zofurans).
        1,1,2,2- 630-20-6 0.057............ 6.0.
        Tetrachloroethan
        e.
        1,1,2,2- 79-34-6 0.057............ 6.0.
        Tetrachloroethan
        e.
        Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
        ne.
        2,3,4,6- 58-90-2 0.030............ 7.4.
        Tetrachloropheno
        l.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        Toxaphene........ 8001-35-2 0.0095........... 2.6.
        Bromoform 75-25-2 0.63............. 15.
        (Tribromomethane
        ).
        1,2,4- 120-82-1 0.055............ 19.
        Trichlorobenzene.
        1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        1,1,2- 79-00-5 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloromonofluo 75-69-4 0.020............ 30.
        romethane.
        2,4,5- 95-95-4 0.18............. 7.4.
        Trichlorophenol.
        2,4,6- 88-06-2 0.035............ 7.4.
        Trichlorophenol.
        1,2,3- 96-18-4 0.85............. 30.
        Trichloropropane.
        1,1,2-Trichloro- 76-13-1 0.057............ 30.
        1,2,2-
        trifluoroethane.
        tris(2,3- 126-72-7 0.11............. 0.10.
        Dibromopropyl)
        phosphate.
        Vinyl chloride... 75-01-4 0.27............. 6.0.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sum of
        o-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1 mg/l TCLP.
        Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6 mg/l TCLP.
        Beryllium........ 7440-41-7 0.82............. 0.014 mg/l TCLP.
        Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        Fluoride......... 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        Sulfide.......... 8496-25-8 14............... NA.
        Thallium......... 7440-28-0 1.4.............. 0.078 mg/l TCLP.
        Vanadium......... 7440-62-2 4.3.............. .023.
        
        *
        
        K006............ Wastewater treatment Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        sludge from the Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37mg/l TCLP.
        production of chrome
        oxide green pigments
        (anhydrous).
        
        Wastewater treatment Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        sludge from the Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37mg/l TCLP.
        production of chrome
        oxide green pigments
        (hydrated).
        
        *
        
        K018............ Heavy ends from the Chloroethane..... 75-00-3 0.27............. 6.0.
        fractionation column Chloromethane.... 74-87-3 0.19............. 30.
        in ethyl chloride 1,1- 75-34-3 0.059............ 6.0.
        production.. Dichloroethane.
        1,2- 107-06-2 0.21............. 6.0.
        Dichloroethane.
        Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.055............ 10.
        Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
        ne.
        Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
        Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 0.055............ 6.0.
        1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        
        K019............ Heavy ends from the bis(2- 111-44-4 0.033............ 6.0.
        distillation of Chloroethyl)ethe 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
        ethylene dichloride r. 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
        in ethylene Chlorobenzene....
        dichloride production. Chloroform.......
        p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090............ 6.0.
        1,2- 107-06-2 0.21............. 6.0.
        Dichloroethane.
        [[Page 11754]]
        
        Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4
        Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        1,2,4,5- 95-94-3 0.055............ 14.
        Tetrachlorobenze
        ne.
        Tetrachlorothylen 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
        e.
        1,2,4- 120-82-1 0.055............ 19.
        Tetrachlorobenze
        ne.
        1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0
        Trichloroethane.
        
        *
        K028............ Spent catalyst from 1,1- 75-34-3 0.059............ 6.0.
        the hydrochlorinator Dichloroethane.
        reactor in the
        production of 1,1,1-
        trichloroethane.
        trans-1,2- 156-60-5 0.054............ 30.
        Dichloroethylene.
        Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
        ne.
        Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
        Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 0.055............ 6.0.
        1,1,1,2- 630-20-6 0.057............ 6.0.
        Tetrachloroethan
        e.
        1,1,2,2- 79-34-6 0.057............ 6.0.
        Tetrachloroethan
        e.
        Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
        ne.
        1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        1,1,2- 79-00-5 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        K030............ Column bodies or heavy o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
        ends from the p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.090............ 6.0.
        combined production Hexachlorobutadie 87-68-3 0.055............ 5.6.
        of trichloroethylene ne.
        and perchloroethylene.
        Hexachloroethane. 67-72-1 0.055............ 30.
        Hexachloropropyle 1888-71-7 0.035............ 30.
        ne.
        Pentachlorobenzen 608-93-5 0.055............ 10.
        e.
        Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 0.055............ 6.0.
        1,2,4,5- 95-94-3 0.055............ 14.
        Tetrachlorobenze
        ne.
        Tetrachloroethyle 127-18-4 0.056............ 6.0.
        ne.
        1,2,4- 120-82-1 0.055............ 19.
        Trichlorobenzene.
        
        *
        
        K035............ Wastewater treatment Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        sludges generated in
        the production of
        creosote.
        Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        Benz (a) 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
        anthracene.
        Benzo (a) pyrene. 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
        m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        p-cresol).
        p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        m-cresol).
        Dibenz(a,h)- 53-70-3 0.055............ 8.2.
        anthracene.
        Fluoranthene..... 206-44-0 0.068............ 3.4.
        Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.068............ 3.4.
        Indeno(1,2,3- 193-39-5 0.0055........... 3.4.
        cd)pyrene.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        
        *
        
        K048............ Dissolved air Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        flotation (DAF) float
        from the petroleum
        refining industry.
        Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        phthalate.
        Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        [[Page 11755]]
        
        Di-n-butyl 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-33 0.080............ 10.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sum of
        o-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        
        K049............ Slop oil emulsion Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        solids from the
        petroleum refining
        industry.
        Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        phthalate.
        Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
        Chrysene......... 2218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        2,4- 105-67-9 0.036............ 14.
        Dimethylphenol.
        Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sum of
        o-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.96............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        
        K050............ Heat exchanger bundle Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4
        cleaning sludge from
        the petroleum
        refining industry.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        
        K051............ API separator sludge Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        from the petroleum
        refining industry.
        Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
        Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        phthalate.
        Chrysene......... 2218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        Di-n-butyl 105-67-9 0.057............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.08............. 10.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sum of
        0-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        [[Page 11756]]
        
        K052............ Tank bottoms (leaded) Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        from the petroleum Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        refining industry.
        o-Cresol......... 95-48-7 0.11............. 5.6.
        m-Cresol 108-39-4 0.77............. 5.6.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        p-cresol).
        p-Cresol 106-44-5 0.77............. 5.6.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        m-cresol).
        2,4- 105-67-9 0.036............ 14.
        Dimethylphenol.
        Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.08............. 10.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sum of
        o-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        K061............ Emission control dust/ Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1 mg/l TCLP.
        sludge from the Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        primary production of Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6 mg/l TCLP.
        steel in electric
        furnaces.
        Beryllium........ 7440-41-7 0.82............. 0.014 mg/l TCLP.
        Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
        Thallium......... 7440-28-0 1.4.............. 0.078 mg/l TCLP.
        Zinc............. 7440-66-6 2.61............. 5.3 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        K083............ Distillation bottoms Aniline.......... 62-53-3 0.81............. 14.
        from aniline Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        production.
        Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        Diphenylamine 122-39-4 0.92............. 13.
        (difficult to
        distinguish from
        diphenylnitrosam
        ine).
        Diphenylnitrosami 86-30-6 0.92............. 13.
        ne (difficult to
        distinguish from
        diphenylamine).
        Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        K086............ Solvent wastes and Acetone.......... 67-64-1 0.28............. 160.
        sludges, caustic Acetophenone..... 96-86-2 0.010............ 9.7.
        washes and sludges, bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 0.28............. 28.
        or water washes and phthalate. 71-36-3 5.6..............
        sludges from cleaning n-Butyl alcohol.. 2.6.
        tubs and equipment
        used in the
        formulation of ink
        from pigments,
        driers, soaps, and
        stabilizers
        containing chromium
        and lead.
        Butylbenzyl 85-68-7 0.017............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Cyclohexanone.... 108-94-1 0.36............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ .6.0
        Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 0.20............. 28.
        Dimethyl 131-11-3 0.047............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Di-n-butyl 84-74-2 0.057............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Di-n-octyl 117-84-0 0.017............ 28.
        phthalate.
        Ethyl acetate.... 141-78-6 0.34............. 33.
        Ethylbenzene..... 100-41-4 0.057............ 10.
        [[Page 11757]]
        
        Methanol......... 67-56-1 5.6.............. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
        Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
        ketone.
        Methyl isobutyl 108-10-1 0.14............. 33.
        ketone.
        Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
        chloride.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Nitrobenzene..... 98-95-3 0.068............ 14.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        1,1,1- 71-55-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Trichloroethane.
        Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.054............ 6.0.
        Xylenes-mixed 1330-20-7 0.32............. 30.
        isomers (sun of
        o-, m-, and p-
        xylene
        concentrations).
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        K088............ Spent potliners from Acenaphthene..... 83-32-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        primary aluminum Anthracene....... 120-12-7 0.059............ 3.4.
        reduction.
        Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059............ 3.4.
        Benzo(a)pyrene... 50-32-8 0.061............ 3.4.
        Benzo(b)fluoranth 205-99-2 0.11............. 6.8.
        ene.
        Benzo(k)fluoranth 207-08-9 0.11............. 6.8.
        ene.
        Benzo(g,h,i)peryl 191-24-2 0.0055........... 1.8.
        ene.
        Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059............ 3.4.
        Dibenz(a,h)anthra 53-70-3 0.055............ 8.2.
        cene.
        Fluoranthene..... 206-44-0 0.068............ 3.4.
        Indeno(1,2,3,- 193-39-5 0.0055........... 3.4.
        c,d)pyrene.
        Phenanthrene..... 85-01-8 0.059............ 5.6.
        Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067............ 8.2.
        Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1.
        Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0.
        Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6.
        Beryllium........ 7440-41-7 0.82............. 0.014.
        Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19.
        Chromium (Total). 7440-47-3 2.77............. 0.86.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37.
        Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0.
        Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16.
        Silver........... 7440-22-4 0.43............. 0.30.
        Cyanide (Total).. 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        Cyanide 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable).
        Fluoride......... 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
        
        *
        
        K101............ Distillation tar o-Nitroaniline... 88-74-4 0.27............. 14.
        residues from the Arsenic.......... 7440-38--2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        distillation of Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        aniline-based Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        compounds in the
        production of
        veterinary
        pharmaceuticals from
        arsenic or organo-
        arsenic compounds.
        Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
        
        K102............ Residue from the use o-Nitrophenol.... 88-75-5 0.028............ 13.
        of activated carbon Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        for decolorization in Cadmium.......... 7440-43-9 0.69............. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
        the production of
        veterinary
        pharmaceuticals from
        arsenic or organo-
        arsenic compounds.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Mercury.......... 7439-97-6 0.15............. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        K-140........... Waste solids and 2,4,6- 118-79-6 0.035............ 7.4
        filter cartridges Tribromophenol. 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        from the production Tolurene.........
        of 2,4,6-
        tribromophenol.
        
        [[Page 11758]]
        
        *
        
        K156............ Organic waste Acetonitrile..... 75-05-8 5.6.............. 1.8.
        (including heavy Acetophenone..... 96-86-2 0.010............ 9.7.
        ends, still bottoms, Aniline.......... 62-53-3 0.81............. 14.
        light ends, spent Benomyl.......... 17804-35-2 0.056............ 1.4.
        solvents, filtrates,
        and decantates) from
        the production of
        carbamates and
        carbamoyl oximes.
        Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        Carbaryl......... 63-25-2 0.006............ 0.14.
        Carbenzadim...... 10605-21-7 0.056............ 1.4.
        Carbofuran....... 1563-66-2 0.006............ 0.14.
        Carbosulfan...... 55285-14-8 0.028............ 1.4.
        Chlorobenzene.... 108-90-7 0.057............ 6.0.
        Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
        o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.088............ 6.0.
        Methomyl......... 16752-77-5 0.028............ 0.14.
        Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
        chloride.
        Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
        ketone.
        Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059............ 5.6.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        Triethylamine.... 121-44-8 0.081............ 1.5.
        K157............ Wastewaters (including Carbon 56-23-5 0.057............ 6.0.
        
        scrubber waters, tetrachloride. 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
        condenser waters, Chloroform....... 74-87-3 0.19............. 30.
        washwaters, and Chloromethane.... 16752-77-5 0.028............ 0.14.
        separation waters) Methomyl.........
        from the production
        of carbamates and
        carbamoly oximes.
        Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
        chloride.
        Methyl ethyl 78-93-3 0.28............. 36.
        ketone.
        o- 95-54-5 0.056............ 5.6.
        Phenylenediamine.
        Pyridine......... 110-86-1 0.014............ 16.
        Triethylamine.... 121-44-8 0.081............ 1.5.
        
        K158............ Bag house dusts and Benomyl.......... 17804-35-2 0.056............ 1.4.
        filter/separation Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        solids from the Carbenzadim...... 10605-21-7 0.056............ 1.4.
        production of
        carbamates and
        carbamoly oximes.
        Carbofuran....... 1563-66-2 0.006............ 0.14.
        Carbosulfan...... 55285-14-8 0.028............ 1.4.
        Chloroform....... 67-66-3 0.046............ 6.0.
        Methylene 75-09-2 0.089............ 30.
        chloride.
        Phenol........... 108-95-2 0.039............ 6.2.
        
        K159............ Organics from the Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14............. 10.
        treatment of Butylate......... 2008-41-5 0.003............ 1.5.
        thiocarbamate wastes.
        EPTC (Eptam)..... 759-94-4 0.003............ 1.4.
        Molinate......... 2212-67-1 0.003............ 1.4.
        Pebulate......... 1114-71-2 0.003............ 1.4.
        Vemolate......... 1929-77-7 0.003............ 1.4.
        
        K160............ Solids (including Butylate......... 2008-41-5 0.003............ 1.5.
        filter wastes, EPTC (Eptam)..... 759-94-4 0.003............ 1.4.
        separation solids, Molinate......... 2212-67-1 0.003............ 1.4.
        and spent catalysts) Pebulate......... t1114-71-2 0.003............ 1.4.
        from the production
        of thiocarabamates
        and solids from the
        treatment of
        thiocarbamate wastes.
        Toluene.......... 108-88-3 0.080............ 10.
        Vemolate......... 1929-77-7 0.003............ 1.4.
        
        K161............ Purification solids Antimony......... 7440-36-0 1.9.............. 2.1 mg/l TCLP.
        (including Arsenic.......... 7440-38-2 1.4.............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        filtration, Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 3.8.............. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
        evaporation, and Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        centrifugation (total).
        solids), baghouse
        dust and floor
        sweepings from the
        production of
        dithiocarbamate acids
        and their salts.
        Lead............. 7439-92-1 0.69............. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
        Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98............. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
        Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
        
        *
        
        P003............ Acrolein.............. Acrolein......... 107-02-8 0.29............. 2.8.
        
        [[Page 11759]]* * * * * *
        *
        
        P013............ Barium cyanide........ Barium........... 7440-39-3 1.2.............. 7.6 mg/l TCLP.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 1.2.............. 590.
        (Total)\7\.
        Cyanides 57-12-5 0.86............. 30.
        (Amenable)\7\.
        
        *
        
        P056............ Fluorine.............. Fluoride 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
        (measured in
        wastewaters
        only).
        
        *
        
        P127............ Carbofuran............ Carbofuran....... 1563-66-2 0.006............ 0.14.
        P128............ Mexacarbate........... Mexacarbate...... 315-18-4 0.056............ 1.4.
        P185............ Tirpate............... Tirpate.......... 26419-73-8 0.056............ 0.28.
        P188............ Physostigmine Physostigmine 57-64-7 0.056............ 1.4.
        salicylate. salicylate.
        
        P189............ Carbosulfan........... Carbosulfan...... 55285-14-8 0.028............ 1.4.
        P190............ Metolcarb............. Metolcarb........ 1129-41-5 0.056............ 1.4.
        P191............ Dimetilan............. Dimetilan........ 644-64-4 0.056............ 1.4.
        P192............ Isolan................ Isolan........... 119-38-0 0.056............ 1.4.
        P194............ Oxamyl................ Oxamyl........... 23135-22-0 0.056............ 0.28.
        P196............ Manganese Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        dimethyldithiocarbama (total).
        te.
        
        P197............ Formparanate.......... Formparanate..... 17702-57-7 0.056............ 1.4.
        P198............ Formetanate Formetanate 23422-53-9 0.056............ 1.4.
        hydrochloride. hydrochloride.
        
        P199............ Methiocarb............ Methiocarb....... 2032-65-7 0.056............ 1.4.
        P201............ Promecarb............. Promecarb........ 2631-37-0 0.056............ 1.4.
        P202............ m-Cumenyl m-Cumenyl 64-00-6 0.056............ 1.4.
        methylcarbamate. methylcarbamate.
        
        P203............ Aldicarb sulfone...... Aldicarb sulfone. 1646-88-4 0.056............ 0.28.
        P204............ Physostigmine......... Physostigmine.... 57-47-6 0.056............ 1.4.
        P205............ Ziram................. Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        *
        
        U038............ Chlorobenzilate....... Chlorobenzilate.. 510-15-6 0.10............. 6.6.
        
        *
        
        U042............ 2-Chloroethyl vinyl 2-Chloroethyl 110-75-8 0.062............ 5.6.
        ether. vinyl ether.
        
        U093............ p- p- 60-11-7 0.13............. 29.
        Dimethylaminoazobenze Dimethylaminoazo
        ne. benzene.
        
        *
        
        U134............ Hydrogen fluoride..... Fluoride 16964-48-8 35............... 48.
        (measured in
        wastewaters
        only).
        
        *
        
        U168............ 2-Naphthylamine....... 2-Naphthylamine.. 91-59-8 0.52............. 15.
        
        *
        
        U271............ Benomyl............... Benomyl.......... 17804-35-2 0.056............ 1.4.
        U277............ Sulfallate............ Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        U278............ Bendiocarb............ Bendiocarb....... 22781-23-3 0.056............ 1.4.
        U279............ Carbaryl.............. Carbaryl......... 63-25-2 0.006............ 0.14.
        U280............ Barban................ Barban........... 101-27-9 0.056............ 1.4.
        
        *
        
        U364............ Bendiocarb phenol..... Bendiocarb phenol 22961-82-6 0.056............ 1.4.
        U365............ Molinate.............. Molinate......... 2212-67-1 0.003............ 1.4.
        U366............ Dazomet............... Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        U367............ Carbofuran phenol..... Carbofuran phenol 1563-38-8 0.056............ 1.4.
        U372............ Carbendazim........... Carbendazim...... 10605-21-7 0.056............ 1.4.
        U373............ Propham............... Propham.......... 122-42-9 0.056............ 1.4.
        U375............ 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n- 3-Iodo-2-propynyl 55406-53-6 0.056............ 1.4.
        butylcarbamate. n-butylcarbamate.
        
        U376............ Selenium, tetrakis Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (dimethyldithiocarbam (total).
        ate).
        
        Selenium.............. Selenium......... 7782-49-2 0.82............. 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
        U377............ Potassium n- Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        methyldithiocarbamate. (total).
        
        U378............ Potassium n- Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        hydroxymethyl-n- (total).
        methyldithiocarbamate.
        
        U379............ Sodium Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        dibutyldithiocarbamat (total).
        e.
        [[Page 11760]]
        
        U381............ Sodium Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        diethyldithiocarbamat (total).
        e.
        
        U382............ Sodium Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        dimethyldithiocarbama (total).
        te.
        
        U383............ Potassium dimethyl Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        dithiocarbamate. (total).
        
        U384............ Metam Sodium.......... Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        U385............ Vemolate.............. Vemolate......... 1929-77-7 0.003............ 1.4.
        U386............ Cycloate.............. Cycloate......... 1134-23-2 0.003............ 1.4.
        U387............ Prosulfocarb.......... Prosulfocarb..... 52888-80-9 0.003............ 1.4.
        U389............ Triallate............. Triallate........ 2303-17-5 0.003............ 1.4.
        U390............ EPTC.................. EPTC............. 759-94-4 0.003............ 1.4.
        U391............ Pebulate.............. Pebulate......... 1114-71-2 0.003............ 1.4.
        U392............ Butylate.............. Butylate......... 2008-41-5 0.003............ 1.4.
        U393............ Copper Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        dimethyldithiocarbama (total).
        te.
        
        U394............ A2213................. A2213............ 30558-43-1 0.003............ 1.4.
        U395............ Diethylene glycol, Diethylene 5952-26-1 0.056............ 1.4.
        dicarbamate. glycol,
        dicarbamate.
        
        U396............ Ferbam................ Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        U400............ Bis(pentamethylene)thi Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        uram tetrasulfide. (total).
        
        U401............ Tetramethyl thiuram Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        monosulfide. (total).
        
        U402............ Tetrabutylthiuram Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        disulfide. (total).
        
        U403............ Disulfiram............ Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        U404............ Triethylamine......... Triethylamine.... 101-44-8 0.081............ 1.5.
        U407............ Ethyl Ziram........... Dithiocarbamates 137-30-4 0.028............ 28.
        (total).
        
        U408............ 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.. 2,4,6- 118-79-6 0.035............ 7.4.
        Tribromophenol.
        
        U409............ Thiophanate-methyl.... Thiophanate- 23564-05-8 0.056............ 1.4.
        methyl.
        
        U410............ Thiodicarb............ Thiodicarb....... 59669-26-0 0.019............ 1.4.
        U411............ Propoxur.............. Propoxur......... 114-26-1 0.056............ 1.4.
        
        \1\The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261.
        Descriptions of treatment/regulatory subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between
        applicability of different standards.
        
        \2\CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a
        combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
        \3\Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.
        \4\All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in
        detail in 40 CFR 268.42, Table 1--Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.
        \5\Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards
        expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in
        accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265, subpart O, or based upon
        combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A
        facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All
        concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.
        
        \6\Where an alternate treatment standard or set of alternate standards has been indicated, a facility may comply
        with this alternate standard, but only for the Treatment/Regulatory Subcategory or physical form (i.e.,
        wastewater and/or nonwastewater) specified for that alternate standard.
        
        \7\Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or
        9012, found in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'', EPA Publication SW-846,
        as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of 1
        hour and 15 minutes.
        
        Note: NA means not applicable.
        
        19. Section 268.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
        follows:
        
        Sec. 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.
        
        (a) Where the treatment standard is expressed as a concentration in
        a waste or waste extract and a waste cannot be treated to the specified
        level, or where the treatment technology is not appropriate to the
        waste, the generator or treatment facility may petition the
        Administrator for a variance from the treatment standard. The
        petitioner must demonstrate that because the physical or chemical
        properties of the waste differs significantly from wastes analyzed in
        developing the treatment standard, the waste cannot be treated to
        specified levels or by the specified methods. The petitioner may also
        demonstrate that it is treating underlying hazardous constituents in
        characteristically hazardous wastewaters by sending the waste to a
        properly designed and operated BAT/PSES system, which may not be
        achieving the treatment standards found in Sec. 268.48.
        
        * * * *
        
        In subpart D, Sec. 268.48, the table in paragraph (a) is
        revised to read as follows:
        
        (a) * * *
        
        Sec. 268.48 Universal Treatment Standards.
        
        [[Page 11761]]
        Sec. 268.48 Table UTS--Universal Treatment Standards
        
        Wastewater Nonwastewater
        standard standard
        ---------------------------------------
        Regulated constituent/common name CAS\1\ No. Concentration in mg/
        Concentration kg\3\ unless noted as
        in mg/l\2\ ``mg/l TCLP''
        
        A2213................................................... 30558-43-1 0.003 1.4
        Acenaphthylene.......................................... 208-96-8 0.059 3.4
        Acenaphthene............................................ 83-32-9 0.059 3.4
        Acetone................................................. 67-64-1 0.28 160
        Acetonitrile............................................ 75-05-8 5.6 1.8
        Acetophenone............................................ 96-86-2 0.010 9.7
        2-Acetylaminofluorene................................... 53-96-3 0.059 140
        Acrolein................................................ 107-02-8 0.29 NA
        Acrylamide.............................................. 79-06-1 19 23
        Acrylonitrile........................................... 107-13-1 0.24 84
        
        Aldicarb sulfone........................................ 1646-88-4 0.056 0.28
        Aldrin.................................................. 309-00-2 0.021 0.066
        4-Aminobiphenyl......................................... 92-67-1 0.13 NA
        Aniline................................................. 62-53-3 0.81 14
        
        Anthracene.............................................. 120-12-7 0.059 3.4
        Aramite................................................. 140-57-8 0.36 NA
        
        alpha-BHC............................................... 319-84-6 0.00014 0.066
        beta-BHC................................................ 319-85-7 0.00014 0.066
        delta-BHC............................................... 319-86-8 0.023 0.066
        gamma-BHC............................................... 58-89-9 0.0017 0.066
        Barban.................................................. 101-27-9 0.056 1.4
        Bendiocarb.............................................. 22781-23-3 0.056 1.4
        Bendiocarb phenol....................................... 22961-82-6 0.056 1.4
        Benomyl................................................. 17804-35-2 0.056 1.4
        Benzene................................................. 71-43-2 0.14 10
        
        Benz(a)thracene......................................... 56-55-3 0.059 3.4
        Benzal choride.......................................... 98-87-3 0.055 6.0
        Benzo(b)florathene (difficult to distingush from 205-99-2 0.11 6.8
        benzo(k)fluoranthene).
        
        Benzo(k)fluorathene (difficult to distinguish from 207-08-9 0.11 6.8
        benzo(b)fluoranthene.
        
        Benzo(g,h,i)perylene.................................... 191-24-2 0.0055 1.8
        Benzo(a)pyrene.......................................... 50-32-8 0.061 3.4
        Bromodichloromethane.................................... 75-27-4 0.35 15
        Bromomethane/Methyl bromide............................. 74-83-9 0.11 15
        4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.............................. 101-55-3 0.055 15
        
        n-Butyl alcohol......................................... 71-36-3 5.6 2.6
        Butylate................................................ 2008-41-5 0.003 1.4
        Butyle benzyl phthalate................................. 85-68-7 0.017 28
        
        2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol/Dinoseb................... 88-85-7 0.066 2.5
        Carbaryl................................................ 63-25-2 0.006 0.14
        Carbenzadim............................................. 10605-21-7 0.056 1.4
        Carbofuran.............................................. 1563-66-2 0.006 0.14
        Carbofuran phenol....................................... 1563-38-8 0.056 1.4
        Carbon disulfide........................................ 75-15-0 3.8 4.8 mg/l TCLP
        Carbon tetrachloride.................................... 56-23-5 0.057 6.0
        Carbosulfan............................................. 55285-14-8 0.028 1.4
        Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)..................... 57-74-9 0.0033 0.26
        p-Chloroaniline......................................... 106-47-8 0.46 16
        
        Chlorobenzene........................................... 108-90-7 0.057 6.0
        Chlorobenzilate......................................... 510-15-6 0.10 NA
        
        2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene.................................. 126-99-8 0.057 0.28
        Chlorodibromomethane.................................... 124-48-1 0.057 15
        
        Choroethane............................................. 75-00-3 0.27 6.0
        bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane.............................. 111-91-1 0.036 7.2
        bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether................................. 111-44-4 0.033 6.0
        Chloroform.............................................. 67-66-3 0.046 6.0
        bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether............................. 39638-32-9 0.055 7.2
        p-Chloro-m-cresol....................................... 59-50-7 0.018 14
        2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether............................... 110-75-8 0.062 NA
        Chloromethane/Methyl chloride........................... 74-87-3 0.19 30
        
        2-Chloronaphthalene..................................... 91-58-7 0.055 5.6
        2-Chlorophenol.......................................... 95-57-8 0.044 5.7
        3-Chloropropylene....................................... 107-05-1 0.036 30
        
        Chrysene................................................ 218-01-9 0.059 3.4
        o-Cresol................................................ 95-48-7 0.11 5.6
        m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol)....... 108-39-4 0.77 5.6
        p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol)....... 106-44-5 0.77 5.6
        m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate............................... 64-00-6 0.056 1.4
        [[Page 11762]]
        
        Cycloate................................................ 1134-23-2 0.003 1.4
        Cyclohexanone........................................... 108-94-1 0.36 0.75 mg/l TCLP
        o,p'-DDD................................................ 53-19-0 0.023 0.087
        p,p'-DDD................................................ 72-54-8 0.023 0.087
        o,p'-DDE................................................ 3424-82-6 0.031 0.087
        p,p'-DDE................................................ 72-55-9 0.031 0.087
        o,p'-DDT................................................ 789-02-6 0.0039 0.087
        p,p'-DDT................................................ 50-29-3 0.0039 0.087
        Dibenz(a,h)anthracene................................... 53-70-3 0.055 8.2
        Dibenz(a,e)pyrene....................................... 192-65-4 0.061 NA
        1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane............................. 96-12-8 0.11 15
        1,2-Dibromoethane/Ethylene dibromide.................... 106-93-4 0.028 15
        Dibromomethane.......................................... 74-95-3 0.11 15
        
        m-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 541-73-1 0.036 6.0
        o-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 95-50-1 0.088 6.0
        p-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 106-46-7 0.090 6.0
        Dichlorodifluoromethane................................. 75-71-8 0.23 7.2
        1,1-Dichloroethane...................................... 75-34-3 0.059 6.0
        1,2-Dichloroethane...................................... 107-06-2 0.21 6.0
        1,1-Dichloroethylene.................................... 75-35-4 0.025 6.0
        trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene.............................. 156-60-5 0.054 30
        2,4-Dichlorophenol...................................... 120-83-2 0.044 14
        2,6-Dichlorophenol...................................... 87-65-0 0.044 14
        2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4-D.................... 94-75-7 0.72 10
        1,2-Dichloropropane..................................... 78-87-5 0.85 18
        cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene............................... 10061-01-5 0.036 18
        trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene............................. 10061-02-6 0.036 18
        
        Dieldrin................................................ 60-57-1 0.017 0.13
        Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate.......................... 5952-26-1 0.056 1.4
        Diethyl phthalate....................................... 84-66-2 0.20 28
        p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene............................... 60-11-7 0.13 NA
        2-4-Dimethyl phenol..................................... 105-67-9 0.036 14
        Dimethyl phthalate...................................... 131-11-3 0.047 28
        
        Dimetilan............................................... 644-64-4 0.056 1.4
        Di-n-butyl phthalate.................................... 84-74-2 0.057 28
        
        1,4-Dinitrobenzene...................................... 100-25-4 0.32 2.3
        4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol.................................... 534-52-1 0.28 160
        2,4-Dinitrophenol....................................... 51-28-5 0.12 160
        2,4-Dinitrotoluene...................................... 121-14-2 0.32 140
        2,6-Dinitrotoluene...................................... 606-20-2 0.55 28
        Di-n-octyl phthalate.................................... 117-84-0 0.017 28
        Di-n-propylnitrosamine.................................. 621-64-7 0.40 14
        
        1,4-Dioxane............................................. 123-91-1 0.22 170
        Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from 122-39-4 0.92 13
        diphenylnitrosamine).
        Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from 86-30-6 0.92 13
        diphenylamine).
        1,2-Dephenylhydrazine................................... 122-66-7 0.087 NA
        
        Disulfoton.............................................. 298-04-4 0.017 6.2
        Dithiocarbamates (total)................................ 137-30-4 0.028 28
        
        Endosulfan I............................................ 939-98-8 0.023 0.066
        Endosulfan II........................................... 33213-6-5 0.029 0.13
        Endosulfan sulfate...................................... 1-31-07-8 0.029 0.13
        Endrin.................................................. 72-20-8 0.0028 0.13
        Endrin aldehyde......................................... 7421-93-4 0.025 0.13
        EPTC.................................................... 759-94-4 0.003 1.4
        Ethyl acetate........................................... 141-78-6 0.34 33
        Ethyl benzene........................................... 100-41-4 0.057 10
        
        Ethyl cyanide/Propanenitrile............................ 107-12-0 0.24 360
        Ethyl ether............................................. 60-29-7 0.12 160
        bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate............................. 117-81-7 0.28 28
        
        Ethyl methacrylate...................................... 97-63-2 0.14 160
        Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8 0.12 NA
        Famphur................................................. 52-85-7 0.017 15
        
        Fluoranthene............................................ 206-44-0 0.068 3.4
        Fluorene................................................ 86-73-7 0.059 3.4
        Formetanate hydrochloride............................... 23422-53-9 0.056 1.4
        Formparanate............................................ 17702-57-7 0.056 1.4
        Heptachlor.............................................. 76-44-8 0.0012 0.066
        [[Page 11763]]
        
        Heptachlor epoxide...................................... 1024-57-3 0.016 0.066
        Hexachlorobenzene....................................... 118-74-1 0.055 10
        
        Hexachlorobutadiene..................................... 87-68-3 0.055 5.6
        Hexachlorocyclopentadiene............................... 77-47-4 0.057 2.4
        HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)................ NA 0.00063 0.001
        HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans).................... NA 0.00063 0.001
        Hexachloroethane........................................ 67-72-1 0.055 30
        Hexachloropropylene..................................... 1888-71-7 0.035 30
        
        Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene............................... 193-39-5 0.0055 3.4
        Iodomethane............................................. 74-88-4 0.19 65
        
        3-lodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate...................... 55406-53-6 0.056 1.4
        Isobutyl alcohol........................................ 78-83-1 5.6 170
        Isodrin................................................. 456-73-6 0.021 0.066
        Isolan.................................................. 119-38-0 0.056 1.4
        Isosafrole.............................................. 120-58-1 0.081 2.6
        Kepone.................................................. 143-50-8 0.0011 0.13
        Methacrylonitrile....................................... 126-98-7 0.24 84
        
        Methanol................................................ 67-56-1 5.6 0.75 mg/l TCLP
        Methapyrilene........................................... 91-80-5 0.081 1.5
        Methiocarb.............................................. 2032-65-7 0.056 1.4
        Methomyl................................................ 16752-77-5 0.028 0.14
        Methoxychlor............................................ 72-43-5 0.25 0.18
        3-Methylcholanthrene.................................... 56-49-5 0.0055 15
        4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)...................... 101-14-4 0.50 30
        Methylene chloride...................................... 75-09-2 0.089 30
        Methyl ethyl ketone..................................... 78-93-3 0.28 36
        Methyl isobutyl ketone.................................. 108-10-1 0.14 33
        
        Methyl methacrylate..................................... 80-62-6 0.14 160
        Methyl methansulfonate.................................. 66-27-3 0.018 NA
        
        Methyl parathion........................................ 298-00-0 0.014 4.6
        Metolcarb............................................... 1129-41-5 0.056 1.4
        Mexacarbate............................................. 315-18-4 0.056 1.4
        Molinate................................................ 2212-67-1 0.003 1.4
        Naphthalene............................................. 91-20-3 0.059 5.6
        2-Naphthylamine......................................... 91-59-8 0.52 NA
        o-Nitroaniline.......................................... 88-74-4 0.27 14
        p-Nitroaniline.......................................... 100-01-6 0.028 28
        Nitrobenzene............................................ 98-95-3 0.068 14
        5-Nitro-o-toluidine..................................... 99-55-8 0.32 28
        o-Nitrophenol........................................... 88-75-5 0.028 13
        p-Nitrophenol........................................... 100-02-7 0.12 29
        N-Nitrosodiethylamine................................... 55-18-5 0.40 28
        
        N-Nitrosodimethylamine.................................. 62-75-9 0.40 2.3
        N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine............................... 924-16-3 0.40 17
        
        N-Nitrosomethylethylamine............................... 10595-95-6 0.40 2.3
        N-Nitrosomorpholine..................................... 59-89-2 0.40 2.3
        N-Nitrosopiperidine..................................... 100-75-4 0.013 35
        N-Nitrosophyrrolidine................................... 930-55-2 0.013 35
        
        Oxamyl.................................................. 23135-22-0 0.056 0.28
        Parathion............................................... 56-38-2 0.014 4.6
        Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Aroclors).... 1336-36-3 0.10 10
        
        Pebulate................................................ 1114-71-2 0.003 1.4
        Pentachlorobenzene...................................... 608-93-5 0.055 10
        
        PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)............... NA 0.000063 0.001
        PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenyofurans)................... NA 0.000035 0.001
        Pentachloroethane....................................... 76-01-7 0.055 6.0
        Pentachloronitrobenzene................................. 82-68-8 0.055 4.8
        Pentachlorophenol....................................... 87-86-5 0.089 7.4
        Phenacetin.............................................. 62-44-2 0.081 16
        
        Phenanthrene............................................ 85-01-8 0.059 5.6
        Phenol.................................................. 108-95-2 0.039 6.2
        o-Phenylenediamine...................................... 95-54-5 0.056 5.6
        Phorate................................................. 298-02-2 0.021 4.6
        Phthalic acid........................................... 100-21-0 0.055 28
        Phthalic anhydribe...................................... 85-44-9 0.055 28
        
        Physostigmine........................................... 57-47-6 0.056 1.4
        Physostigmine salicylate................................ 57-64-7 0.056 1.4
        [[Page 11764]]
        
        Promecarb............................................... 2631-37-0 0.056 1.4
        Pronamide............................................... 23950-58-5 0.093 1.5
        Propham................................................. 122-42-9 0.056 1.4
        Propoxur................................................ 114-26-1 0.056 1.4
        Prosulfocarb............................................ 52888-80-9 0.003 1.4
        Pyrene.................................................. 129-00-0 0.067 8.2
        Pyridine................................................ 110-86-1 0.014 16
        Safrole................................................. 94-59-7 0.081 22
        
        Silvex/2,4,5-TP......................................... 93-72-1 0.72 7.9
        1,2,4,-5-Tetrachlorobenzene............................. 95-94-3 0.055 14
        
        TCDDs (All Tetrachlorobidenzo-p-dioxins)................ NA 0.000063 0.001
        TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).................... NA 0.000063 0.001
        1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane............................... 630-20-6 0.057 6.0
        1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................... 79-34-6 0.057 6.0
        Tetrachloroethylene..................................... 127-18-4 0.056 6.0
        2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol............................... 58-90-2 0.030 7.4
        Thiodicarb.............................................. 59669-26-0 0.019 1.4
        Thiophanate-methyl...................................... 23564-05-8 0.056 1.4
        Tirpate................................................. 26419-73-8 0.056 0.28
        Toluene................................................. 108-88-3 0.080 10
        
        Toxaphene............................................... 8001-35-2 0.0095 2.6
        Triallate............................................... 2303-17-5 0.003 1.4
        Tribromomethane/Bromoform............................... 75-25-2 0.63 15
        
        2,4,6-Tribromophenol.................................... 118-79-6 0.035 7.4
        1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.................................. 120-82-1 0.055 19
        
        1,1,1-Trichloroethane................................... 71-55-6 0.054 6.0
        1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................... 79-00-5 0.054 6.0
        Trichloroethylene....................................... 79-01-6 0.054 6.0
        Trichloromonofluoromethane.............................. 75-69-4 0.020 30
        
        2,4,5-Trichlorophenol................................... 95-95-4 0.18 7.4
        2,4,6-Tricholorphenol................................... 88-06-2 0.035 7.4
        2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4,5-T............... 93-76-5 0.72 7.9
        1,2,3-Trichloropropane.................................. 96-18-4 0.85 30
        1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane................... 76-13-1 0.057 30
        
        Triethylamine........................................... 101-44-8 0.081 1.5
        tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate...................... 126-72-7 0.11 0.10
        Vemolate................................................ 1929-77-7 0.003 1.4
        Vinyl chloride.......................................... 75-01-4 0.27 6.0
        Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene 1330-20-7 0.32 30
        concentrations).
        
        Antimony................................................ 7440-36-0 1.9 2.1 mg/l TCLP
        Arsenic................................................. 7440-38-2 1.4 5.0 mg/l TCLP
        Barium.................................................. 7440-39-3 1.2 7.6 mg/l TCLP
        Beryllium............................................... 7440-41-7 0.82 0.014 mg/l TCLP
        Cadmium................................................. 7440-43-9 0.69 0.19 mg/l TCLP
        Chromium (Total)........................................ 7440-47-3 2.77 0.86 mg/l TCLP
        Cyanides (Total)\4\..................................... 57-12-5 1.2 590
        Cyanides (Amenable)\4\.................................. 57-12-5 0.86 30
        Fluoride\5\............................................. 16964-48-8 35 NA
        
        Lead.................................................... 7439-92-1 0.69 0.37 mg/l TCLP
        Mercury-Nonwastewater from Retort....................... 7439-97-6 NA 0.20 mg/l TCLP
        Mercury-All Others...................................... 7439-97-6 0.15 0.025 mg/l TCLP
        Nickel.................................................. 7440-02-0 3.98 5.0 mg/l TCLP
        Selenium................................................ 7782-49-2 0.82 0.16 mg/l TCLP
        Silver.................................................. 7440-22-4 0.43 0.30 mg/l TCLP
        Sulfide................................................. 8496-25-8 14 NA
        
        Thallium................................................ 7440-28-0 1.4 0.078 mg/l TCLP
        Vanadium\5\............................................. 7440-62-2 4.3 0.23 mg/l TCLP
        Zinc\5\................................................. 7440-66-6 2.61 5.3 mg/l TCLP
        
        \1\CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a
        combination of a chemical with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
        
        \2\Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.
        \3\Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards
        expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in
        accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or
        based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical
        requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR
        268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.
        [[Page 11765]]
        
        \4\Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or
        9012, found in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'', EPA Publication SW-846,
        as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one
        hour and 15 minutes.
        
        \5\These constituents are not ``underlying hazardous constituents'' in characteristic wastes, according to the
        definition at Sec. 268.2(i).
        
        Note: NA means not applicable.
        
        21. Appendix XI is added to part 268 to read as follows:
        
        Appendix XI to Part 268.--Metal Bearing Wastes Prohibited From Dilution
        in a Combustion Unit According to 40 CFR 268.3(b)\1\
        
        Waste code Waste description
        
        D004............ Toxicity Characteristic for Arsenic.
        D005............ Toxicity Characteristic for Barium.
        
        D006............ Toxicity Characteristic for Cadmium.
        D007............ Toxicity Characteristic for Chromium.
        D008............ Toxicity Characteristic for Lead.
        
        D009............ Toxicity Characteristic for Mercury.
        D010............ Toxicity Characteristic for Selenium
        D011............ Toxicity Characteristic for Silver.
        
        F006............ Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
        operations except from the following processes: (1)
        sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating
        carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
        carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-plating on carbon
        steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin,
        zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6)
        chemical etching and milling of aluminum.
        F007............ Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from
        electroplating operations.
        
        F008............ Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths
        from electroplating operations where cyanides are
        used in the process.
        
        F009............ Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from
        electroplating operations where cyanides are used in
        the process.
        
        F010............ Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal
        treating operations where cyanides are used in the
        process.
        
        F011............ Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning
        from metal heat treating operations.
        F012............ Quenching waste water treatment sludges from metal
        heat treating operations where cyanides are used in
        the process.
        
        F019............ Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical
        conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium
        phosphating in aluminum car washing when such
        phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating
        process.
        
        K002............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
        chrome yellow and orange pigments.
        
        K003............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
        molybdate orange pigments.
        
        K004............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
        zinc yellow pigments.
        
        K005............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
        chrome green pigments.
        
        K006............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
        chrome oxide green pigments (anhydrous and hydrated).
        K007............ Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of
        iron blue pigments.
        
        K008............ Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green
        pigments.
        
        K061............ Emission control dust/sludge from the primary
        production of steel in electric furnaces.
        K069............ Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead
        smelting.
        
        K071............ Brine purification muds from the mercury cell
        processes in chlorine production, where separately
        prepurified brine is not used.
        
        K100............ Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emission
        control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
        K106............ Sludges from the mercury cell processes for making
        chlorine.
        P010............ Arsenic acid H_{3AsO_{4.
        P011............ Arsenic oxide As_{2O_{5.
        P012............ Arsenic trioxide.
        P013............ Barium cyanide.
        P015............ Beryllium.
        P029............ Copper cyanide Cu(CN).
        P074............ Nickel cyanide Ni(CN)_{2.
        P087............ Osmium tetroxide.
        P099............ Potassium silver cyanide.
        P104............ Silver cyanide.
        P113............ Thallic oxide.
        P114............ Thallium (l) selenite.
        P115............ Thallium (l) sulfate.
        P119............ Ammonium vanadate.
        P120............ Vanadium oxide V_{2O_{5.
        P121............ Zinc cyanide.
        U032............ Calcium chromate.
        U145............ Lead phosphate.
        U151............ Mercury.
        U204............ Selenious acid.
        U205............ Selenium disulfide.
        U216............ Thallium (I) chloride.
        U217............ Thallium (I) nitrate.}}}}}}}
        
        \1\A combustion unit is defined as any thermal technology subject to 40
        CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; and/or part 266, subpart
        H.
        
        [[Page 11766]]PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
        HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
        
        22. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as
        follows:
        
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
        
        23. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to
        Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal
        Register, and by adding the following entries to Table 2 in
        chronological order by effective date in the Federal Register:
        
        Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.
        
        * * * *
        
        (j) * * *
        
        Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste
        Amendments of 1984
        
        Federal
        
        Promulgation Title of regulation Register Effective date
        date reference
        
        * * *
        [Insert date of Land Disposal [Insert FR page [Insert date of
        publication of Restrictions Phase numbers of 90 days from
        final rule in III--Decharacterize final rule]. date of
        the Federal d Waste- waters, publication of
        Register (FR)]. Carbamate and final rule].
        Organobromine
        Wastes, and Spent
        Aluminum Potliners
        in Sec. 268.39.
        
        * * * *
        
        Table 2.--Self-Implementing Provisions of the Solid Waste Amendments of
        1984
        
        Federal
        
        Effective date Self-implementing RCRA citation Register
        provision reference
        
        * * *
        [Insert date 90 Prohibition on land 3004(g)(4) (C) [Insert date of
        days from date disposal of newly and 3004(m). publication of
        of publication listed and final rule] FR
        of final rule]. identified wastes.. [Insert FR
        page numbers].
        [Insert date 2 Prohibition on land
        years from date disposal of
        of publication radioactive waste
        of final rule]. mixed with the
        newly listed or
        identified wastes,
        including soil and
        debris.
        Ditto.
        3004(g)(4) (C) Ditto.
        and 3004 (m).
        
        * * * *
        
        [FR Doc. 95-4746 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
        BILLING CODE 6560-50-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Land Disposal Restrictions--Phase III Decharacterized: Federal Register: EPA

F........................................................ 0 558.13 17.55 330.24 436.82 0 33.31 3.08

Local Navigation