Deferral of Phase IV Standards for PCB's as a Constituent Subject to Treatment in Soil

[Federal Register: December 26, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 81373-81381]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26de00-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL-6921-5]
RIN 2050-AE76

Deferral of Phase IV Standards for PCB's as a Constituent Subject
to Treatment in Soil

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is temporarily deferring a portion of the rule applying
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) to constituents subject to treatment (CST) in soils
contaminated with certain characteristic hazardous wastes. EPA
promulgated this rule on May 26, 1998. Specifically, EPA is temporarily
deferring the requirement that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) be
considered a CST when they are present in soils that exhibit the
Toxicity Characteristic for metals. EPA is taking this action because
the regulation appears to be discouraging generators from cleaning up
contaminated soils, which is contrary to what EPA intended when we
promulgated alternative treatment standards for contaminated soils. In
addition, EPA needs more time to restudy the issue of appropriate
treatment standards for metal-contaminated soils which also contain
PCBs as CST. The Agency still requires generators to treat these soils
to meet LDR standards for all hazardous constituents except PCBs.
Generators also are required to treat PCBs if the total concentration
of halogenated organic compounds in the soil equals or exceeds 1000
parts per million.

DATES: This rule is effective December 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway One, 1235
Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. The docket
identification number is F-2000-PCBP-FFFFF.
The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is
recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703 603-
9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory
docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and
some supporting materials are available electronically. See the
``Supplementary Information'' section for information on accessing
them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For more detailed information on specific
aspects of this rulemaking, contact Ernesto Brown, Office of Solid
Waste, Mail Code 5303W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20460-0002, (703) 308-8608,
brown.ernie@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You can find the index and the following
supporting materials on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/ldr/index.htm

Preamble Outline

I. Authority
II. Background
A. Land Disposal Restrictions Program
B. Contaminated Soils
C. Alternative Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soils
D. Constituents Subject to Treatment
III. Need to Defer Portions of the Phase IV Rule
A. Why Has Remediation of Certain PCB-contaminated Soils Been
Impeded?
B. Why the Temporary Deferral?
C. What is the Effect of the Deferral?
IV. Analysis and Response to Comments
V. State Authorization
VI. Regulatory Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC
601 et seq.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. Congressional Review Act

I. Authority

These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections
1006(b), 2002, and 3004 of RCRA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6012(a),
6921, and 6924.

II. Background

A. Land Disposal Restrictions Program

The LDR program generally requires that generators of hazardous
wastes pretreat the wastes before they can be disposed of on land. The
treatment must substantially reduce the toxicity or mobility of the
hazardous waste to minimize short- and long-term threats to human
health and the environment posed by the waste's disposal. See RCRA
section 3004 (m)(1). EPA typically accomplishes this objective by
requiring that hazardous constituents in the wastes be treated to, or
be present at levels no greater than levels, set out in 40 CFR Part
268, reflecting performance of the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology for the waste. In addition to BDAT treatment levels, EPA
uses treatability variances (both risk-based and technology based), and
determination equivalency (see 40 CFR 268.42) for situations where the
treatment standard is specified as a method of treatment and other
technologies perform comparably to the specified method.

B. Contaminated Soils

Contaminated soils excavated during a remedial action, whether it
is conducted under RCRA, Superfund, or state authority, are subject to
the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) requirements when the soil contains
listed hazardous

[[Page 81374]]

waste or exhibits a hazardous characteristic, and when it is excavated
outside of a corrective action management unit (CAMU) or an area of
contamination (AOC). EPA's rules require that soils contamination with
hazardous waste(s) meet LDR requirements when a generator excavates
such soils and places them in a land disposal unit (See RCRA sections
3004(d)(3) and (e)(3) (requiring LDR requirements to apply to such
contaminated soils); 63 FR at 28602 (May 26, 1998)).\1\ The LDR
requirements specify constituent concentrations which must be met in
the treated soils, or in some cases particular technologies which must
be employed, prior to placement of the soils. Application of these
requirements to remedial actions has sometimes reduced the flexibility
needed to make site-specific remedial decisions, and thus sometimes
presented a barrier to cost-effective management of contaminated media.
(As explained in the following section, however, the special standards
for contaminated soils which EPA adopted in the Phase 4 rule should
alleviate some of these difficulties, since those standards can be
achieved without resort to combustion treatment technology.) While
there are alternatives to managing contaminated soils which mitigate
the burden of meeting these requirements (such as obtaining a
treatability variance once the LDRs are triggered), it has been EPA's
experience that the LDRs often have driven remedial decisions away from
excavating the soils in the first place. Under such circumstances,
facilities, may simply have deferred cleanup to a later date. In cases
where cleanup was still pursued, it was often the case that either
containment remedies have been employed (e.g., cap and cover in-place,
thereby avoiding the LDRs) or the soils have been treated in-situ
(which allows treatment without triggering LDRs). While containment and
in-situ treatment of soils offer management options which have
generally been less expensive than complying with the LDR requirements
for the media, they may not always result in the most environmentally
protective cleanup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Technically, the soils which are subject to LDRs, are (a)
soil which contains a listed hazardous waste, and (b) soil which
exhibits (or, in some cases, exhibited) a characteristic of
hazardous waste. See discussion at 63 FR 28617-28619. This action
applies to a subset of the second of these types of contaminated
soils, as explained later in this notice. This action also uses the
term ``contaminated soils'' to refer to soils which may potentially
be subject to LDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Alternative Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soils

EPA has long recognized the incentives and objectives for the
hazardous waste prevention and cleanup programs differ fundamentally.
EPA has developed extensive policies and regulations to preserve RCRA's
goal of protectiveness, while providing oversight agencies the tools
necessary to make effective site-specific remedial decisions. One such
regulation is the Phase IV LDR Rule (63 FR 28603-04). Promulgated in
May 26, 1998, the Phase IV LDR Rule established alternative soil
treatment standards, in part, to remedy the disincentives to
excavation/ex-situ treatment of soils which were created by application
of the LDRs in a remedial setting. In recognition of the physical and
chemical differences which often exist between as-generated waste and
contaminated soils, these standards require that contaminated soils
which will be land disposed be treated to reduce concentrations of
hazardous constituents by 90 percent or meet hazardous constituent
concentrations that are ten times the universal treatment standard
(UTS), whichever is greater. (See Louisiana Environmental Action
Network v. EPA, 172 F. 3d 65, 67, 70 (D.C. Cir. 1999) which upheld
EPA's authority to develop more lenient treatment standards for
contaminated soils and other remediation wastes in order to encourage
remediation involving exhumation and treatment of these wastes, since
``the agency's authority to compel high-quality disposition of such
wastes is not as great as it is for as yet undisposed waste.'') The
soil treatment standards apply to all underlying hazardous constituents
reasonably expected to be present in any given volume of contaminated
soil when such constituents are found at initial concentrations greater
than ten times the UTS (See 63 FR at 28608-28609; 40 CFR 268.49(d)).

D. Constituents Subject to Treatment

Importantly for the present rule, the existing standards further
require that generators treat all constituents subject to treatment
(CST) \2\ in contaminated soils. See 63 FR at 28608-09; 40 CFR
268.49(d). A constituent subject to treatment is any hazardous
constituent listed at 40 CFR 264.48 that might be present in the soil
at levels exceeding 10 times the UTS for that constituent. See 40 CFR
268.49(b). In the Phase IV rule, EPA imposed this requirement for the
first time on soils exhibiting the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for
metals, and on soils containing listed hazardous wastes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ In response to comments to the NPRM (February 16, 2000), the
Agency is using the term ``constituents subject to treatment''
defined in 40 CFR 268.49(d) instead of underlying hazardous
constituents which was used in the proposal. This is to avoid
confusing the term UHC defined in 40 CFR 268.2(i) with constituents
subject to treatment (a term EPA developed specifically for the
alternative treatment standard for contaminated soils, although CST
and UHC are essentially synonymous).
\3\ The requirement already applied, however, to soils
exhibiting the ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or organic
toxicity characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCBs can be an example of a CST in contaminated soils, including
metal-containing soils. Where this occurs, the Phase IV rule
establishes a treatment standard of 100 ppm total PCBs in soil (10
times the UTS) or 90 percent reduction of total PCB concentrations in
the soil, whichever is less stringent. See 40 CFR 268.49(c). EPA found
that generators can achieve these standards without applying combustion
technology, (see 63 FR at 28616 Table 4), although treatment often
requires that heat be applied to the waste, as occurs with thermal
desorption technology. The rules also provide another treatment option:
to treat soils to the standards applicable to process wastes, although
in that instance as well, soils that exhibit a hazardous characteristic
must achieve treatment standards for CSTs before they are land
disposed. 40 CFR 268.40(e). EPA found that generators can achieve these
standards without applying combustion technology, (see 63 FR at 28616
Table 4), although treatment often requires that heat be applied to the
waste, as occurs with thermal desorption technology.
RCRA also addresses PCBs in soils under Section 3004(d)(2)(E), the
so-called California list provision. This provision prohibits land
disposal of hazardous wastes that contain halogenated organic compounds
at concentrations equal to or exceeding 1000 ppm. Congress specified
this level (and the other California list levels) as a starting point
in the land disposal prohibition process, prohibiting land disposal of
wastes that pose the most obvious hazards. See 51 FR at 44718 (Dec. 11,
1986). PCBs are a type of halogenated organic compound. Consequently,
in the absence of the Phase IV PCB standards, the 1000 ppm statutory
level would be the upper bound of PCBs that could be in contaminated
soil without triggering LDR treatment requirements (i.e., contaminated
soils could not be land disposed equal to or greater than 1000 ppm
total HOCs all of which, in theory, could be PCBs).

[[Page 81375]]

III. Need to Defer Portions of the Phase IV Rule

A. Why Has Remediation of Certain PCB-Contaminated Soils Been Impeded?

Unfortunately, initial indications are that the requirement that
PCBs be treated as a CST in soils exhibiting the TC for metals is
having an effect opposite to what EPA intended. As EPA noted at
proposal, cleanups of sites with metal characteristic soils where PCBs
are now a CST and where the remedy was to involve soil exhumation,
treatment and redisposal have stopped, or been seriously delayed. See
Letter from Phillip Comella Esq. to Steven Silverman, EPA Office of
General Counsel, April 21, 1999 detailing experiences of private
entities, including waste generators, treaters and disposers;
Memorandum to Administrative Record, November 2, 1999 (detailing
experiences of EPA site managers). As set out in more detail in these
communications, the reason is that as a practical matter a choice is
now being presented between combustion and leaving soils in place. Some
of the reasons attributed for this are:

I. limited effective non-combustion treatment presently available
for PCBs, and what there is involves mobile units which face
potential permitting delays at non-Superfund sites.
II. lack of State authorization to implement the amended soil
standards, thus retaining PCBs as a CST, without the option of
treating to 10 times the Universal Treatment Standards or 90 percent
reduction from initial concentration.

Commenters acknowledge that at least some of these situations could
be eligible for a treatment variance under 40 CFR 268.44. Such
variances can be requested when a standard is demonstrably not
achievable using non-combustion technology, or when treatment to LDR
levels would discourage aggressive remediation. See LEAN v. EPA, 172 F.
3d at 70 (upholding EPA authority to issue treatment variances for
remediation wastes where existing treatment standard discourages
aggressive remediation). But there are undesirable delays attendant in
the variance process, and EPA in any case believes that if a problem
with a rule is widespread, it is appropriate to amend the rule rather
than issuing variances piecemeal.
Commenters to the proposed rule reiterated that cleanups of TC
metal soils containing PCBs is being impeded, but provided no
additional empirical information in support.
EPA does not necessarily agree with all of these comments, but does
believe that remediations involving TC soils contaminated with both
PCBs and metals are being delayed or stopped. This situation has taken
place after promulgation of the new Phase IV requirements respecting
these soils, and, as indicated at proposal, it appears that at least
some of the reasons for these delays are legitimately attributable to
the new requirements in the Phase IV rule. Commenters all supported
this overall conclusion (albeit anecdotally rather than empirically).
Thus, this aspect of the Phase IV rule appears at least potentially to
be having an environmentally counterproductive effect of delaying
cleanups and discouraging aggressive remediation.

B. Why the Temporary Deferral?

EPA believes it is appropriate to temporarily defer the requirement
that PCBs be treated as an CST in TC soils under RCRA 1006(b) in order
to investigate how best to integrate the RCRA LDR requirements for PCBs
with the cleanup programs under Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA (both the specific
``corrective action'' requirements of RCRA 3004(u) and (v) and 3008(h),
and the cleanup requirements applying to RCRA regulated units, e.g.,
during closure).
Another reason is to provide EPA an opportunity to investigate
further the relationship between the RCRA rules and those under the
authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for PCB
remediation wastes. See 63 FR 35384 (June 29, 1998). TSCA allows ``bulk
PCB remediation wastes'' including soils containing 50 ppm PCBs or
greater to be disposed without treatment in a TSCA disposal facility or
an RCRA subtitle C landfill. See 40 CFR 761.61(b)(2)(i). These TSCA
standards, which allow disposal without treatment of soils containing
any concentrations of PCBs greater or equal to 50 ppm, were not
established to represent levels at which threats posed by land disposal
of PCB-containing soils are minimized. Furthermore, those rules require
persons disposing of PCBs to comply with all other applicable Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations, and should not be read as
overriding applicable RCRA requirements. Nonetheless, the TSCA rules
serves a similar purpose as the RCRA Phase IV rule--an attempt to
encourage aggressive remediation of contaminated soil (see 63 FR at
35409) and reflects the Agency's judgment that land disposal of these
soils is reasonably protective.
Under RCRA the standard set forth by Congress for the LDR program
was to ``* * * promulgate regulations specifying those levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term
threats to human health and the environment are minimized.'' See 42
U.S.C. 6924(m). Under TSCA Congress authorized EPA to prescribe methods
for the disposal of PCBs so long as they do not ``present an
unreasonable risk to health or the environment.'' See 15 U.S.C.
2605(e). TSCA also explicitly requires EPA to consider economic impact
when promulgating rules under its authority. See 15 U.S.C. 2601(b) and
(c). By comparison, Congress did not identify economic considerations
under RCRA in setting treatment standards. ``* * * Waste that is
nevertheless generated should be treated, stored or disposed of so as
to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the
environment.'' See 42 U.S.C. 6902(b). Thus, the RCRA LDR program
differs from regulations promulgated under TSCA in two respects. First,
the RCRA LDR program has an explicit requirement to treat waste prior
to disposal. TSCA contains no such requirement. Second, TSCA has an
explicit requirement to consider economic impacts when the Agency
promulgates regulations under its authority that is not present in
RCRA. Although both types of regulations are intended to address health
and environmental risks from PCBs, these key differences between RCRA
and TSCA can lead to different approaches to environmental regulation.
Certainly as an interim measure EPA believes it appropriate to seek to
coordinate better the two sets of rules, and thus to defer the Phase IV
rule while we further evaluate the workings and actual effect of the
two sets of rules. EPA believes it is appropriate to temporarily defer
the requirement that PCBs be treated as a CST in TC soils under RCRA
1006(b) in order to investigate how best to integrate the RCRA LDR
requirements for PCBs with the cleanup programs under Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
RCRA (both the specific ``corrective action'' requirements of RCRA
3004(u) and (v) and 3008(h), and the cleanup requirements applying to
RCRA regulated units, e.g., during closure).

C. What Is the Effect of the Deferral?

The statutory California list provision mentioned above (RCRA
section 3004(d)(2)(E)) will create an upper bound on the concentration
of PCBs in

[[Page 81376]]

soil that could be disposed without treatment. As explained earlier,
that upper bound will be 1,000 ppm, the statutory limit for halogenated
organic compounds. This means that the temporary deferral will only
affect a relatively narrow class of wastes: soils exhibiting the TC for
metals and containing PCBs in concentration between 100 ppm and a
maximum of 1000 ppm (this maximum applying only if no other HOCs are
present in the contaminated soil).
RCRA allows temporary deferral of the Phase IV requirement. As in
the temporary deferral of RCRA requirements to accommodate a
potentially overlapping regulatory regime for underground storage tanks
at issue in Edison Electric Inst. v. EPA, 2 F. 3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1993),
EPA here needs to investigate further the relationship of different
sets of rules addressing PCB-contaminated soil disposal. These soils
will be managed protectively during the deferral period, either in RCRA
subtitle C or TSCA-approved landfills, and there is a reasonable upper
bound on the concentration of PCBs that could be disposed of without
treatment. See 2 F.3d at 452-53 citing these factors as a reasonable
justification for a comparable temporary deferral. Moreover, EPA may
permissibly alter land disposal restriction treatment standards for
remediation wastes in order to encourage aggressive remediations. See
LEAN, 172 F. 3d at 69-70.
The scope of this deferral is exclusive to soils exhibiting the TC
for metals which contain PCBs as an underlying hazardous constituent.
The requirement to treat PCBs as a CST also can apply to soils
containing a listed hazardous waste, where the generator elects to
comply with the alternative soil standard of 10 times Universal
Treatment Standard or 90 percent reduction of initial concentrations.
See 40 CFR 268. 49(d). It should be noted, however, that a generator
would have the option of treating such soil to the standards for
process wastes, see 40 CFR 268.49(b), in which case there is no
requirement to treat CSTs. Thus, generators do not face the same
quandary as they do with soils exhibiting the TC for metals which
contain PCBs as a .

IV. Analysis of and Response to Comments

In general, all comments supported the deferral of PCBs as a
constituent subject to treatment in soils. Commenters felt that the
inconsistency between RCRA and TSCA regulations concerning the
treatment/disposal of material containing PCBs should be resolved.
As noted at proposal, EPA believes it is appropriate to seek a
better coordination between the two sets of rules, and thus to defer
PCBs as an CST in soils, while the Agency further evaluates the
workings and actual effect of the two sets of rules. Several commenters
suggested that EPA simply defer to the TSCA rule without an independent
determination that the TSCA standards are sufficient to minimize
threats posed by land disposal. EPA does not believe that this
suggestion can be supported. RCRA requires that treatment standards for
hazardous waste must minimize the threats posed by land disposal. RCRA
section 3004(m). The TSCA rule was not developed to satisfy that
standard. See, e.g., Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 25
(D.C. Cir. 1992) (EPA may not defer LDR treatment requirements to less
stringent disposal requirements of another environmental statute); see
also Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 362-63
(D.C. Cir. 1989) noting stringency of the minimize threat standard in
RCRA section 3004 (m), and further explaining why that requirement
justifies LDR standards more stringent than those developed pursuant to
less stringent statutory standards).
Another general recommendation is that EPA should extend the
deferral to all soils, debris and PCB bulk product waste that contain
listed hazardous waste, as well as for soils that are hazardous waste
due to the exhibition of a TC for a metal. EPA has not received any
hard information, or any convincing reasons, why the Phase IV
requirements should be impeding treatment of soils contaminated with
listed hazardous wastes. As already explained, the rules allow
generators the option of treating the soil to the standards for process
wastes, see 40 CFR 268.49(b), in which case there is no requirement to
treat CSTs. Moreover, this alternative (to treat soil to meet the
standards for listed hazardous waste) represents the status quo before
the Phase IV rule (i.e. it merely restates already-existing regulatory
requirements), so that one cannot properly attribute to the Phase IV
rule any impediment to remediating these contaminated soils. Generators
thus can continue to operate as they did before promulgation of the
Phase IV rule.

V. State Authorization

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program within the
State. Following authorization, we maintain independent enforcement
authority under sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although
authorized States have enforcement responsibility. A State would become
authorized for today's proposed PCB treatment standard for contaminated
soil by following the approval process described under 40 CFR 271.21.
See 40 CFR 271 for the overall standards and requirements for
authorization.
Like all land disposal restriction treatment standards, today's
changes are proposed under the authority of 3004(g) and (m) of RCRA.
These statutory provisions were enacted as part of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. Under section 3006(g) of RCRA,
new requirements promulgated under the authority of statutory
provisions added by HSWA go into effect in authorized States at the
same time as they do in unauthorized States--as long as the new
requirements are more stringent than the requirements a State is
currently authorized to implement.
Authorized States are not required to modify their programs when we
promulgate changes to Federal requirements that are less stringent than
existing Federal requirements. This is because RCRA section 3009 allows
the States to impose (or retain) standards that are more stringent than
those in the Federal program. (See also 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Therefore,
States that are authorized for the LDR program are not required to
adopt today's changes, and these changes do not go into effect until
the State revises its LDR program accordingly. However, we encourage
States to allow compliance with the new PCB treatment standard for
contaminated soil if they have the ability under State law to waive
existing land disposal restriction treatment standards, or if they have
adopted them but are not yet authorized. Again, if a State is not
currently authorized for the LDR program, we will implement the new
treatment standard in that State.

VI. Regulatory Assessments

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of

[[Page 81377]]

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.

OMB has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.''

Economic Assessment

We estimated the costs of today's final rule to determine if it is
a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order. The
analysis considered compliance cost savings from the deferral and
resulted in cost savings. A detailed discussion of the methodology used
for estimating the costs, economic impacts and the benefits
attributable to today's final rule, followed by a presentation of the
cost, economic impact and benefit results were prepared and documented
in the following report: ``Economic Assessment of the Deferral of Phase
IV Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) as an Underlying Hazardous Constituent in Contaminated
Soils.'' This report can be found in its entirety in the docket for
today's final rule. A summary of the report is provided below.

1. Methodology

To estimate the cost savings associated with today's final rule
deferring of CST requirements for PCB-containing hazardous soils, the
Agency estimated the difference between the costs that would have been
incurred in the absence of the deferral and the costs estimated under
the post-regulatory environment with the deferral. The cost savings are
reported based upon a shift of more expensive baseline treatment
technologies (incineration, thermal desorption or nonthermal treatment
for PCB-containing hazardous waste soils that exhibit a TC for metal)
followed by immobilization of the residue to less expensive post-
regulatory treatment including immobilization of soils exhibiting a TC
for metal soils. Although generally placing soils that are metal
contaminated are prohibited from being combusted, all of the
contaminated soils affected by this rulemaking have incineration as an
option. Only soils with an insignificant organic content are prohibited
from combustion as a treatment technology. Soils with PCBs at levels
greater than 10 ppm are considered to have sufficient organic content.
See May 23, 1994 memo from Elliott Laws to Waste Management Directors
I--X for further details.

2. Results

(a) Volume
The procedure for estimating the volumes of PCB-containing
hazardous wastes affected by today's final rule is detailed in the
background document ``Economic Assessment of the Deferral of Phase IV
Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) as an Underlying Hazardous Constituent in Contaminated
Soils,'' which was placed in the docket for today's final rule. To
estimate volumes of TC hazardous PCB contaminated soils affected by
this rulemaking, the Agency looked at data received from a waste
treatment firm and extrapolated it national estimates of soils
remediated using Biennial Reporting Systems data. The Agency estimates
annual affected soil volumes to be 86,500 tons.
(b) Costs
The Phase IV LDR final rule \4\ applied a requirement to treat all
TC metal waste (i.e., wastes that are hazardous because they exhibit
the toxicity characteristic for selected metals and carry the
corresponding EPA hazardous waste number D004 through D011) for CSTs
reasonably expected to be present.\5\ In practical terms, this means
that if a hazardous waste that is only hazardous for metal constituents
also contains organic constituents above the UTS levels, those
underlying organic constituents must also be treated to the UTS level
if the waste is to be land disposed.\6\ For PCBs, the UTS level is 10
ppm.\7,\ \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998.
\5\ 40 CFR 268.4(e).
\6\ Land disposal is defined under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) broadly to include virtually all types of land-
based solid waste management units such as landfills, waste piles,
and surface impoundments.
\7\ See 40 CFR 268.48 for the UTS level of PCB nonwastewaters at
10 ppm.
\8\ The numerical treatment levels that must be met before a
given waste can be land disposed, like the 10 ppm UTS level for
PCBs, are based on a specific best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT). For metals, the numerical treatment standards are based on
immobilization. The BDAT for many organic constituents, including
PCBs, is incineration. While the BDAT does not have to be used to
reach the numerical treatment levels, the BDAT is often used in
practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Phase IV LDR final rule also established an alternative set of
treatment standards for hazardous soils. These alternative standards
were designed to encourage cost-effective cleanup of hazardous
contaminated soils that are subject to LDRs. Prior to the Phase IV
LDRs, hazardous soils were required to comply with the traditional
technology-based treatment standards developed for processed industrial
hazardous waste. These treatment standards often proved to be
inappropriate (e.g., not cost effective) and unachievable (e.g., did
not account for heterogeneous soil matrices) when applied to hazardous
constituents present in soils. For example, in the case of TC metal
soils containing PCBs, treating both metals and PCBs would entail a
combination of treatment technologies. These technologies most likely
would consist of incineration (or other thermal treatment) to destroy
the PCBs, followed by immobilization of the ash to prevent the metallic
constituents from leaching. This treatment approach is problematic
because (1) it is expensive, (2) it destroys the soil, which is a
valuable natural resource, and (3) incineration of metal bearing waste
and/or soils is generally considered to be impermissible dilution
(because it may allow metals to volatilize and enter the atmosphere)
unless it has sufficient organic content to justify treatment. The
alternative soil treatment standards provide more flexible, less
stringent treatment requirements that, for many contaminants, are
achievable using a variety of non-thermal treatment alternatives. For
instance, a site may now choose to (1) reduce hazardous constituents by
at least 90 percent of their initial concentration, or (2) meet ten
times the applicable universal treatment standard.\9\ Thus, for TC
metal soils that contain PCBs, the PCBs currently must be treated to
either 90 percent reduction or to 100 ppm (which is 10 times the UTS
level), whichever is greater, prior to land disposal. EPA intended that
these alternative treatment standards would allow soils to be treated
using non-combustion treatment technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 40 CFR Sec. 268.49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate costs saving resulting from this rule, EPA examined a
number of thermal and non-thermal treatment technologies for PCBs and
TC metals along with their estimated costs and commercial availability.
The Agency then took the estimated soil volumes and assigned treatment
trains to percentages of the affected volume (e.g. 10 percent of
affected soils are estimated to be treated through in-situ

[[Page 81378]]

technologies) in both the baseline (i.e. pre-regulation) and post-rule.
EPA's estimate of cost savings is the difference between the more
expensive baseline treatment remedies (e.g. incineration) and the less
expensive post-rule treatment remedies (e.g. stabilization). The
baseline treatment remedies are more expensive because they require
treatment of both PCBs and metal whereas the post-rule treatment
remedies only require treatment of metals for the affected soils. The
extent of the cost savings from the deferral of LDR treatment standards
for TC metal PCB-containing hazardous waste soils depends on the
decision whether to remediate the site, the decision to switch to in-
situ clean-up remedies (avoiding LDR treatment standards) and the
decision to pursue other administrative remedies such as treatability
variances. As the result, EPA has estimated the incremental treatment
cost savings attributable to the deferral of the Phase IV LDR treatment
standards for PCBs as a CST in hazardous soils to be $47.6 million
annually. EPA notes that these cost savings are not new savings under
the Land Disposal Restriction program. Rather, these cost savings are
saving previously provided from the PCB disposal rule (63 FR 34384,
June 29, 1998). The PCB disposal rule allowed greater flexibility in
the types of land disposal units that PCB-contaminated remediation
waste could be placed in including RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
landfills for soils with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm and
Part 258 RCRA nonhazardous landfills for soils with PCB concentrations
less than 50 ppm. See 40 CFR 761.61(a)(5)(ii)&(iii).
(c) Economic Impacts
EPA has not completed an economic impact analysis with today's
final rule due to uncertainty regarding the identity of owner/operators
of affected sites. Because this final rule results in cost savings
mentioned above, any economic impacts would be favorable to affected
entities. Because affected entities would be subject to less stringent
treatment requirements for PCBs in TC contaminated soils, they would
only have to treat the metals in the soil which would mean lower
treatment costs and therefore less expensive site cleanups.
(d) Benefits
The primary benefit of this final rule is to encourage remediation
of soils contaminated with both TC metals and PCB soils. The Economic
Analysis completed for this rule documents a list of public commenters
who have stipulated that they are not conducting cleanups under current
regulations. These additional clean ups will reduce the potential for
environmental releases of hazardous constituents, given the increased
treatment of TC metals and placement of these soils into secure land
disposal units.

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

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the
rule. The overall economic impact of today's final rule to defer LDR
treatment standards for TC metal PCB-containing hazardous waste soils
results in cost savings of $47.6 million (for additional detail see
cost savings discussion above). We have therefore concluded that
today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small
entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

[[Page 81379]]

governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has
prepared and Information Collection Request (ICR) document: OSWER ICR
No. 1442.15 (LDR Phase IV), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, Collections Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460-
0002, by e-mail at farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202)
260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://
www.epa.gov/icr.
EPA believes the changes in this final rule to the information
collection do not constitute a substantive or material modification.
This rule would not change any of the information collection
requirements that are currently applicable RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase IV except to possibly reduce those requirements by
requiring fewer references to PCBs. There is no net increase in
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (if anything, there may be a
slight decrease, as just noted). As a result, the reporting,
notification, or recordkeeping (information) provisions of this rule
will not need to be submitted for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under section 3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.

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

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, ``Environmental
Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda
Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has
undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and
programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice
concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the
United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the
population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income,
bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and
activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities.
To address this goal, EPA considered the impacts of this final rule on
low-income populations and minority populations and concluded.
Today's final rule is intended to encourage aggressive remediation
of contaminated soils, and thus, and to benefit all populations. As
such, this rule is not expected to cause any disproportionately high
and adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities versus non-
minority or affluent communities.

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA has determined that this
rule, would not have ``federalism implications'' within the meaning of
Executive Order 13132. This is because the rule would not impose any
direct effects on States, would not preempt State law, and would not
constrain State administrative discretion. In fact, States need not
even adopt this final rule as part of their authorized programs. Thus,
the Executive Order does not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition,

[[Page 81380]]

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Today's rule does
not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule
does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.

J. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 15, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter 1, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

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

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

2. Section 268.32 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec. 268.32 Waste specific prohibitions--Soils exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic for metals and containing PCBs.

(a) Effective December 26, 2000, the following wastes are
prohibited from land disposal: any volumes of soil exhibiting the
toxicity characteristic solely because of the presence of metals
(D004--D011) and containing PCBs.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply
if:
(1)(i) The wastes contain halogenated organic compounds in total
concentration less than 1,000 mg/kg; and
(ii) The wastes meet the treatment standards specified in Subpart D
of this part for EPA hazardous waste numbers D004--D011, as applicable;
or
(2)(i) The wastes contain halogenated organic compounds in total
concentration less than 1,000 mg/kg; and
(ii) The wastes meet the alternative treatment standards specified
in Sec. 268.49 for contaminated soil; or
(3) 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; or
(4) The wastes meet applicable alternative treatment standards
established pursuant to a petition granted under Sec. 268.44.
3. Appendix III to Part 268 is added to subpart C to read as
follows:

Appendix III to Part 268--List of Halogenated Organic Compounds
Regulated Under Sec. 268.32

In determining the concentration of HOCs in a hazardous waste
for purposes of the Sec. 268.32 land disposal prohibition, EPA has
defined the HOCs that must be included in a calculation as any
compounds having a carbon-halogen bond which are listed in this
Appendix (see Sec. 268.2). Appendix III to Part 268 consists of the
following compounds:

I. Volatiles

1. Bromodichloromethane
2. Bromomethane
3. Carbon Tetrachloride
4. Chlorobenzene
5. 2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
6. Chlorodibromomethane
7. Chloroethane
8. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
9. Chloroform
10. Chloromethane
11. 3-Chloropropene
12. 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
13. 1,2-Dibromomethane
14. Dibromomethane
15. Trans-1,4-Dichloro-2--butene
16. Dichlorodifluoromethane
17. 1,1-Dichloroethane
18. 1,2-Dichloroethane
19. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
20. Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
21. 1,2-Dichloropropane
22. Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
23. cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
24. Iodomethane
25. Methylene chloride
26. 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
27. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
28. Tetrachloroethene
29. Tribromomethane
30. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
31. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
32. Trichlorothene
33. Trichloromonofluoromethane
34. 1,2,3-Thrichloropropane
35. Vinyl Chloride

II. Semivolatiles

1. Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
2. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
3. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
4. p-Chloroaniline
5. Chlorobenzilate
6. p-Chloro-m-cresol
7. 2-Chloronaphthalene
8. 2-Chlorphenol
9. 3-Chloropropionitrile
10. m-Dichlorobenzene
11. o-Dichlorobenzene
12. p-Dichlorobenzene
13. 3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
14. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
15. 2,6-Dichlorophenol
16. Hexachlorobenzene
17. Hexachlorobutadiene
18. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
19. Hexachloroethane
20. Hexachloroprophene
21. Hexachlorpropene
22. 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroanaline)
23. Pentachlorobenzene
24. Pentachloroethane
25. Pentachloronitrobenzene
26. Pentachlorophenol
27. Pronamide
28. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
29. 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
30. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
31. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
32. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
33. Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate

III. Organochlorine Pesticides

1. Aldrin
2. alpha-BHC
3. beta-BHC
4. delta-BHC
5. gamma-BHC
6. Chlorodane
7. DDD
8. DDE
9. DDT
10. Dieldrin
11. Endosulfan I
12. Endosulfan II
13. Endrin
14. Endrin aldehyde
15. Heptachlor
16. Heptachlor epoxide
17. Isodrin
18. Kepone
19. Methoxyclor
20. Toxaphene

IV. Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides

1. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2. Silvex
3. 2,4,5-T

[[Page 81381]]

V. PCBs

1. Aroclor 1016
2. Aroclor 1221
3. Aroclor 1232
4. Aroclor 1242
5. Aroclor 1248
6. Aroclor 1254
7. Aroclor 1260
8. PCBs not otherwise specified

VI. Dioxins and Furans

1. Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
2. Hexachlorodibenzofuran
3. Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
4. Pentachlorodibenzofuran
5. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
6. Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
7. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

Subpart D--[Amended]

4. In Sec. 268.48(a) Table UTS-Universal Treatment Standards is
amended by adding a reference to new footnote number (8) to the entry
for ``Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Aroclors),'' and
adding footnote (8), to read as follows:

Sec. 268.48 Universal treatment standards.

* * * * *
(a) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater Nonwastewater
Standard Standard
-----------------------------------
Regulated Constituent Common Name CAS \1\ Number Concentration in
Concentration in mg/l\2\ unless
mg/l\2\ noted as ``mg/l
TCLP''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Arcolors)\8\... 1336-36-3 0.10 10

* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This standard is temporarily deferred for soil exhibiting a hazardous characteristic due to D004-D011 only.

* * * * *
5. Section 268.49 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec. 268.49 Alternative LDR treatment standards for contaminated soil.

* * * * *
(d) Constituents subject to treatment. When applying the soil
treatment standards in paragraph (c) of this section, constituents
subject to treatment are any constituents listed in Sec. 268.48 Table
UTS-Universal Treatment Standards that are reasonably expected to be
present in any given volume of contaminated soil, except flouride,
selenium, sulfides, vanadium, zinc, and that are present at
concentrations greater than ten times the universal treatment standard.
PCBs are not constituent subject to treatment in any given volume of
soil which exhibits the toxicity characteristic solely because of the
presence of metals.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-32670 Filed 12-22-00; 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

Deferral of Phase IV Standards for PCB's as a Constituent Subject to Treatment in Soil

Local Navigation