[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21418-21422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11740]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271
[FRL-5503-4]
RIN 2050-AE05
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV Proposed Rule--Issues
Associated With Clean Water Act Treatment Equivalency, and Treatment
Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes and Toxicity Characteristic Metal
Wastes; Notice of Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Since publication of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
Phase IV proposal (60 FR 43654, August 22, 1995), EPA has received
additional information which will be considered in developing its final
rule. The public has 30 days from publication of this notice to comment
on that additional information. Readers should note that only comments
about the new information discussed in this notice will be considered
during the comment period; issues proposed in the August 22, 1995 Phase
IV rule, and in the Phase IV Supplemental Proposal on mineral
processing wastes (61 FR 2338, January 25, 1996), that are not
discussed in this Notice of Data Availability, are not open for further
comment.
DATES: Comments are due by June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the public must send an original and two
copies to Docket Number F-96-P42A-
[[Page 21419]]
FFFFF, located at the RCRA Docket. The mailing address is: RCRA
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (5305W), 401
M. Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. RCRA Information Center is
located at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,
Virginia. The RCRA Information Center is open for public inspection and
copying of supporting information for RCRA rules from 9:00 am to 4:00
pm Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public must
make an appointment to review docket materials by calling (703) 603-
9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory
document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information or to order
paper copies of this Federal Register document, call the RCRA Hotline.
Callers within the Washington, Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). Long-distance callers may call
1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672. The RCRA Hotline is open Monday-
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. For other
information on this notice, contact Sue Slotnick (5302W), Office of
Solid Waste, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone (703) 308-
8462.
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. This expedited procedure is in conjunction with the
Agency ``Paperless Office'' campaign. For further information on the
submission of diskettes, contact Sue Slotnick of the Waste Treatment
Branch at (703) 308-8462.
This Federal Register notice is available on the Internet System
through EPA Public Access Server at gopher.epa.gov.or through
WWW.epa.gov. For the text of the notice, choose: Rules, Regulations,
and Legislation; the FR-Waste; finally, Year/Month/Day.
Notice of Data Availability
On August 22, 1995, EPA proposed the LDR Phase IV rule (60 FR
43654), containing proposed treatment standards for newly listed and
characteristic wastes, among other issues. In a supplemental proposal
(61 FR 2338, January 25, 1996), EPA proposed treatment standards and
changes to the definition of solid waste for mineral processing wastes.
The two proposals will form the basis for a single rule due to be
promulgated later this year, referred to as the Phase IV final rule.
Today's Notice of Data Availability pertains primarily to the original
Phase IV proposal of August 22, 1995. Also, some possible changes
discussed in this notice could affect the Universal Treatment Standards
for metals in general, and could affect the current treatment standard
for F024. Finally, additional comments on capacity for treating mineral
processing wastes are solicited.
Since publication of the Phase IV proposal, EPA has received
comments and data, available in RCRA docket number F-95-PH4P-FFFFF, on
many issues, including the following:
(1) Treatment standards for toxicity characteristic (TC) metal
wastes;
(2) Treatment standards for wood preserving wastes;
(3) Solid waste exclusion for recycled wood preserving wastewaters;
and,
(4) Capacity issues.
These issues, and a discussion of the data the Agency has received
on each issue, are presented below.
(1) Treatment Standards for Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Metal Wastes
a. Lead-Bearing Smelter Wastes
Comments were received from several trade organizations (see
comments from Swidler & Berlin for the Association of Battery
Recyclers, PH4P-00038; Battery Council International, PH4P-00045;
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, PH4P-00077; and, Resource Consultants,
PH4P-00078.A), expressing concern about the proposed application of
Universal Treatment Standard to metal TC wastes generated from the
recycling of lead-acid batteries (lead slags and sludges containing
lead).
The Resource Consultants comment contained limited data which
included concentrations of lead, selenium, and barium in untreated and
treated (stabilized) secondary lead smelter slag and soils. These data
may indicate that their stabilized lead smelter slag cannot achieve the
Universal Treatment Standard limits. In addition, limited data were
submitted to show how these lead wastes differ in composition from
K061. These data will be further assessed by the Agency to determine
whether they may be used to revise the treatment standards for these
constituents, or to identify particular treatability groups for which
revised treatment standards may be promulgated. The Agency is also
reviewing data submitted by the Exide Corporation on HTMR for the
treatment of lead slags.
In addition, the Agency is reviewing information from East Penn
Manufacturing Company, Inc., that seems to indicate that slag can be
returned to the furnace until the metals are no longer present at
hazardous concentrations. (If slag is reclaimed, it is not a solid
waste during the reclamation process because it is a ``byproduct''
under 40 CFR 261.2(c). If the resulting discarded slag is below the
toxicity characteristic levels, the slag is not a hazardous waste and
so would not be subject to the LDRs.)
EPA also at this time wishes to clarify an issue raised with
respect to the applicability of the Land Disposal Restriction Standards
to slags resulting from smelting of lead acid batteries. The LDR
standard for lead acid batteries is specified as RLEAD, or recovery of
lead. (See 40 CFR Section 268.42.) Once the batteries are smelted, the
LDR requirements have been satisfied, and therefore the slag resulting
from this smelting need not be treated further. The standards proposed
under Phase IV (i.e., compliance with UTS) would not apply to this
slag, even if the slag exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
(However, if the slag exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it
must of course be managed under all other applicable, i.e., non-LDR,
hazardous waste requirements.) EPA notes also that if a secondary
smelter accepts materials other than lead acid batteries, then LDR
requirements could apply to the slag, as with any other waste. The
Agency understands, however, that secondary lead smelters routinely
accept some materials closely related to lead acid batteries. EPA does
not think that LDR status of the slags should be affected by these
additional, but closely related lead-bearing items, i.e., the slag
would remain exempt from LDR requirements. The Agency requests comment
on this issue. EPA dealt with a very similar issue in the Boiler and
Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations (see 56 FR 42517, August 27,
1991). In that rule, the Agency published a list of
[[Page 21420]]
materials that secondary lead smelters may process and still remain
exempt from the BIF regulations, codified at 40 CFR Part 266, Appendix
XI. The Agency requests comment on using this same list for purposes of
defining those materials secondary smelters may accept without changing
the LDR status of their resulting slags.
b. Lead-Bearing Foundry Wastes
The metal foundry industry generates emission control dust and
foundry sand containing cadmium, chronium, lead and selenium. The
American Foundryman's Society submitted comments to the Phase IV Rule
stating that foundry sand is different from K061 and that HTMR is not
demonstrated or available, and stabilization has not been demonstrated
as meeting Universal Treatment Standards for foundry sands. The
comments referred the Agency to data which the Agency is now reviewing.
c. Treatment Standard for D011 Silver TC Wastes
EPA is considering alternative options for the treatment standard
for D011. In comments to the Phase IV rule, the Silver Coalition and
the Eastman Kodak Company each stated that silver should be removed
from the Toxicity Characteristic list of constituents, based on low
risk, or at least EPA should not promulgate a treatment standard for
silver below the TC level of 5.0 mg/l. The regulation of silver as a TC
metal is indeed a subject of concern for EPA. While human health
effects are not major, concern about aquatic toxicity remains. The
Agency is not yet prepared to make a decision on the removal of silver
from the TC list (at 40 CFR 261.24). However, given the low risk to
human health, EPA is considering two possibilities for the treatment
standard, in addition to the proposed treatment standards of 0.43 mg/l
for wastewaters and 0.30 mg/l TCLP for nonwastewaters. One new option
is to revise the Universal Treatment Standard for silver at a higher
value, e.g. the TC regulatory level of 5.0 mg/l. This change would
affect all wastes subject to UTS. The second option is to set the
standard for D011 at the higher level, maintaining the current
Universal Treatment Standard levels for all other wastes containing
silver as a regulated constituent. Comments are requested on these two
new options.
(2) Treatment Standards for Wood Preserving Waste F032, and
Potentially, F024
EPA proposed in the Phase IV proposal to require wood preserving
waste F032 to meet the Universal Treatment Standard for a specific list
of hazardous constituents (see 60 FR 43680; August 22, 1995, and its
Correction Notice, 60 FR 546451, October 25, 1995). The F032
constituents include dioxin and furan (D/F) constituents (Id. at
43681). Most comments on the proposed treatment standards for F032
centered on the need to establish numeric limits for D/F as a means to
ensure proper treatment. As described below, EPA also received new
data. The Agency requests comment on the new data, and on options
presented below. Also, commenters should note that a change in the
proposed treatment standard for F032 may dictate changes in the F024 (a
group of chlorinated aliphatic wastes) treatment standard (see 55 FR
22580-22581, June 1, 1990), as discussed below.
The Penta Task Force's comment (which also included a
characterization study from Vulcan Chemicals) and the comment from the
American Wood Preserving Institute (AWPI) expressed concerns that
promulgation of concentration limits for D/F hazardous constituents in
F032 may discourage commercial incineration facilities from treating
this waste. As a result of this concern, commenters have asked EPA to
consider alternatives to setting D/F concentration limits in its final
rule. The Agency is considering options that would provide F032
generators flexibility, provided that adequate treatment of the waste
is still ensured. Comments are requested on the options and information
discussed below. Under all the options discussed below, the treater
would still have to measure compliance with the proposed Universal
Treatment Standard levels for the non-D/F constituents in the waste.
New Option: Alternative Treatment Standard
This option calls for EPA to establish an alternative treatment
standard that sets incineration as a treatment method for D/F
constituents, in lieu of actually measuring the D/F concentrations in
the treated residues. F032 wastes treated via incineration would have
met the treatment standard for D/F, and disposal would be allowed so
long as the Universal Treatment Standard limits promulgated for other
organic constituents were also met. Under this option, Treatment
Standard levels for each D/F constituent would still be codified so
that compliance with these levels can be monitored in cases when F032
is treated by nonincineration technologies.
This option, suggested by the Penta Task Force and AWPI, is
patterned after a treatment standard promulgated for F024. The
commenters believe that the concentrations of D/F in untreated F032 are
similar to those found in untreated F024, therefore, these two wastes
can be adequately regulated in a similar manner.
a. Preliminary Review of Vulcan's Characterization Study.
Vulcan Chemical submitted a characterization study in an attachment
to the Penta Task Force's comment. This commenter pointed out that the
commercial grade tolerances of pentachlorophenol (PCP) allowed
domestically have D/F levels well below than those EPA reported in the
Listing Background Document for F032, F034, and F035. The commenters
also submitted data on D/F measured in several F032 waste streams from
six wood preserving plants (see comment number PH4P-00032.J). EPA is
currently reviewing these characterization data, however, they appear
to support Vulcan and AWPI's claim that D/F concentrations in F032 have
been reduced in commercial oils and subsequently, in F032 wastes.
The new F032 characterization data do not appear to support a
determination that F032 and F024 are exactly alike. F024 has the
following D/F maximum concentrations: up to 2 ppb for penta-PCDD, 10
ppb for hexa-PCDD, 10 ppb of tetra-PCDF, 30 ppb for penta-PCDF, 50 ppb
for hexa-PCDF, and tetra-PCDD was not detected above 1 ppb. It appears
that F032 may have concentrations of D/F of up to 4.3 ppb for tetra-
PCDD, 590 ppb for hexa-PCDD, 78 ppb for penta-PCDF(estimated), 1,500
ppb for hexa-PCDF, and penta-CDD was not detected. Based on these data,
it appears that the maximum concentrations of penta-PCDD, tetra-PCDF,
and penta-PCDF in F032 are within the same or lower order of magnitude
as those in F024. In contrast, tetra-PCDD and hexa-PCDF maximum
concentrations in F032 diverge by two orders of magnitude with those in
F024. Also, hexa-PCDD maximum concentrations in F032 may exceed by one
order of magnitude those found in F024. However, neither of these
wastes were identified as `acutely toxic' in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, so
in this sense they are in a similar class.
b. Feasibility of setting ``INCIN'' or ``CMBST'' as an Alternative
Treatment Standard
In spite of some differences between these two wastes, EPA believes
that a treatment standard allowing incineration (or `combustion,' see
discussion below) as an alternative
[[Page 21421]]
standard for D/F in F032 may be technically feasible. One reason is
that incineration is BDAT for dioxin-containing wastes. EPA also
believes that incineration, and in fact, combustion technologies
generally, are among the least matrix-dependant technologies capable of
treating the diverse range of residues that comprise F032. Various
types of incineration have been demonstrated to treat high and low
level D/F constituents below detection limits in incineration residues.
Suboptions under consideration. EPA has identified, however, three
regulatory suboptions for the implementation of Vulcan's proposed
alternative treatment method. Each suboption is discussed below. The
Agency notes that suboptions 2 and 3 would also change the F024
treatment standard. Also, suboptions 2 and 3 are not mutually
exclusive, and both could be selected by the Agency.
Suboption 1: Apply existing F024 alternative combustion treatment
standard to F032.
The treatment standard for F024 was originally limited to
incineration units. In the Phase III final rule (April 8, 1996), EPA
amended the incineration treatment standard (see 40 CFR 268.42, Table
1, `INCIN') to include additional combustion devices (see `CMBST' in
the Phase III final rule). EPA believes that well-operated and well-
designed combustion units can meet the treatment standard for F024 and
F032. Setting CMBST as the treatment standard for D/F in F032 would
allow wider access to a variety of combustion practices.
Suboption 2: Establish F032's and revise F024's CMBST alternative
standard to require the combustion unit to achieve a dioxin emission
standard. One concern with the CMBST treatment standard is that D/F can
be reformed in the post-combustion zone if favorable conditions exist.
Thus, controls may be needed to minimize the potential for forming and
emitting D/F emissions into the atmosphere, and to minimize the
potential for such products of incomplete combustion to be adsorbed
onto wastes. The Agency is concerned that until combustion units are
regulated under the proposed MACT standards discussed below, a simple
CMBST standard for either F024 or F032 could actually lead to increased
air emissions of D/F, or increased concentrations adsorbed onto
combustion wastes, if these F024 and F032 wastes were combusted in
units that foster the formation of D/F. (It also must be remembered
that treatment standards that result in unsafe cross-media transfers of
pollutants do not satisfy the requirements of RCRA section 3004(m)).
See Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 17 (D.C. Cir.
1992).) Studies (see discussion below) show that effective controls to
inhibit D/F formation may include one or more of the following: (1)
rapid quench of combustion gases; (2) air pollution control device's
inlet temperatures of less than 400 F for the flue gas; (3) good
combustion practices (e.g. like higher temperatures, proper mixing in
the combustion zone, and appropriate chemical residence time); and,
finally, (4) activated carbon injection scrubbing, if dioxin emissions
remain high.
Based on studies conducted at various domestic incineration units
such as light weight aggregate kilns and cement kilns, EPA has proposed
regulations that set a maximum toxicity equivalent (TEQ) D/F emission
standard of 0.20 ng/DSCF (corrected to 7% O2) for combustion units
burning RCRA hazardous wastes. (See Proposed Rule (signed March 20,
1996)--Revised Technical Standards Waste Combustion Facilities (http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/combust.html.) EPA's studies show that at least
50% of the facilities tested for the proposed combustion rule meet this
MACT limit. EPA is requesting comments on whether this D/F emission
standard should also be codified as a requirement of a CMBST
alternative treatment standard. [For background information regarding
the development and implementation of such an air emission standard,
see the following documents: (1) Proposed Rule (signed March 20,
1996)--Revised Technical Standards Waste Combustion Facilities http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/combust.html); (2) Draft Technical Support
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT
Standards and Technologies,(see pages 5-1 through 5-6); (3) Combustion
Emission Technical Resource Document (CETRED) (see pages A-54 through
A-56) (OSW: EPA 530-R-94-014, May 1994); and, (4) Performance of
activated carbon injection on dioxin/furan and mercury emissions,
February 23, 1996, memorandum from Shiva Garg of EPA's OSW to DOCKET #
F-96-RCSP-FFFFF.] Compliance would have to be documented at least every
18 months.
Under this suboption, any RCRA permitted or interim status
combustion device capable of demonstrating achievability in meeting the
dioxin (TEQ) air emission discharge limit would be allowed to combust
F032 and F024. Should EPA ultimately select a standard other than 0.2
ng/DSCF, the Agency would of course revisit the LDR standard for F024
and F032.
Suboption 3: Revise F024's CMBST alternative standard (and set
F032's standard) to limit the combustion of F024 and F032 to combustion
devices that have been permitted. A final option would be to limit
combustion of F024 and F032 to combustion devices (i.e., incinerators,
boilers, and industrial furnaces) that have been evaluated as part of
the RCRA permitting process, including potential evaluation under the
omnibus permitting authority set out in RCRA section 3005(c)(3). This
could involve a site-specific evaluation of whether permit conditions
more stringent than those required by the regulations are necessary to
assure that the facility's combustion practices are sufficiently
controlled to be protective of human health and the environment. Since
only permitted facilities are subject to omnibus evaluation, this
option would necessarily limit the eligible combustion devices to those
that have received permits.
A complete list of related references is available in the RCRA
docket for this notice. It is called `Reference List for F032.'
(3) Solid Waste Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastewaters
In the Phase IV proposal, EPA announced that it would consider
granting a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for
recycled process wastewaters used in the wood preserving industry,
provided that the Agency received adequate information to grant such an
exclusion. The proposal solicited this information, and specified that
it would have to be sufficient to make an industry-wide determination
that the reclamation operation was an essential part of production, and
that the secondary materials being reclaimed were not likely to be a
part of the waste disposal problem.
In response to this solicitation for information, comments were
submitted from the American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI), the State
of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Universal Forest
Products, Inc., Remediation Technologies, Inc., J.H. Baxter & Company,
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Beazer East, Inc., and Covington
& Burling, pertaining to a possible solid waste exclusion for recycled
wood preserving wastewaters. EPA will review this information to
determine whether this information is adequate.
Specifically, EPA will be reviewing these comments to evaluate the
extent to which they establish that the reclamation of production
wastewaters
[[Page 21422]]
from the wood preserving industry meet the variance criteria found in
40 CFR 260.31(b). As was stated in the Phase IV proposal, if these
criteria can be demonstrated on an industry-wide basis, the Agency may
grant a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for
reclaimed production wastewaters from the wood preserving industry. The
comments from AWPI address each of the 40 CFR 261.31(b) criteria in
some detail. EPA will also review other comments, such as those
submitted by EDF, that question the basis and desirability of granting
the variance on an industry-wide basis. EPA solicits replies to these
particular comments.
EPA has also added to the docket a bill being considered by
Congress that would exempt from regulation wastewaters provided the
materials are ``contained, collected, and reused in an on-site
production process that prevents releases to the environment.'' In
discussions of this issue, representatives of the American Wood
Preservers Association stated that they were not seeking to eliminate
the existing Subpart W standards for drip pads used to collect and
manage drippage from wood preserving. EPA solicits comments on whether
the record supports a national exclusion from the definition of solid
waste for recycled process wastewaters from wood preserving operations
that are returned to the process from which they originated, with the
condition that drippage from the wood is collected and managed on drip
pads that are in compliance with Subpart W drip pad standards and that
there is no release of the wastewaters to the environment.
(4) Capacity Issues
a. Request for More Information on Amounts of TC Metal Wastes and TC-
contaminated Soil
EPA has received comments on the Phase IV proposed rule stating
that application of Universal Treatment Standards to TC metal wastes
will significantly increase the demand for, and costs of, treatment. As
stated in the Supplemental Proposal on mineral processing wastes, EPA
has limited information on quantities of TC metal wastes with which to
analyze available treatment capacity. Comments also indicated that
there may be TC metal-contaminated soil that would require treatment to
meet LDR treatment standards. These commenters argue that there will be
a need for a capacity variance for TC metal-contaminated soils.
Commenters submitted very little data, however, to support their
arguments. EPA requests data to potentially support capacity variances
for TC metal wastes and TC metal-contaminated soils.
Furthermore, as stated in the Supplemental proposal, EPA solicits
information on quantities of characteristic mineral processing wastes,
in order to determine whether adequate capacity exists to treat these
wastes (61 FR 2360). Because data do not exist to support a capacity
variance at this time, EPA is once again urging commenters to provide
information on the quantities, characteristics, and management of the
newly identified mineral processing wastes.
b. Potential Capacity Variance for FMC Corporation
Representatives of FMC Corporation met with EPA to present their
argument that they need a two-year national capacity variance for three
large volume TC metal wastewater streams (Medusa Scrubber Blowdown,
Anderson Filter Media Rinsate, and Furnace Building Washdown) that are
generated at its Pocatello, Idaho facility. (A memorandum summarizing
this meeting is part of the record for this rulemaking.) FMC believes
that these three wastewaters pose unique treatability problems because
of elemental phosphorous contamination and naturally occurring
radioactive material. They argue that the logistics and costs to ship
these wastestreams off-site for treatment are impractical and
prohibitive. FMC also stated that a survey of off-site treatment
facilities shows that no permitted TSDF can currently handle these
wastestreams. As such, FMC believes it will need a two-year national
capacity variance to develop and construct treatment capacity for these
wastewater streams and thus comply with Phase IV. FMC intends to submit
detailed documentation supporting its claim for a two-year national
capacity variance. If it is submitted in a timely fashion, EPA will
make it available to the public during the comment period for this
notice, and will potentially use this information in determining
whether a capacity variance is needed.
Summary
In conclusion, the Agency is making available to the public new
data it has received since the Phase IV proposal (or alerting the
public to data it expects to receive immediately). Comments are
requested on the data and their possible use, as discussed in this
notice. In addition, the Agency is requesting data on TC metal wastes,
TC metal-contaminated soil, and mineral processing wastes and
contaminated soils, that could be used to determine the need for
capacity variances, since the Agency currently lacks such data.
Dated: May 3, 1996.
Michael Shapiro,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 96-11740 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
