Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV Proposed RuleIssues Associated With Clean Water Act Treatment Equivalency, and Treatment Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes and Toxicity Characteristic Metal Wastes; Notice of Data Availability

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