12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
1
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
261
[
FRL­
XXXXX]

RIN
2050­
AE84
Revision
of
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions
for
Hazardous
Waste
Mixtures
("
Headworks
Exemptions")

AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
Rule
SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
proposing
in
today's
notice
to
add
benzene
and
2­
ethoxyethanol
to
the
list
of
solvents
whose
mixtures
with
wastewater
are
exempted
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
The
Agency
studied
two
other
solvents,

1,1,2­
trichloroethane
and
2­
nitropropane,
and
is
not
proposing
at
this
time
to
add
them
to
the
current
exemption.

Besides
adding
the
two
solvents
to
the
exemption,
the
Agency
is
proposing
to
provide
flexibility
in
the
way
compliance
with
the
rule
is
determined
by
adding
the
option
of
directly
measuring
solvent
chemical
levels
at
the
headworks
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system
to
the
current
requirements.
Finally,
the
Agency
also
is
proposing
to
make
additional
listed
hazardous
wastes
(
beyond
discarded
commercial
chemical
products)
eligible
for
the
de
minimis
exemption,
as
well
as
adding
non­
manufacturing
facilities
to
those
that
qualify
for
this
exemption
if
certain
conditions
are
met.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
2
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
The
Agency
is
requesting
comments
on
these
and
other
potential
exemptions
involving
wastes
managed
in
a
wastewater
system
regulated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).

The
Agency
is
not
proposing
any
changes
or
seeking
comment
on
any
other
provisions
of
the
so­
called
"
headworks
rule",
codified
in
40
CFR
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)­

(
G),
not
specifically
identified
in
this
notice
as
subject
to
possible
amendment.
Nor
will
the
Agency
respond
to
any
comments
addressing
any
provisions
of
the
headworks
rule
not
specifically
identified
in
this
notice
as
subject
to
possible
amendment.

DATES:
To
make
sure
we
consider
your
comments
on
revisions
to
the
wastewater
treatment
exemptions
to
hazardous
waste
mixtures,
they
must
be
postmarked
by
[
INSERT
60
DAYS
FROM
DATE
OF
FEDERAL
REGISTER
PUBLICATION]

ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

General
Information
Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
action
are
generators
of
industrial
hazardous
waste,
and
entities
that
treat,
store,
transport
and/
or
dispose
of
these
wastes.
This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
3
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
List
of
potentially
affected
U.
S.
Industrial
Entities
Item
Economic
Subsector
or
Industry
Identity
Description
SIC
code
NAICS
code
1
02
112
Agricultural
production
­
livestock
2
20
311
Food
&
kindred
products
3
22
313
Textile
mill
products
4
24
321
Lumber
&
wood
products
5
25
337
Furniture
&
fixtures
6
26
322
Paper
&
allied
products
7
28
325
Chemicals
&
allied
products
8
29
324
Petroleum
&
coal
products
9
30
326
Rubber
&
miscellaneous
plastics
products
10
31
316
Leather
&
leather
products
11
32
327
Stove,
clay,
glass
&
concrete
products
12
33
331
Primary
metal
industries
13
34
332
Fabricated
metal
products
14
35
333
Industrial
machinery
&
equipment
15
36
334,
335
Electrical
&
electronic
equipment
16
37
336
Transportation
equipment
17
38
3333,
3345
Instruments
&
related
products
18
42
493
Motor
freight
transportation
&
warehousing
19
4581
48819,
56172
Airports,
flying
fields,
&
airport
terminal
services
20
4789
488999
Transportation
services
nec
21
49
221
Electric,
gas,
&
sanitary
services
22
50
421
Wholesale
trade
­
durable
goods
23
51
422
Wholesale
trade
­
nondurable
goods
24
5999
453998
Miscellaneous
retail
25
721
8123
Dry­
cleaning
&
industrial
laundry
services
26
73
514,
532,
541,
561
Business
services
27
80
621,
622,
623
Health
services
28
87
712
Engineering
&
management
services
29
8999
54162
Miscellaneous
services
30
91
921
Executive,
legislative
&
general
government
31
95
924,
925
Environmental
quality
&
housing
32
97
928
National
security
&
international
affairs
Notes:

(
a)
This
list
is
based
upon
industry
codes
reported
to
the
USEPA
RCRA
hazardous
waste
1997
"
Biennial
Reporting
System"
database
by
F002/
F005
aqueous
spent
solvent
generators
which
manage
such
wastes
in
wastewater
treatment
systems,
supplemented
by
industry
codes
which
have
USEPA
Clean
Water
Act
"
Categorical
Pretreatment
Standards"
for
indirect
discharge
of
industrial
wastewaters
to
POTWs
(
as
of
July
2002).

(
b)
The
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
matched
1987
2­
digit
level
SIC
codes
to
1997
NAICS
codes
using
the
US
Census
Bureau
website:
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
naics/
nsic2ndx.
htm#
S0
(
c)
SIC=
1987
Standard
Industrial
Classification
system
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce's
traditional
code
system
last
updated
in
1987).

(
d)
NAICS=
1997
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce's
new
code
system
as
of
1997).

(
e)
Refer
to
the
Internet
website
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
www/
naicstab.
htm
for
additional
information
and
a
cross­
walk
table
for
the
SIC
and
NAICS
codes
systems.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
4
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
believes
could
be
affected
by
this
action,

based
on
industrial
sectors
identified
in
the
economic
analysis
in
support
of
this
proposal.
A
total
of
about
3,300
to
8,100
10,400
entities
are
expected
to
benefit
from
the
proposed
revisions
to
40
CFR
261.3
in
the
32
industrial
sectors
listed
above,
but
primarily
in
the
chemicals
and
allied
products
sector
(
i.
e.,
SIC
code
28,
or
NAICS
code
325).
Other
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
also
could
be
affected.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
covered
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
40
CFR
part
261
carefully
in
concert
with
the
amended
rules
found
at
the
end
of
this
Federal
Register
document.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
persons
listed
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.

RCRA­
2002­
0028.
The
official
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
This
Docket
Facility
is
open
from
9
AM
to
4
PM,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.

The
Docket
telephone
number
is
(
202)
566­
0270.
You
may
copy
up
to
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
document
at
no
cost.
Additional
copies
are
$
0.15
per
page.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
5
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
"
Federal
Register"
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr.

An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
6
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,

including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.

Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.

How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.

Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
"
late."
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.

Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
7
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
"
Information
Sources,"
"
Dockets,"
and
"
EPA
Dockets."
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028.
The
system
is
an
"
anonymous
access"
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.

Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
rcra­
docket@
epamail.
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
"
anonymous
access"
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
8
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
the
following
paragraph.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

By
Mail.
Send
an
original
and
two
copies
of
your
comments
to:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:

5305W,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.

RCRA­
2002­
0028.

By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
the
"
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?"
section.

How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
RCRA
CBI
Document
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
9
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,

NW.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.

In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:

1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.

2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.

3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
10
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.

5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.

6.
Offer
alternatives.

7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
contact
the
RCRA
Call
Center
at
800­
424­
9346
or
TDD
800­
553­
7672
(
hearing
impaired).
In
the
Washington,
DC,
metropolitan
area,
call
703­
412­
9810
or
TDD
703­
412­
3323.
For
more
detailed
information
on
specific
aspects
of
this
rulemaking,
contact
Ron
Josephson,
phone
703­
308­
0442;
email:
josephson.
ron@
epa.
gov
,
or
Laura
Burrell,

phone
703­
308­
0005,
email:
burrell.
laura@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
index
and
many
of
the
supporting
materials
are
available
on
the
Internet.
You
can
find
these
materials
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
headworks/
index.
htm.

List
of
Acronyms
Acronym
Meaning
1,1­
DCE
1,1­
dichloroethylene
1,1,2­
TCA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
Acronym
Meaning
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
11
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
2­
EE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
ethoxyethanol
2­
NP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
nitropropane
ACC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
American
Chemistry
Council
ANPRM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Advanced
Notice
for
Proposed
Rule
Making
BRS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Biennial
Reporting
System
CBI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Confidential
Business
Information
CERCLA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
CFR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CWA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Clean
Water
Act
DAF
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dilution
and
Attenuation
Factor
EPA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPACMTP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EPA
Composite
Model
for
Leachate
Migration
with
Transformation
Products
FR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Federal
Register
HSWA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
HWIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
IWEM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Industrial
Waste
Management
Evaluation
Model
LDR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
MACT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
MCL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Maximum
Contamination
Limit
NAICS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
NPDES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
NRMRL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
National
Risk
Management
Research
Laboratory
NSPS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
New
Source
Performance
Standard
NTTAA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Acronym
Meaning
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
12
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
OSWER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
POTW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
ppm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
parts
per
million
RCRA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
RFA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
RQ
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reportable
Quantity
SIC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Standard
Industrial
Classification
TC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Toxicity
Characteristic
TRI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Toxics
Release
Inventory
UMRA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
WWT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wastewater
treatment
Outline
I.
Background
A.
History
of
Headworks
Rule
B.
History
of
Solvents
II.
Potential
Changes
to
the
Headworks
Rule
A.
Adding
Solvents
to
Headworks
Exemption
1.
General
Approach
to
Risk
Analysis
2.
Issues
presented
by
each
solvent
a.
Benzene
b.
2­
ethoxyethanol
c.
2­
nitropropane
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
13
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
d.
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
B.
Revising
Headworks
Compliance
Monitoring
Method
C.
Exempting
Scrubber
Water
Derived
from
Solvent
Combustion
D.
Exempting
Leachate
Derived
from
Solvent
Wastes
E.
Exempting
Other
Types
of
Scrubber
Water
and
Leachate
F.
Expanding
the
De
minimis
Exemption
III.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
State
Authority
B.
Executive
Order
12866:
Determination
of
Significance
C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
Information
Collection
Request)

D.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
F.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
G.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
H.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
I.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution,
or
Use
J.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Proposed
Reg
Language
IV.
Background
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
14
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
A.
History
of
Headworks
Rule
On
May
19,
1980,
the
Agency
listed
several
wastes
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.

The
current
list
as
amended
is
found
in
40
CFR
261
Subpart
D.
Among
the
listings
are
the
F001
­
F005
listings
under
40
CFR
261.31,
which
cover
spent
solvents
as
well
as
residuals
from
the
recovery
of
spent
solvents
and
spent
solvent
mixtures.
In
the
same
notice,
EPA
promulgated
the
"
mixture
rule"
whereby
a
solid
waste
becomes
regulated
as
a
hazardous
waste
if
it
is
mixed
with
one
or
more
listed
hazardous
wastes.

After
these
provisions
were
promulgated,
several
industry
groups
became
concerned
that
large
volumes
of
wastewaters
(
and
their
resulting
treatment
sludges)

would
become
listed
hazardous
wastes.
After
investigating
the
submitted
data,
the
Agency,
on
November
17,
1981,
(
46
FR
56582
­
56589)
promulgated
a
rule
giving
several
exemptions
to
the
mixture
rule
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
­
(
E).
These
exemptions
are
commonly
called
the
"
headworks
rule."

The
original
headworks
rule
exemptions
are
divided
into
four
categories:

paragraphs
(
A)
and
(
B)
are
concerned
with
solvents
that
may
be
contained
in
wastewaters
when
going
to
treatment,
paragraph
(
C)
is
concerned
with
certain
petroleum
wastes,
paragraph
(
D)
with
de
minimis
quantities
of
commercial
chemical
products
that
are
lost
to
the
wastewater
treatment
system
during
normal
handling
operations,
and
paragraph
(
E)
with
laboratory
wastes
and/
or
wastewaters
discharged
to
wastewater
treatment.
The
reasoning
behind
each
of
these
exemptions
is
that
the
wastewater
treatment
system
receives
many
different
kinds
of
wastes
and
the
solvents,

commercial
chemical
products,
lab
wastes,
etc.
are
a
minuscule
and
treatable
part
of
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
15
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
the
mix
of
wastewaters.
The
relatively
small
volumes
of
these
organic
constituents
should
be
easily
and
effectively
handled
by
the
wastewater
treatment
system,
so
the
risk
to
the
environment
would
be
negligible.

Under
the
solvents
portion
of
the
headworks
rule,
if
the
maximum
total
weekly
usage
of
listed
solvents
divided
by
the
average
weekly
flow
of
wastewater
through
the
headworks
of
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
does
not
exceed
the
levels
specified
in
paragraphs
(
A)
and/
or
(
B)
of
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv),
and
the
discharge
of
the
wastewaters
is
subject
to
regulation
under
sections
402
or
307(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
the
wastewater
is
exempt
from
the
mixture
rule,
(
and
therefore
any
subsequent
treatment
sludge
generation
also
would
be
exempt).
Facilities
which
have
eliminated
the
discharge
of
wastewaters
also
are
eligible
for
this
exemption.
Those
facilities
that
discharge
or
transport
their
wastewaters
to
privately­
owned
treatment
works
are
not
eligible
for
this
exemption;
however,
the
receiving
facilities
are
eligible
to
receive
the
exemption
if
they
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
headworks
rule.

The
specified
level
in
paragraph
(
A)
is
1
ppm;
the
level
in
paragraph
(
B)
is
25
ppm.
See
46
FR
56582
(
November
17,
1981)
for
more
details.
Carbon
tetrachloride,
tetrachloroethylene,
and
trichloroethylene
were
specified
in
paragraph
(
A).
The
remaining
solvents
listed
under
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Numbers
F001,
F002,

F004,
and
F005
were
put
into
paragraph
(
B).
Since
the
solvents
listed
under
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Number
F003
are
listed
only
for
ignitability,
and
wastewater
mixtures
containing
F003
solvents
are
not
likely
to
be
ignitable
hazardous
wastes,
the
headworks
rule
is
not
relevant
for
these
wastes.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
16
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
On
February
9,
1995,
the
Agency
listed
wastes
from
the
production
of
carbamate
pesticides
(
60
FR
7824
­
7859).
Included
in
the
listing
are
further
amendments
to
the
headworks
rule
for
wastes
from
this
industry,
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
F)
and
(
G).
In
addition,
on
August
6,
1998,
the
Agency
revised
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
C)
as
a
part
of
the
petroleum
listing
determination
to
include
headworks
provisions
for
these
newly
listed
wastes
(
63
FR
42184).

In
August
1999,
EPA
received
a
request
from
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC,
formerly
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association)
to
add
the
four
solvents
(
1,1,2­
trichloroethane,
benzene,
2­
nitropropane,
and
2­
ethoxyethanol)
listed
as
hazardous
wastes
in
1986
to
the
headworks
exemption.
ACC
also
asked
the
Agency
to
allow
direct
monitoring
as
an
alternative
method
by
which
compliance
with
the
headworks
rule
may
be
determined.
Other
ACC­
requested
headworks
rule
changes
include
allowing
those
wastes
listed
in
40
CFR
261.31
and
261.32
to
be
added
to
the
de
minimis
exemption,
and
expanding
the
headworks
rule
to
include
certain
landfill
leachates.
EPA
included
a
request
for
comment
on
these
and
other
ACC­
suggested
exemptions
to
the
mixture
and
derived­
from
rules
in
the
November
19,
1999
proposed
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
(
HWIR)
(
64
FR
63382).
Many
of
today's
proposed
changes
are
an
outgrowth
of
ACC's
suggested
revisions
and
the
public
comments
that
EPA
received
in
response
to
the
discussion
of
these
suggested
revisions
in
the
1999
HWIR
proposal.

B.
History
of
Solvent
Listings
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
17
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
On
May
19,
1980,
the
Agency
listed
23
chemicals
or
classes
of
chemicals
as
hazardous
wastes
when
used
as
solvents
and
subsequently
spent.
The
listings
can
be
found
at
40
CFR
261.31,
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Numbers
F001
­
F005.
As
previously
stated,
in
1981
the
Agency
determined
that
small
volumes
of
these
spent
solvents
could
be
lost
to
wastewater
treatment
systems
with
negligible
risk
and
therefore
these
spent
solvents
were
exempted
under
the
headworks
rule
(
46
FR
56582
­
56589,

November
17,
1981).

The
Agency's
spent
solvent
listings
cover
only
those
solvents
that
are
used
for
their
"
solvent"
properties
 
that
is,
to
solubilize
(
dissolve)
or
mobilize
other
constituents.

For
example,
solvents
used
in
degreasing,
cleaning,
fabric
scouring,
as
diluents,

extractants,
reaction
and
synthesis
media,
and
similar
uses
are
covered
under
the
listing
(
when
spent).
A
solvent
is
considered
"
spent"
when
it
has
been
used
and
is
no
longer
fit
for
use
without
being
regenerated,
reclaimed,
or
otherwise
reprocessed.

On
the
other
hand,
process
wastes
in
which
solvents
were
used
as
reactants
or
ingredients
in
the
formulation
of
commercial
chemical
products
are
not
covered
by
the
listing.
The
products
themselves
also
are
not
covered.
(
See
50
FR
53316,

December
31,
1985.)

On
February
25,
1986
(
51
FR
6537
­
6542),
the
Agency
listed
four
other
solvents
in
the
F002
and
F005
categories.
These
solvents
are
1,1,2­
trichloroethane,

benzene,
2­
nitropropane,
and
2­
ethoxyethanol
(
or
ethylene
glycol
monoethyl
ether).

These
listings
were
in
response
to
a
Congressional
mandate
in
the
Hazardous
and
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
18
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA).
At
the
time,
the
Agency
did
not
determine
whether
or
not
to
add
these
solvents
to
the
headworks
rule
exemptions.

The
Agency
followed
up
the
1986
solvent
listings
with
another
listing
determination
concerning
solvents
as
part
of
a
court­
ordered
mandate.
On
November
19,
1998
(
63
FR
64372
­
64402),
the
Agency
finalized
a
decision
not
to
list
any
of
14
selected
chemicals
as
spent
solvents
under
the
current
listings.
The
Agency
concluded
that
many
of
these
chemicals
had
little
to
no
solvent
use
or
very
specialized
solvent
uses,
and
those
that
were
used
as
solvents
were
managed
in
such
a
way
that
additional
regulation
was
not
warranted.
As
a
part
of
the
same
court­
ordered
mandate,

the
Agency
also
published
a
"
Solvents
Study"
(
August
22,
1996)
on
seven
additional
chemicals.
Most
of
these
chemicals
were
found
to
have
no
solvent
use
at
all.

III.
Potential
Changes
to
the
Headworks
Rule
The
Agency
intends
to
make
a
technical
correction
to
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A).
The
term
"
spent"
was
inadvertently
omitted
from
this
paragraph
when
promulgated.
The
term
"
spent"
should
have
appeared
immediately
before
the
word
"
solvent"
in
the
first
clause
of
the
sub­
paragraph
as
it
does
in
sub­
paragraph
(
B)
of
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv).
The
Agency
proposes
to
correct
this
inadvertent
oversight
by
inserting
the
word
"
spent"
in
the
appropriate
place
in
sub­
paragraph
(
A).

A.
Adding
Solvents
to
the
Headworks
Exemption
The
American
Chemistry
Council
requested
that
the
Agency
consider
adding
the
four
solvents
listed
in
1986
to
the
headworks
exemption
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B).
After
evaluating
these
chemicals,
the
Agency
is
proposing
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
19
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
to
add
two
of
the
solvents
(
benzene
and
2­
ethoxyethanol)
to
the
exemption.
That
is,

the
Agency
is
proposing
to
add
benzene
to
the
solvents
with
a
total
1
ppm
headworks
limit
under
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
and
is
proposing
to
add
2­
ethoxyethanol
(
2­
EE)
to
the
25
ppm
total
limit
under
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
B).
The
exemption
for
benzene
is
conditioned
on
the
use
of
aerated
biological
treatment
units
and
the
requirement
that
any
surface
impoundments
used
prior
to
secondary
clarification
be
lined.
The
Agency
is
not
proposing
any
action
regarding
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
(
1,1,2­
TCA)
and
2­
nitropropane
(
2­
NP)
at
this
time
due
to
more
serious
toxicity
concerns
and
(
in
the
case
of
2­
NP)
a
lack
of
information
on
toxicity
via
the
ingestion
route.
The
Agency
considered
each
solvent's
risks
individually
and
solicits
comments
on
the
appropriateness
of
the
exemptions
and
the
levels
set.

Under
today's
proposed
changes,
if
the
total
headworks
concentration
of
methylene
chloride,
1,1,1­
trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene,
o­
dichlorobenzene,
cresols,

cresylic
acid,
nitrobenzene,
toluene,
methyl
ethyl
ketone,
carbon
disulfide,
isobutanol,

pyridine,
spent
chlorofluorocarbon
solvents,
and
2­
ethoxyethanol
(
added
by
today's
proposal)
do
not
exceed
25
parts
per
million
(
ppm),
and
the
other
conditions
are
met
relating
to
Clean
Water
Act
discharge
and
monitoring
or
measurement
of
constituents
in
the
headworks
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
see
below),
the
wastewater
mixtures
would
no
longer
be
considered
hazardous
waste.
For
mixtures
of
carbon
tetrachloride,
tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene,
and
benzene
(
added
by
today's
proposal
under
certain
conditions),
the
total
headworks
concentration
cannot
exceed
1
ppm,
and
also
must
meet
the
other
conditions
for
it
to
no
longer
be
considered
a
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
20
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
hazardous
waste;
in
addition,
mixtures
containing
benzene
must
be
managed
in
an
aerated
biological
wastewater
treatment
system
without
the
use
of
unlined
surface
impoundments
prior
to
secondary
clarification.

The
Agency
is
taking
comment
only
on
the
evaluation
and
decisions
made
concerning
benzene,
2­
ethoxyethanol,
1,1,2­
trichloroethane,
or
2­
nitropropane
to
the
mixture
rule
exemption
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B).
The
Agency
is
not
soliciting
comments
on
solvents
currently
exempted.
The
Agency
also
is
not
taking
comment
on
any
spent
solvent
listing
or
any
other
hazardous
waste
listing.
Nor
will
the
Agency
respond
to
any
comments
submitted
addressing
any
currently
exempted
solvent,
any
spent
solvent
listing
or
any
other
hazardous
waste
listing.

1.
General
Approach
to
Risk
Analysis
The
Agency
took
a
phased
approach
to
the
risk
analysis
for
the
four
solvents
under
consideration.
In
the
first
phase,
EPA
conducted
a
protective
screening
analysis
by
comparing
the
regulatory
levels
in
the
current
solvents
headworks
exemption
(
i.
e.,
1
ppm
and
25
ppm)
with
protective
waste
concentration
limits
(
based
on
ingestion
of
ground
water
contaminated
by
surface
impoundment
leachate
and
inhalation
of
chemicals
volatilized
from
an
aerated
tank)
that
EPA
already
had
generated
under
previous
efforts.
These
efforts
calculated
protective
levels
based
on
a
more
stringent
10­
6
risk
threshold.
In
addition,
EPA
evaluated
data
from
EPA's
National
Risk
Management
Research
Laboratory
(
NRMRL,
part
of
the
Agency's
Office
of
Research
and
Development)
treatability
database
to
determine
the
probable
effect
of
treatment
in
reducing
chemical
concentrations
using
existing
treatment
technologies.
In
the
second
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
21
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
phase,
EPA
performed
a
more
detailed
analysis
for
the
chemicals
(
where
possible).

This
more
detailed
human
health
risk
assessment
evaluated
both
the
direct
groundwater
pathway
and
indirect
exposure
pathways
for
chemicals
released
from
either
the
wastewater
or
the
resulting
treatment
sludge.
This
Phase
II
analysis
used
a
10­
5
risk
threshold
that
the
Agency
considers
sufficiently
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
therefore
uses
for
a
variety
of
regulatory
determinations.

Comparison
to
Existing
Waste
Concentration
Limits
The
screening
analysis
compared
waste
concentration
estimates
taken
from
previous
modeling
efforts
for
each
of
the
four
chemicals
with
applicable
headworks
exemption
levels.

Table
1:
Preliminary
Comparative
Solvent
Risk
Data
Chemical
name
Groundwater
ingestion
(
mg/
L)
1
Direct
Inhalation2
(
mg/
L)

benzene
(
c)
0.0027
3
2­
ethoxyethanol
(
nc)
13
100,000
2­
nitropropane
(
c)
N/
A
0.04
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
(
c)
0.0028
2
Footnotes:

(
c)
is
a
carcinogen,
(
nc)
is
a
non­
carcinogen
1
Adult
risk,
surface
impoundment,
10­
6
risk,
HQ=
1
(
ground
water
modeling
screening
levels
from
IWEM)

2
Adult
risk,
Aerated
tanks,
90
%
sites,
90%
receptors
protected,
150
m,
10­
6
risk,

HQ=
0.25
(
1999
Air
Characteristic
Study)

The
Agency
identified
waste
concentration
screening
estimates
that
would
be
protective
of
groundwater
ingestion
for
three
of
the
solvents
(
benzene,
2­
ethoxyethanol,
1U.
S.
EPA.
2002.
Industrial
Waste
Management
Evaluation
Model
(
IWEM)
Technical
Background
Document.
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Washington,
DC.
EPA530­
R­
02­
012.

2Volume
III:
Revised
Risk
Analysis
for
the
Air
Characteristic
Study:
Results,
EPA
530­
R­
99­
019c,
U.
S.
EPA,
November
1999.
(
on
CD­
Rom)

12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
22
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
and
1,1,2­
trichloroethane)
from
previous
groundwater
modeling
efforts.
1
This
comparison
was
conservative
because
it
did
not
take
into
account
any
reductions
in
concentration
due
to
treatment.
For
all
three
chemicals,
the
protective
screening
levels
are
lower
than
the
existing
standards
for
wastewaters
entering
treatment
(
i.
e.,
1
ppm
for
benzene
and
1,1,2­
trichloroethane;
and
25
ppm
for
2­
ethoxyethanol),
indicating
a
need
for
further
analysis.
The
Agency
currently
does
not
have
sufficient
information
to
generate
an
estimate
of
the
toxicity
of
2­
nitropropane
through
ingestion,
so
no
comparison
could
be
made.

The
Agency
also
has
identified
waste
concentration
estimates
that
would
be
protective
of
inhalation
exposures
to
each
of
the
four
chemicals
during
volatilization
from
aerated
tanks,
also
based
on
previous
modeling
efforts.
2
The
numbers
shown
in
Table
1
represent
the
maximum
constituent
concentration
meeting
the
noted
adult
risk
thresholds
at
specified
receptor
distances.
The
table
shows
that
for
three
of
the
solvents
(
benzene,
2­
ethoxyethanol,
and
1,1,2­
trichloroethane),
the
maximum
modeled
constituent
level
is
above
the
exemption
level
proposed
for
these
chemicals
(
i.
e.,
the
existing
standard
of
1
ppm
or
25
ppm
was
protective
of
this
risk
scenario)
and
thus,
is
considered
protective.
One
of
the
constituents,
2­
NP,
is
still
of
concern
for
the
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
23
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
inhalation
pathway
(
i.
e.,
the
potential
standard
of
1
ppm
would
not
meet
the
Agency
inhalation
risk
thresholds).
Additional
discussion
of
2­
nitropropane
follows
below.

Analysis
of
Treatability
Data
The
NRMRL
treatability
database
provides
valuable
information
on
effluent
concentrations
for
specific
chemicals
at
set
input
levels.
For
the
purposes
of
today's
proposal,
Agency
staff
searched
the
database
for
aqueous
treatment
technology
data
on
full­
scale
industrial
facilities
in
the
chemical
or
petroleum
refining
industries
that
have
measured
levels
of
any
one
of
the
four
solvents
entering
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
Data
generally
are
summarized
from
government
references,
such
as
effluent
guidelines
development
documents.
Aqueous
treatment
technology
data
are
available
for
benzene
and
1,1,2­
trichloroethane.
Only
one
non­
industrial
aqueous
treatment
technology
data
point
exists
for
2­
ethoxyethanol,
and
no
data
are
available
for
2­
nitropropane.
The
data
show
that
for
two
of
the
solvents
(
benzene
and
2­
ethoxyethanol),
wastewater
treatment
generally
is
effective
in
reducing
concentrations
below
the
levels
of
concern.
Information
on
how
to
obtain
the
NRMRL
data
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ORD/
NRMRL/
treat.
htm.
Further
analysis
of
NRMRL
data
as
applied
to
industrial
users
of
the
chemicals
under
consideration
is
available
in
Proposed
Rule
to
Expand
the
RCRA
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions
for
Hazardous
Waste
Mixtures
(
Headworks
Exemption)
in
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)
Technical
Background
Document
located
in
the
public
docket
to
today's
rule.

Additional
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
3The
1997
BRS
data
were
used
because
that
was
the
last
year
to
include
wastewater
data.
EPA
queried
the
BRS
for
data
on
F002
(
for
1,1,2­
trichloroethane)
and
F005
(
for
benzene,
2­
ethoxyethanol,
and
2­
nitropropane)
at
facilities
which
generated
wastewaters
or
managed
treatment
sludges.
The
data
from
the
BRS
do
not
state
which
solvent
is
linked
to
a
specific
waste
code.
To
screen
for
a
"
high
end"
exposure
analysis,
EPA
based
the
input
parameters
on
the
facility
that
is
the
90th
percentile
in
size
for
the
given
waste
code
(
i.
e.,
that
only
ten
percent
of
the
facilities
are
larger).

12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
24
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
In
the
second
phase,
the
Agency
used
the
Chem
9/
Water
9
model
as
an
emissions
source
model
(
i.
e.,
to
estimate
the
wastewater
and
sludge
concentrations
after
each
step
in
the
wastewater
treatment
system)
and
the
Industrial
Waste
Management
Evaluation
Model
(
IWEM)
to
perform
a
groundwater
pathway
risk
assessment,
using
data
from
the
1997
Biennial
Reporting
System
as
input
parameters.
3
EPA
modeled
wastewaters
managed
in
both
a
non­
aerated
tank
and
unlined
surface
impoundment,
and
an
aerated
biological
treatment
system
(
which
included
both
primary
and
secondary
clarifier
wastewater
units).
EPA
also
modeled
sludges
generated
by
wastewater
treatment
as
managed
in
monofills
and
land
farms.

EPA
modeled
direct
and
indirect
pathways,
using
chemical
specific
dilution
and
attenuation
factors
(
DAFs)
from
EPA's
Composite
Model
for
Leachate
Migration
with
Transformation
Products
(
EPACMTP),
to
predict
the
constituent
concentration
at
the
point
of
human
contact.
Direct
routes
included
exposure
via
ingestion
of
contaminated
ground
water
and
inhalation
of
vapors
from
showering
with
contaminated
ground
water.

Indirect
routes
of
exposure
included
the
consumption
of
contaminated
vegetables
and
meats.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
25
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
For
each
scenario,
multiple
iterations
were
conducted
to
determine
both
central
tendency
risk
and
"
high­
end"
risk.
In
all
cases,
however,
the
influent
concentrations
for
benzene
and
1,1,2­
TCA
at
the
headworks
were
assumed
to
be
the
maximum
exemption
level
allowable
assigned
to
carcinogens
(
1
ppm),
and
for
2­
ethoxyethanol
the
influent
concentration
was
assumed
to
be
the
maximum
allowable
limit
for
non­
carcinogens
(
25
ppm).
The
risk
level
was
set
at
10­
5
(
one
chance
in
100,000)
for
carcinogens
and
at
a
hazard
quotient
of
1
for
non­
carcinogens.
Finally,
for
the
indirect
pathways,
the
medium
used
to
grow
plants
was
assumed
to
consist
of
100%
sludge
(
at
the
concentration
generated
by
Chem
9/
Water
9).
Because
none
of
the
chemicals
assessed
were
found
to
be
of
concern
for
the
indirect
pathways,
EPA
did
not
further
refine
this
assumption.
A
full
description
of
the
data
screening
methodology
can
be
found
in
the
modeling
background
document
to
today's
proposal.

2.
Issues
presented
by
each
solvent
a.
Benzene
Benzene
is
the
most
ubiquitous
of
the
four
solvents
under
consideration.
It
has
uses
in
many
industries,
particularly
in
organic
synthesis
and
catalyst
formation.

Benzene
is
used
as
a
reactant
as
well
as
a
medium
for
reactions
to
take
place.
Due
to
increased
restrictions
on
benzene
emissions
(
such
as
MACT
standards,
etc.),
chemical
industries
have
been
encouraged
to
find
alternatives
to
benzene.
It
is
also
one
of
the
more
toxic,
being
classified
by
EPA
as
a
Class
A
carcinogen.

As
presented
in
Table
1
of
this
notice,
existing
modeled
waste
concentration
limits
show
that
the
1
ppm
standard
would
be
protective
for
the
direct
air
inhalation
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
26
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
pathway,
even
with
the
more
stringent
10­
6
risk
threshold.
Moreover,
data
from
the
NRMRL
treatability
database
demonstrate
that,
after
the
specified
treatment,
effluent
concentrations
for
benzene
generally
are
below
the
groundwater
modeled
level
of
0.0177
mg/
L
(
17.7
µ
g/
L),
even
when
the
influent
benzene
level
approaches
1
mg/
L
(
1,000
µ
g/
L).
Note
that
treatability
numbers
are
measured
at
the
effluent
of
a
wastewater
treatment
system,
not
in
the
treatment
unit
itself.
However,
we
believe
this
comparison
is
helpful
because
it
illustrates
that
levels
of
benzene
below
concern
are
achievable
in
industrial
wastewater
treatment
systems,
even
when
the
input
level
approaches
1
ppm.

Data
from
the
groundwater
pathway
human
health
risk
analysis
also
support
the
addition
of
benzene
to
the
headworks
exemption,
with
certain
conditions.
For
wastewaters,
non­
aerated
treatment
scenarios
resulted
in
exposures
above
the
level
of
concern
for
all
components,
but
aerated
biological
treatment
scenarios
resulted
in
unacceptable
risk
levels
only
when
the
primary
clarifier
wastewaters
were
managed
in
an
unlined
surface
impoundment.
For
sludges,
non­
aerated
treatment
sludges
and
aerated
biological
treatment
primary
sludges
managed
in
landfills
resulted
in
risk
levels
above
the
level
of
concern,
but
aerated
biological
treatment
secondary
sludges
managed
in
landfills
were
below
the
levels
of
concern.
Indirect
exposures
to
benzene
from
management
of
sludges
in
land
farms
were
not
of
concern,
regardless
of
treatment
type.
Benzene
exceeded
the
risk
of
10­
5
for
each
of
the
non­
aerated
scenarios
and
two
components
from
the
aerated
biological
treatment
system
(
primary
clarifier
wastewaters
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
27
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
being
managed
in
an
unlined
surface
impoundment
and
primary
clarifier
sludge
being
managed
in
a
monofill).

Based
on
the
above
results,
the
Agency
is
proposing
to
add
benzene
to
the
headworks
exemption
at
the
level
of
1
ppm
with
the
condition
of
certain
management
practices.
Specifically,
the
proposed
conditions
are
that
wastewaters
containing
benzene
be
managed
in
aerated
biological
waste
management
units
and
that
any
surface
impoundments
used
prior
to
secondary
clarification
be
lined.
Aerated
biological
treatment
facilitates
biodegradation,
reducing
the
concentration
of
benzene
in
the
sludge.
[
See
Risk
Assessment
to
Support
the
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions
(
Headworks
Exemptions)
Proposed
Rule,
U.
S.
EPA
2002,
for
further
information
on
assumptions
used
for
biodegradation
in
aerated
biological
treatment
systems].
Although
the
modeled
risk
for
managing
primary
clarifier
sludge
(
that
is
generated
prior
to
aerated
biological
treatment)
in
a
monofill
exceeded
10­
5,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
additional
conditions
are
needed
to
be
protective
of
this
scenario,

primarily
because
these
sludges
still
would
be
considered
hazardous
wastes
if
they
exhibit
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
for
benzene
of
0.5
mg/
L.

The
Agency
seeks
comment
on
the
proposal
to
add
benzene
to
the
headworks
exemption
at
the
level
of
1
ppm
with
the
conditional
management
requirements,
on
the
necessity
of
the
contingent
management
requirements,
the
level
of
biodegradation
achieved
through
aerated
biological
treatment
systems,
industrial
solvent
use
levels
of
benzene,
and
current
industrial
treatment
systems
and
management
practices.

b.
2­
Ethoxyethanol
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
28
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
2­
ethoxyethanol
is
the
least
toxic
of
the
four
chemicals
under
consideration,
and
is
the
only
non­
carcinogen.
Due
to
concerns
about
workplace
exposure
and
the
availability
of
substitute
chemicals,
use
of
2­
ethoxyethanol
has
been
declining
in
the
United
States.

As
presented
in
Table
1
of
this
notice,
existing
modeled
waste
concentration
limits
show
that
the
25
ppm
standard
would
be
protective
for
the
direct
air
inhalation
pathway,
even
without
additional
treatment.
In
addition,
the
limited
treatment
information
on
2­
ethoxyethanol
available
in
the
treatability
database
show
that
treatment
can
be
effective
in
further
reducing
the
concentration
of
2­
ethoxyethanol
in
wastewaters.
However,
groundwater
screening
pathway
data
for
2­
ethoxyethanol,
also
in
Table
1,
show
protective
screening
levels
slightly
below
the
25
ppm
standard
(
i.
e.,

13
ppm),
indicating
a
need
for
further
analysis.

The
more
detailed
groundwater
pathway
human
health
analysis
does
support,

however,
the
addition
of
2­
ethoxyethanol
at
25
ppm
to
the
headworks
exemption.
Both
direct
and
indirect
analyses
showed
2­
ethoxyethanol
at
25
ppm
in
the
headworks
poses
no
significant
human
health
risk.
[
See
Risk
Assessment
to
Support
the
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions
(
Headworks
Exemptions)
Proposed
Rule,
U.
S.
EPA
2002]

The
Agency
seeks
comment
on
the
proposal
to
add
2­
ethoxyethanol
to
the
headworks
exemption
at
25
ppm.

c.
2­
Nitropropane
The
Agency
has
very
little
production,
release
and
toxicity
data
on
2­
nitropropane.
The
1999
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
only
listed
three
facilities
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
29
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
nationwide
reporting
the
chemical
present
in
wastewaters.
The
treatability
database
from
NRMRL
has
no
aqueous
technology
data
on
2­
nitropropane.
The
Agency
has
only
inhalation
toxicity
information
to
use
for
risk
modeling
purposes.
We
believe
that
the
available
information
risk
is
not
adequate
to
develop
an
oral
benchmark
for
2­
nitropropane.
2­
Nitropropane
failed
to
pass
the
Phase
I
air
risk
screen
by
a
factor
of
25
(
in
contrast
to
the
other
three
solvents
passing,
as
indicated
in
Table
1).
Because
of
the
large
margin
of
failure
for
2­
nitropropane,
we
considered
it
unlikely
that
2­
nitropropane
would
pass
a
more
robust
Phase
II
type
of
analysis.
Data
from
previous
modeling
efforts
(
Table
1)
show
risk
levels
from
air
inhalation
exposure
that
do
not
support
an
exemption
for
2­
nitropropane
at
this
time.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
no
current
ingestion
toxicity
information
to
use
for
risk
modeling
purposes
for
2­
nitropropane.
The
treatability
database
from
NRMRL
has
no
aqueous
technology
data
on
2­
nitropropane.
No
additional
groundwater
pathway
human
health
risk
analysis
was
performed
on
2­
nitropropane
due
to
lack
of
usage
and
ingestion
toxicity
information
on
this
compound.
Based
on
the
large
margin
of
failure
in
the
Phase
I
screen
and
the
extremely
low
reported
usage
that
the
Agency
found
for
2­
nitropropane,

we
determined
that
continued
analysis
of
2­
nitropropane
was
not
likely
to
affect
the
regulatory
status
of
these
wastes
significantly.

Accordingly,
the
Agency
is
not
proposing
any
action
at
this
time
on
2­
nitropropane
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B).
The
Agency
seeks
comment
on
the
availability
of
toxicity
information
on
2­
nitropropane
and
the
current
level
of
use
as
a
solvent.
4"
Listing
Background
Document
for
Four
Spent
Solvents
and
Still
Bottoms
From
Recovery
of
These
Solvents",
USEPA,
January
22,
1985,
Docket
No.
F­
85­
LSSP­
FFFFF,
document
no.
F005.

12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
30
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
d.
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
According
to
the
Agency's
listing
background
document
of
19854,
most
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
(
1,1,2­
TCA)
was
used
as
a
vinylidene
chloride
feedstock.
The
rest
had
some
solvent
use,
such
as
a
solvent
for
waxes,
resins,
fats,
rubbers,
and
coating
cleaner.

As
presented
in
Table
1
of
this
notice,
existing
modeled
waste
concentration
limits
show
that
the
1
ppm
standard
would
be
protective
for
the
direct
air
inhalation
pathway.
However,
the
groundwater
modeled
level
of
0.007
mg/
L
indicates
potential
risk
at
the
1
ppm
standard
from
the
groundwater
pathway,
and
data
from
the
NRMRL
treatability
database
do
not
appear
to
demonstrate
a
significant
reduction
in
chemical
concentration
of
1,1,2­
TCA
during
treatment,
especially
when
the
input
level
approaches
1
ppm.

Data
from
the
more
detailed
groundwater
pathway
human
health
analysis
also
do
not
support
the
addition
of
1,1,2­
TCA
at
1
ppm
to
the
headworks
exemption.
While
1,1,2­
TCA
was
found
to
be
below
the
level
of
concern
for
indirect
exposures,

wastewater
concentrations
resulted
in
risks
greater
than
10­
5
for
sludges
and
wastewaters
from
both
aerated
biological
treatment
and
non­
aerated
treatment
units
(
both
for
groundwater
ingestion
and
inhalation
of
shower
vapors).
In
addition,

1,1,2­
TCA
undergoes
transformation
to
1,1­
dichloroethylene
(
1,1­
DCE)
due
to
hydrolysis
while
being
transported
in
the
subsurface
environments.
The
transformation
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
31
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
product
(
1,1­
DCE)
is
more
toxic
than
the
parent
compound
(
1,1,2­
TCA)
by
approximately
an
order
of
magnitude.
However,
the
modeling
results
are
based
on
the
parent
compound
only.
Therefore,
risk
from
1,1,2­
TCA
will
likely
be
even
greater
than
shown
in
the
headworks
exemption
risk
background
document
(
US
EPA,
2002).

Due
to
the
indication
that
significant
risks
occurred
in
the
majority
of
waste
management
scenarios
as
modeled,
the
Agency
is
not
proposing
any
action
on
1,1,2­
TCA
at
this
time
under
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A).
The
Agency
seeks
comment
on
the
results
of
this
risk
analysis
and
current
solvent
use.

B.
Revising
Compliance
Monitoring
Method
The
Agency
is
proposing
to
expand
the
ways
in
which
compliance
with
the
headworks
rule
may
be
determined
by
adding
the
option
of
directly
measuring
solvent
chemical
levels
at
the
headworks
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
This
change
would
affect
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
and
(
G).
Under
the
current
solvent
exemptions,
a
facility
must
use
a
"
mass
balance"
approach
to
calculate
the
theoretical
headworks
concentration
(
via
solvent
usage)
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
rule.
That
is,

a
facility
must
look
at
inventory
records
of
the
amount
of
solvent
purchased
weekly
and
divide
that
amount
by
the
average
weekly
flow
of
wastewater
through
the
headworks
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
The
amount
known
not
to
go
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
e.
g.,
lost
to
product,
removed
as
still
bottoms)
may
be
subtracted
from
the
calculation.
However,
the
amount
volatilized
may
not
be
subtracted
to
ensure
that
the
solvent
wastes
were
properly
treated
and
to
minimize
losses
of
these
chemicals
through
volatilization.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
32
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
The
Agency
received
a
request
from
ACC
to
allow
another
compliance
methodology.
Under
this
method,
facilities
would
be
allowed
to
perform
a
direct
measurement
of
the
concentration
of
solvent
chemicals
in
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
According
to
ACC,
use
of
direct
measurement
is
more
accurate
than
calculating
a
mass
balance
over
the
system.
In
addition,
they
point
out
that
with
the
advent
of
MACT
standards
and
NSPS
requirements
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
its
amendments
over
the
21
years
since
the
headworks
rule
was
first
promulgated,
these
standards
should
prevent
the
intentional
volatilization
about
which
the
Agency
was
initially
concerned.

When
the
original
headworks
rule
was
promulgated,
the
Agency
was
concerned
that
the
exemption
might
encourage
facilities
to
volatilize
solvents
before
a
defined
measurement
point,
thus
allowing
facilities
to
claim
compliance
with
the
exemption,
but
in
reality
transferring
the
waste
management
problem
to
another
medium.
As
a
result,

the
Agency
structured
the
exemption
to
require
facilities
to
use
the
"
mass
balance"

approach
to
calculate
whether
or
not
they
met
the
concentration
thresholds
set
forth
in
the
rule.
As
noted
earlier,
facilities
are
allowed
to
subtract
the
amount
of
solvents
known
not
to
go
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
e.
g.,
from
losses
to
product,
still
bottoms,
etc.),
but
not
losses
due
to
volatilization
(
See
46
FR
56585,
footnote
24,

November
17,
1981).
Use
of
the
mass
balance
approach
did
not
require
facilities
to
define
a
specific
point
to
measure
levels
of
solvents
entering
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
33
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
Since
the
1981
rule
was
published,
the
Agency
has
promulgated
numerous
air
emissions
regulations
for
new
and
existing
sources
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
e.
g.,

MACT
and
NSPS
programs).
The
background
document
to
today's
proposal
Proposed
Rule
to
Expand
the
RCRA
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions
for
Hazardous
Waste
Mixtures
(
Headworks
Exemption)
in
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)
Technical
Background
Document)
lists
the
industries
affected
by
these
Clean
Air
Act
programs.
Because
of
the
coverage
of
these
regulations,
the
Agency
believes
that
concerns
about
volatilization
have
been
addressed,
and
that
allowing
facilities
a
greater
choice
of
compliance
methodologies
is
appropriate.

Use
of
this
method
also
means
that
the
measured
level(
s)
of
the
chemical(
s)
at
the
headworks
may
not
exceed
the
total
regulatory
level,
regardless
of
its
(
or
their)

origin
in
the
process,
as
long
as
some
of
it
(
or
them)
has
been
used
as
a
"
solvent."

Therefore,
direct
measurement
could
overstate
the
amount
of
solvent(
s)
if
the
chemical(
s)
were
used
at
the
facility
in
other
applications
(
e.
g.,
impurity
in
other
feedstocks,
product
component,
reaction
byproduct,
etc.)
Facilities
that
wish
to
take
advantage
of
the
direct
monitoring
approach
must
report
the
entire
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
question
if
any
of
it
was
used
as
a
solvent.

The
Agency
is
proposing
to
give
facilities
a
choice
of
using
direct
measurement
or
mass
balance
to
determine
compliance
with
the
headworks
rule.
Facilities
that
choose
to
use
direct
monitoring
must
be
subject
to
Clean
Air
Act
regulations
that
minimize
fugitive
process
or
wastewater
emissions
(
e.
g.,
MACT
standards
under
40
CFR
61
or
63
or
NSPS
requirements
under
40
CFR
60).
We
are
not
proposing
any
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
34
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
changes
to,
nor
are
we
seeking
comment
on
the
regulatory
standard
set
in
the
1981
rule,
that
a
facility
may
not
exceed
the
total
solvent
level
set
forth
in
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)

or
(
B)
in
order
to
comply
with
the
rule.
The
Agency
will
not
respond
to
comments
addressing
this
standard.

One
of
the
main
implementation
issues
in
utilizing
the
direct
monitoring
method
of
compliance
is
understanding
the
point
in
the
process
at
which
a
facility
determines
whether
it
meets
the
limits
in
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B).
In
response
to
this
issue,
the
Agency
is
setting
an
informal
definition
of
"
headworks"
so
facilities
and
implementing
agencies
can
understand
how
the
monitoring
point
is
described.
The
guidance
the
Agency
is
providing
is
intended
to
mirror
the
language
in
the
1981
preamble;
namely,

that
the
headworks
is
the
location
at
which
final
combination
of
raw
process
wastewater
streams
typically
takes
place
(
46
FR
56582,
November
17,
1981).

The
Agency
is
not
proposing
to
set
a
regulatory
definition
of
the
term
headworks.

Instead,
the
Agency
prefers
to
describe
the
term
for
both
maximum
flexibility
and
understanding.
For
the
purposes
of
this
rule,
headworks
can
include
a
central
catch
basin
for
industrial
wastewaters,
a
pump
station
outfall,
equalization
tank,
or
some
other
main
wastewater
collection
area
that
exists
in
which
transport
of
process
wastewaters
stops
and
chemical
or
biological
treatment
begins.

The
Agency
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
the
description
for
headworks
given
above
is
adequate,
or
if
a
more
detailed
description
is
needed.
Commenters
may
wish
to
provide
examples
to
illustrate
working
definitions
of
headworks
or
where
confusion
about
a
headworks
definition
might
exist.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
35
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
The
Agency
proposes
that
facilities
that
want
to
take
advantage
of
using
direct
monitoring
develop
a
site­
specific
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
weekly
average
standards
set
for
the
appropriate
solvent(
s).
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
appropriate
constituents
to
be
monitored.
In
addition,
facilities
would
be
required
to
file
a
copy
of
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
with
the
Regional
Administrator
or
State
Director,
as
the
context
requires,

or
an
authorized
representative
(
i.
e.
the
"
Director,"
as
defined
in
40
CFR
270.2),
and
would
need
to
confirm
that
such
sampling
and
analysis
plan
had
been
received
prior
to
the
commencement
of
direct
monitoring
at
the
facility.
Examples
of
confirmation
include
certified
mail
return
receipt,
or
written
confirmation
of
delivery
from
a
commercial
delivery
service.
Upon
confirmation
that
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
has
been
delivered
successfully
to
the
overseeing
agency,
the
facility
would
be
allowed
to
commence
direct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
compliance.
The
filing
of
the
sampling
plan
would
suffice
for
initial
notification.
EPA
does
not
propose
to
require
any
other
formal
notification
to
the
regulator,
unless
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
monitoring.
Confirmation
that
the
overseeing
agency
has
received
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
would
not
imply,
however,
that
the
package
has
been
reviewed
or
approved.
EPA
does
not
propose
to
require
that
the
overseeing
agency
issue
a
formal
approval
of
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan.
However,
the
Director
may
reject
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
if
he/
she
finds
that
(
1)
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
fails
to
include
the
above
information,
or
(
2)
the
plan
parameters
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
36
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
would
not
enable
the
facility
to
calculate
the
weekly
average
concentration
of
these
chemicals
accurately.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected.

The
Agency
seeks
comments
from
the
public
as
to
the
benefits
of
the
changes
and
if
they
are
sufficiently
protective
of
the
environment.
The
Agency
would
like
comments
as
to
whether
the
best
approach
is
(
1)
to
leave
the
current
system
"
as
is,"
or
(
2)
to
give
facilities
a
choice
of
mass
balance
or
direct
monitoring
techniques.
The
Agency
also
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
the
overseeing
agency
should
either
approve
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
or
require
facilities
to
wait
a
certain
period
of
time
(
if
the
state
or
EPA
has
not
responded)
before
embarking
on
a
direct
monitoring
program,
and
how
a
facility
suspected
of
violating
the
exemption
limits
may
be
made
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
weekly
standard.

Under
the
existing
headworks
exemption
rule
(
46
FR
56585,
November
17,

1981),
facilities
must
be
prepared
to
demonstrate
(
for
the
purposes
of
an
inspection
or
audit)
that
they
meet
the
mass
balance
criteria
of
the
rule.
Facilities
opting
to
use
direct
monitoring
could
comply
with
this
requirement
by
keeping
monitoring
records
on
site
to
show
an
inspector
that
the
new
criteria
are
being
met.
Under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
7),
a
facility
is
required
to
place
a
one­
time
notice
concerning
waste
generation,
subsequent
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
or
solid
waste
or
exemption
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation,
and
the
disposition
of
the
waste,
in
the
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
37
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
facility's
on­
site
files.
Generally,
such
notification,
as
well
as
certifications,
waste
analysis
data,
and
other
documentation
must
be
kept
for
a
period
of
three
years
unless
an
enforcement
action
by
the
Agency
extends
the
record
retention
period
(
§
268.7(
a)(
8)).
EPA
has
estimated
the
burden
associated
with
the
proposed
reporting
requirements
when
a
facility
chooses
the
direct
monitoring
option.
Those
estimates
are
presented
in
Section
IV.
D
of
today's
proposal.

The
Agency
is
soliciting
comment
on
how
to
minimize
overlapping
reporting
requirements.
Under
EPA's
Water
program,
(
e.
g,
40
CFR
122.48
and
403.12),
facilities
may
be
required
under
their
permits
to
monitor
these
same
constituents
at
the
point
of
discharge
(
i.
e.,
effluent
monitoring).
The
Agency
recognizes
that
current
requirements
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
do
not
require
monitoring
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system
influent
(
or
headworks).
However,
EPA
notes
some
facilities
may
collect
and
may
report
such
information.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether
or
not
facilities
are
currently
performing
influent
monitoring
for
other
media
programs.
If
so,
the
Agency
solicits
comments
on
the
frequency
of
the
influent
monitoring
and
reporting
and
if
this
information
can
be
used
to
determine
compliance
with
the
headworks
rule.
.

The
Agency
also
seeks
comment
on
the
proposed
use
of
other
environmental
regulatory
program
requirements
to
integrate
the
information
needed
for
this
exemption.
Specifically,
the
Agency
is
interested
in
how
much
of
the
information
is
contained
in
air
or
water
permit
monitoring/
reporting
requirements,
how
easy
modifying
another
regulatory
program's
requirements
to
contain
these
data
would
be,
and
what
steps
facilities
are
taking
to
conduct
this
kind
of
monitoring
already.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
38
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
C.
Exempting
Scrubber
Water
Derived
from
Solvent
Combustion
The
issue
of
whether
to
exempt
incinerator
scrubber
water
first
was
raised
by
commenters
to
the
1999
HWIR
proposal.
Under
the
current
headworks
rule,
the
exemptions
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B)
are
from
"
normal
losses"
from
manufacturing
operations
and
not
from
wastes
that
are
already
separated
from
the
wastewaters
or
that
had
been
removed
from
the
process
previously.
Many
spent
solvents
are
sent
to
hazardous
waste
combustors.
The
combustors
have
scrubbers,

used
for
air
pollution
control,
and
these
scrubbers
usually
generate
an
aqueous
stream
that
is
easily
treatable
in
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
The
scrubber
waters,

however,
are
considered
"
derived
from"
residuals
of
the
spent
solvents,
and
since
they
are
not
incidental
losses
to
the
wastewater
treatment
system,
they
are
not
currently
eligible
for
the
headworks
exemptions.

In
the
carbamates
final
rule
(
60
FR
7824
­
7859,
February
9,
1995),
the
Agency
decided
that
scrubber
waters
from
the
incineration
of
carbamate
production
wastes
are
eligible
for
the
headworks
exemptions
that
were
promulgated
under
that
listing
determination.
The
justification
for
this
decision
was
that
these
scrubber
waters
would
be
comparable
in
expected
constituents
and
concentration
levels
with
the
alreadyexempted
carbamate
wastewaters.

Based
on
the
rationale
in
the
carbamates
rule,
the
Agency
is
proposing
that
scrubber
waters
derived
from
the
combustion
of
spent
solvents
and
sent
to
a
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
qualify
for
the
exemption
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)

and
(
B).
Similar
to
the
carbamates
decision,
we
believe
that
the
scrubber
waters
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
39
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
derived
from
combustion
of
spent
solvent
wastes
will
be
comparable
in
expected
constituents
with
spent
solvent
wastewaters.
In
addition,
the
solvent
constituents
receive
at
least
99.99%
destruction
and
removal
during
incineration,
the
incinerator
scrubber
water
is
typically
a
small
percentage
of
the
flow
into
a
wastewater
treatment
system,
and
the
wastewater
treatment
system
further
reduces
remaining
constituent
concentrations.
The
Agency
requests
comment
on
this
proposed
revision.

D.
Exempting
Leachate
Derived
From
Solvent
Wastes
Another
suggested
revision
to
the
headworks
rule
is
to
exempt
leachate
from
landfills
that
accepted
only
F001
­
F005
spent
solvent
wastes.
Under
current
rules,

leachate
resulting
from
the
disposal
of
more
than
one
listed
waste
under
40
CFR
261
Subpart
D
is
classified
as
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Number
F039.
Since
no
exemption
currently
exists
under
the
headworks
rule
for
F039
liquids,
these
leachates
(
even
if
derived
solely
from
spent
solvents)
cannot
be
inserted
into
a
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
and
receive
an
exemption
from
the
mixture
rule.

BRS
data
from
1997
show
the
presence
of
12
hazardous
waste
landfills
that
accept
only
F001
­
F005
spent
solvent
hazardous
wastes
and
no
other
listed
wastes.

These
landfills
are
both
on­
site
at
manufacturing
facilities
and
commercial
hazardous
waste
landfills.
In
addition,
three
other
landfills
list
characteristic
waste
codes,

commercial
chemical
products,
and
lab
packs
with
the
spent
solvent
wastes.
The
waste
codes
in
question
may
be
associated
with
the
solvents
themselves.
For
example,
D001
wastes
are
ignitable,
and
may
be
from
the
same
solvents.
The
U226
waste
code
corresponds
to
1,1,1­
trichloroethane
as
a
commercial
chemical
product.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
40
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
The
chemical,
when
used
as
a
solvent
and
subsequently
spent,
would
carry
an
F001
or
F002
waste
code.

The
Agency
does
not
have
sufficient
data
concerning
the
variability
of
these
leachates
to
propose
adding
them
to
the
exemption
at
this
time.
The
Agency
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
such
an
exemption
would
be
advisable,
the
relative
volumes
of
leachate
to
other
wastewaters
going
for
treatment,
and
the
relative
concentrations
of
other
contaminants
in
leachate
versus
those
present
in
the
other
wastewaters
at
these
facilities.
The
Agency
also
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
landfills
that
accept
characteristic
wastes,
lab
packs,
or
commercial
chemical
products
that
correspond
to
the
chemicals
that
are
also
listed
spent
solvents
should
be
eligible
to
have
leachate
sent
to
a
facility
wastewater
treatment
system
and
be
exempted.

At
this
point,
the
Agency
is
not
proposing
an
exemption
for
solvent­
only
leachate.
Therefore,
in
the
final
rule
to
today's
proposal,
the
Agency
does
not
expect
to
include
any
regulatory
language
exempting
any
of
these
leachates.
Rather,
the
Agency
is
considering
the
leachate
exemption
discussion
being
advanced
in
today's
proposal
as
an
Advanced
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
ANPRM).

E.
Exempting
Other
Types
of
Leachate
The
ACC
also
has
requested
that
the
Agency
consider
establishing
an
exemption
to
allow
facilities
with
unlined
surface
impoundments
attached
to
wastewater
treatment
systems
to
accept
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system
without
the
need
for
the
unlined
surface
impoundment
to
obtain
a
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
permit.
5Development
Document
for
Final
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
the
Landfills
Point
Source
Category,
EPA­
821­
R­
99­
019,
U.
S.
EPA,
January
2000.

12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
41
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
At
this
time,
EPA
still
is
considering
the
suggested
regulatory
exemption
for
leachate
derived­
from
landfilled
hazardous
waste
as
well
as
other
specific
exemption
options,
but
we
first
need
to
evaluate
several
important
issues.
Most
hazardous
waste
leachate
is
regulated
under
a
separate
waste
code,
F039.
To
date,
we
have
received
no
information
that
would
cause
us
to
reconsider
that
listing,
although
we
would
welcome
any
data
that
might
be
helpful
in
such
a
re­
evaluation.
However,
in
the
most
recent
EPA
study
of
landfill
leachate
characteristics
(
65
FR
3007,
January
19,
2000),

we
found
considerable
differences
between
the
leachate
samples
from
hazardous
and
non­
hazardous
landfills
in
both
numbers
of
constituents
of
concern
and
their
concentrations.
Specifically,
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate
contained
a
greater
number
of
constituents
than
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate,
and
the
constituents
found
in
both
hazardous
and
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate
generally
were
present
in
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate
at
concentrations
an
order
of
magnitude
higher
than
those
found
in
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
leachate5.
These
pollutants
can
include
many
organic
hazardous
constituents
not
covered
by
the
Toxicity
Characteristic.
Absent
a
risk
assessment,
it
is
not
possible
to
determine
whether
the
levels
of
these
constituents
pose
unacceptable
risk.
However,
the
presence
of
these
constituents
is
a
strong
indication
that
more
study
would
be
needed
before
developing
an
exemption
for
hazardous
waste
leachate.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
42
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
One
option
would
be
to
limit
a
possible
future
exemption
to
leachates
from
captive,
on­
site
hazardous
waste
landfills.
The
Agency
would
be
inclined
to
propose
this
limitation
because
landfills
that
accept
off­
site
wastes
will
likely
have
a
different
constituent
mix
from
those
constituents
in
the
facility
wastewater
treatment
system.

The
Agency
again
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
such
an
exemption
would
be
advisable,
the
relative
volumes
of
leachate
to
other
wastewaters
going
for
treatment,

and
the
relative
concentrations
of
other
contaminants
in
leachate
versus
those
present
in
the
other
wastewaters
at
these
facilities.

At
this
point,
the
Agency
is
not
proposing
an
exemption
for
non­
solvent
leachate.

Therefore,
the
Agency
does
not
expect
to
include
any
regulatory
language
in
the
final
rule
to
this
proposal
without
first
seeking
comment
on
a
more
fully­
developed
proposal.

F.
Expanding
the
De
Minimis
Exemption
The
current
mixture
rule
exemption
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
D)
is
a
provision
to
remove
from
regulation
small
amounts
of
commercial
chemical
products
(

Pand
U­
listed
wastes
under
40
CFR
261.33)
lost
to
a
wastewater
treatment
system
from
manufacturing
operations.
Small
amounts
of
§
261.33
materials
which
are
being
produced
by,
or
used
as
raw
product
in,
a
manufacturing
process
are
often
unavoidably
lost
in
normal
material
handling
operations.
For
example,
small
amounts
of
raw
material
are
lost
in
various
unloading
or
material
transfer
operations
(
e.
g.,
small
drippage
when
transfer
hose
lines
are
disconnected,
and
fugitive
dust
when
certain
materials
are
emptied
from
bags
or
transferred
from
bins).
Additionally,
small
amounts
of
manufactured
products
or
intermediates
are
lost
in
material
handling,
or
storage
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
43
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
activities
(
e.
g.,
losses
from
packing
of
pumps
used
to
transfer
product,
unanticipated
spills,
relief
valve
discharges,
rinsates
from
drained
or
otherwise
emptied
containers,

and
purgings
associated
with
pressure
relief
or
sample
collection).
46
FR
56582
at
56586
(
November
17,
1981).

Thus,
the
de
minimis
exemption
is
intended
to
apply
to
minor,
inadvertent
releases
of
waste
to
a
wastewater
treatment
system
as
a
result
of
normal
operations
at
a
well­
maintained
facility.
The
de
minimis
exemption
currently
does
not
apply
to
the
discarding
of
these
materials
during
abnormal
manufacturing
operations
(
e.
g.,

operation
malfunctions
resulting
in
substantial
spills),
or
the
discarding
of
these
materials
where
they
are
not
being
used
as
raw
materials
or
are
not
being
manufactured
as
intermediates
or
final
products.
Id.

The
Agency
is
proposing
to
broaden
the
scope
of
the
de
minimis
exemption
in
two
ways.
First,
we
propose
to
expand
the
eligibility
for
the
exemption
beyond
manufacturing
operations.
Second,
we
propose
to
expand
the
types
of
waste
that
are
eligible
for
the
exemption.
This
revised
de
minimis
exemption
only
applies
to
those
wastes
not
specifically
addressed
under
some
other
provision
of
the
headworks
rule.

The
original
headworks
exemption
applies
only
to
manufacturing
operations;

such
facilities
are
likely
to
have
wastewater
treatment
systems
with
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
permits
that
provide
a
means
to
assess
and
limit
discharges
of
the
specific
chemicals
manufactured
there.
However,
the
Agency
realizes
that
many
raw
material
storage
terminals,
hazardous
waste
facilities,
etc.
also
may
have
effective
wastewater
treatment
systems
that
prevent
the
release
of
small
amounts
of
spilled
wastes
from
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
44
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
posing
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
Agency
also
realizes
that
under
the
CWA,
many
of
these
facilities
have
NPDES
permits
or
permits
under
local
CWA
pretreatment
programs
that
limit
discharges
and
require
monitoring
for
specific
constituents
(
40
CFR
122,
40
CFR
403).
Limitations
on
discharges
of
specific
constituents
implement
CWA
requirements
to
ensure
that
direct
dischargers
achieve
effluent
limitations
based
on
best
available
technology
and
that
indirect
dischargers
to
POTWs
comply
with
pretreatment
standards.
These
limitations
and
standards
act
as
another
protective
mechanism
to
prevent
releases
of
toxic
constituents
from
a
facility's
wastewater
discharges
and
are
an
important
consideration
in
the
decision
to
propose
this
expansion
of
the
de
minimis
exemption.

The
Agency
is
therefore
proposing
that
the
de
minimis
eligibility
be
expanded
to
non­
manufacturing
sites
that
either
1)
have
a
permit
subject
to
the
CWA
that
contains
limits
for
a)
the
constituents
for
which
each
waste
was
listed
(
in
40
CFR
261
Appendix
VII)
and
b)
the
constituents
in
the
table
"
Treatment
Standards
for
Hazardous
Wastes"

in
40
CFR
268.40
for
which
each
waste
has
a
treatment
standard
(
i.
e.,
Land
Disposal
Restriction
constituents),
or
2)
have
eliminated
the
discharge
of
wastewaters
altogether.
By
conditioning
the
expanded
exemption
on
having
a
CWA
permit
that
addresses
the
specific
chemicals
associated
with
the
listed
waste,
EPA
will
help
ensure
that
the
wastewater
treatment
systems
at
non­
manufacturing
facilities
will
effectively
treat
such
chemicals.
However,
this
proposed
condition
would
also
mean
that
some
raw
material
storage
terminals
or
other
non­
manufacturing
facilities
that
do
not
meet
this
condition
would
not
be
eligible
to
claim
the
de
minimis
exemption.
This
is
because,
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
45
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
while
some
non­
manufacturing
facilities'
discharges
are
covered
by
general
permits
(
e.
g.,
storm
water
discharge
permits),
they
do
not
specifically
address
hazardous
constituents
likely
to
be
present
in
the
listed
waste.
(
In
contrast,
the
manufacturing
facilities
that
are
eligible
for
the
current
exemption
are
likely
to
have
wastewater
treatment
systems
with
CWA
permits
that
provide
a
means
to
assess
and
limit
discharges
of
the
specific
chemicals).

The
Agency
also
is
proposing
to
expand
the
de
minimis
exemption
to
wastes
other
than
listed
commercial
chemical
products
for
sites
that
either
1)
have
a
permit
subject
to
the
CWA
that
contains
limits
for
a)
the
constituents
for
which
each
waste
was
listed
(
in
40
CFR
261
Appendix
VII)
and
b)
the
constituents
in
the
table
"
Treatment
Standards
for
Hazardous
Wastes"
in
40
CFR
268.40
for
which
each
waste
has
a
treatment
standard
(
i.
e,
Land
Disposal
Restriction
constituents),
or
2)
have
eliminated
the
discharge
of
wastewaters
altogether.

The
original
headworks
exemption
only
applies
to
commercial
chemical
products;
CWA
permitting
requirements
at
manufacturing
facilities
generally
provide
a
means
to
assess
and
limit
discharges
of
these
products,
which
because
of
their
intrinsic
value
are
not
likely
to
be
discharged
in
large
volumes.
In
its
correspondence
with
the
Agency,
ACC
requested
that
this
portion
of
the
headworks
rule
be
expanded
to
include
de
minimis
amounts
of
industrial
wastes
listed
in
40
CFR
261.31
and
261.32
(

Fand
K­
listed
wastes).
De
minimis
releases
of
these
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes,
similar
to
those
from
P­
and
U­
listed
wastes,
arise
from
losses
during
materials
handling
operations
in
which
these
wastes
are
being
generated
or
being
segregated
for
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
46
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
treatment
and
disposal.
ACC's
position
is
that
facility
wastewater
treatment
systems
are
capable
of
handling
small
amounts
of
F­
or
K­
wastes
spilled
to
the
system.

The
Agency
agrees
that
very
small
releases
of
industrial
waste
to
a
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
are
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
effect
upon
that
system,
the
quality
of
facility
effluent
discharges,
solid
wastes
generated,
occupational
safety
and
health,
and
human
health
and
the
environment.
Moreover,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
constituent­
specific
CWA
permitting
requirements
under
section
402
or
under
section
307(
b)
local
pretreatment
program
for
eligible
facilities
provides
assurance
that
releases
of
these
wastes
to
a
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
will
be
kept
to
a
minimum.
CWA
permitting
requirements
at
manufacturing
facilities
generally
provide
a
means
to
assess
and
limit
discharges
of
commercial
chemical
products,
but
may
not
specifically
address
constituents
in
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes.

Therefore,
to
ensure
that
release
of
de
minimis
levels
of
these
constituents
will
not
put
human
health
and
the
environment
at
risk,
and
to
provide
facilities
an
incentive
to
minimize
the
loss
of
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes,
the
Agency
is
proposing
that
facilities
which
discharge
wastewaters
have
CWA
permits
that
limit
Appendix
VII
and
Land
Disposal
Restriction
constituents
associated
with
the
specific
wastes.

The
Agency
further
notes
that
the
headworks
exemption
does
not
negate
the
applicability
of
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
(
TC)
(
40
CFR
261.24)
to
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge.
Therefore,
facilities
have
an
additional
incentive
to
reduce
loadings
of
certain
toxic
constituents
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system
to
prevent
the
sludge
from
exhibiting
the
TC.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
47
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
The
Agency
considers
hazardous
substance
release
reporting
under
§
103(
a)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA),
42
U.
S.
C.
§
9603
as
an
additional
regulatory
backstop
to
both
of
the
proposed
expansions
to
the
headworks
exemption.
A
release
of
a
hazardous
substance
in
a
quantity
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
Reportable
Quantity
(
RQs)

established
for
that
hazardous
substance
triggers
a
requirement
to
notify
the
National
Response
Center
of
that
release.
See
CERCLA
§
103
(
42
U.
S.
C.
§
9603(
a)).
Congress
established
an
initial
RQ
for
all
hazardous
substances
of
one
pound
(
unless
a
higher
RQ
already
had
been
established
under
CWA
Section
311(
b)(
4))
until
EPA
establishes
an
RQ
for
the
substance
by
regulation.
CERCLA
§
102(
b)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
§
9602(
b)).

In
setting
RQ's,
EPA
takes
into
account
the
potential
hazards
posed
by
the
chemicals
of
concern.
The
methodology
for
setting
RQs
is
discussed
in
the
May
25,

1983,
Federal
Register
(
48
FR
23552).
RQs
for
hazardous
substances
are
found
in
40
CFR
302.4.

Similar
to
the
CWA
permits,
the
RQ
acts
as
a
protective
mechanism
discouraging
releases
of
hazardous
wastes
to
the
environment
by
requiring
facilities
to
report
chemical
releases
above
a
certain
threshold.
In
general,
facilities
must
report
releases
of
hazardous
substances
immediately
to
the
National
Response
Center
and
State
or
Local
Emergency
Planning
Center,
depending
on
the
type
of
release.
While
this
reporting
does
not
prevent
releases,
it
requires
facilities
to
be
accountable
for
excess
releases
of
hazardous
substances
when
they
occur.
Because
all
hazardous
wastes
also
are
listed
as
hazardous
substances,
discharge
of
hazardous
wastes
in
a
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
48
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
that
cause
a
release
to
the
environment
above
reporting
thresholds
must
be
reported
to
the
appropriate
authorities.
While
excess
releases
of
hazardous
wastes,
such
as
in
an
upset
or
pass­
through
situation,
do
not
qualify
for
the
de
minimis
exemption,
the
RQ
program,
by
its
reporting
requirements,

provides
an
additional
tool
for
minimizing
hazardous
waste
discharges
through
a
wastewater
treatment
system.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Agency
is
not
increasing
the
amount
of
waste
that
can
be
described
as
a
de
minimis
release
in
this
proposal.
Moreover,
these
proposed
expansions
to
the
types
of
waste
and
facilities
eligible
for
the
de
minimis
exemption
should
not
be
construed
as
reducing
the
scope
or
application
of
any
hazardous
waste
listing
under
40
CFR
261.31
and
261.32.
For
example,
the
F006
listing
covers
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
electroplating
operations.
For
facilities
that
normally
generate
F006
wastes,
a
release
of
electroplating
wastewaters
to
the
treatment
system
would
still
result
in
the
generation
of
F006
wastes.
A
facility
could
not
use
the
de
minimis
exemption
to
claim
that
it
is
not
generating
F006
listed
hazardous
wastes.
Finally,
as
stated
previously,
this
revised
de
minimis
exemption
only
applies
to
those
wastes
not
specifically
addressed
under
some
other
provision
of
the
headworks
rule.

As
with
any
exemption
from
the
definition
of
solid
or
hazardous
waste
under
§
§
261.2
­
261.6
(
including
this
de
minimis
exemption),
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
7)
requires
a
facility
to
place
a
one­
time
notice
concerning
waste
generation,
subsequent
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
or
solid
waste
or
exemption
from
RCRA
Subtitle
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
49
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
C
regulation,
and
the
disposition
of
the
waste,
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Generally,

such
notification,
as
well
as
certifications,
waste
analysis
data,
and
other
documentation
must
be
kept
for
a
period
of
three
years
unless
an
enforcement
action
by
the
Agency
extends
the
record
retention
period
(
§
268.7(
a)(
8)).

In
light
of
the
limiting
conditions
and
protective
regulatory
mechanisms
we
have
discussed
above,
the
Agency
is
proposing
to
expand
the
de
minimis
exemption
1)
to
non­
manufacturing
facilities,
and
2)
to
wastes
listed
in
40
CFR
261.31
and
261.32
(

Fand
K­
listed
wastes)
released
in
de
minimis
quantities
when
they
meet
certain
conditions.
Specifically,
facilities
discharging
wastewaters
(
whether
manufacturing
or
non­
manufacturing)
that
are
attempting
to
qualify
for
this
expanded
eligibility
must
have
CWA
permits
under
sections
307(
b)
or
402
that
contain
limits
for
the
specific
chemicals
for
which
each
waste
was
listed
(
in
40
CFR
261
Appendix
VII)
as
well
as
hazardous
constituents
in
40
CFR
268.40
for
which
each
listed
waste
has
a
treatment
standard
under
Land
Disposal
Restrictions.
The
two
proposed
expansions
will
be
considered
independently;
the
Agency
seeks
comment
as
to
the
adequacy
of
the
limiting
conditions
in
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
the
prevalence
of
facilities
meeting
the
conditions
(
e.
g.,
having
CWA
permits
that
limit
the
constituents
associated
with
the
listed
waste),
and
on
the
advisability
of
expanding
each
part
of
the
exemption.

IV.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
State
Authority
Under
section
3006
of
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
a
qualified
State
to
administer
and
enforce
a
hazardous
waste
program
within
the
State
in
lieu
of
the
federal
program,
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
50
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
and
to
issue
and
enforce
permits
in
the
State.
Following
authorization,
the
state
requirements
authorized
by
EPA
apply
in
lieu
of
equivalent
Federal
requirements
and
become
Federally­
enforceable
as
requirements
of
RCRA.
EPA
maintains
independent
authority
to
bring
enforcement
actions
under
RCRA
sections
3007,
3008,
3013,
and
7003.
Authorized
states
also
have
independent
authority
to
bring
enforcement
actions
under
state
law.

A
state
may
receive
authorization
by
following
the
approval
process
described
in
40
CFR
part
271.
Part
271
of
40
CFR
also
describes
the
overall
standards
and
requirements
for
authorization.
After
a
state
receives
initial
authorization,
new
Federal
regulatory
requirements
promulgated
under
the
authority
in
the
RCRA
statute
which
existed
prior
to
the
1984
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(
HSWA)
do
not
apply
in
that
state
until
the
state
adopts
and
receives
authorization
for
equivalent
state
requirements.
The
state
must
adopt
such
requirements
to
maintain
authorization.
In
contrast,
under
RCRA
section
3006(
g),
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
g)),
new
Federal
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
pursuant
to
HSWA
provisions
take
effect
in
authorized
states
at
the
same
time
that
they
take
effect
in
unauthorized
States.
Although
authorized
states
still
are
required
to
update
their
hazardous
waste
programs
to
remain
equivalent
to
the
Federal
program,
EPA
carries
out
HSWA
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
states,
including
the
issuance
of
new
permits
implementing
those
requirements,
until
EPA
authorizes
the
state
to
do
so.
Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
promulgates
Federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
Federal
requirements.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
51
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
RCRA
section
3009
allows
the
states
to
impose
standards
more
stringent
than
those
in
the
Federal
program.
See
also
40
CFR
271.1(
i).
Therefore,
authorized
states
are
not
required
to
adopt
Federal
regulations,
either
HSWA
or
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent.

Today's
rule
is
proposed
pursuant
to
non­
HSWA
authority.
The
proposed
changes
in
the
conditional
exemptions
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
under
the
headworks
rule
are
less
stringent
than
the
current
Federal
requirements.
Therefore,

States
will
not
be
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
the
proposed
changes.

EPA
will
implement
the
changes
to
the
exemptions
only
in
those
States
which
are
not
authorized
for
the
RCRA
program.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
this
proposed
rulemaking
has
considerable
merit,
and
we
thus
strongly
encourage
States
to
amend
their
programs
and
become
Federally­
authorized
to
implement
these
rules
once
they
become
final.

B.
Executive
Order
12866:
Determination
of
Significance
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
is
"
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
formal
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
to
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order,
which
include
assessing
the
costs
and
benefits
anticipated
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
regulatory
action.
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
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
52
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
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.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
today's
proposed
rule
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
because
this
proposed
rule
contains
novel
policy
issues.
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
are
documented
in
the
docket
to
today's
proposal.
EPA's
economic
analysis
suggests
that
this
rule
is
not
economically
significant
under
Executive
Order
12866,
because
EPA
estimates
that
the
overall
national
economic
effect
of
the
rule
is
$
8.411.4
million
to
$
14.948.6
million
in
average
annual
potential
cost
savings
for
RCRA
regulatory
compliance.
The
following
table
presents
an
itemization
of
EPA's
estimated
count
of
affected
facilities,

affected
annual
RCRA
waste
quantities,
and
estimated
annual
cost
savings
for
each
of
the
four
five
main
features
of
this
proposed
rule.

Summary
of
Estimated
Potential
National
Economic
Impact
From
the
Proposed
Revisions
to
the
"
Headworks
Exemption"
of
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Mixture
Rule
(
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
to
(
E))

Item
Proposed
Regulatory
Revision
to
"
Headworks
Exemption"
Count
of
Potentially
Affected
Entities
(
Eligible
Industrial
Facilities)
Annual
Quantity
of
Potentially
Affected
(
Eligible)
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
(
tons/
year)
Estimate
of
Average
Annual
Economic
Impact*
($/
year)
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
53
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
1
Add
two
F005
spent
solvents
(
benzene
&
2­
ethoxyethanol)
to
the
"
headworks
exemption"
for
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
mixture
rule**
1,065
to
3,435
115
to
1,800
facilities
0.08
to
0.250.036
to
0.594
million
tons/
year
spent
solvent
wastes
(
aqueous
&
non­
aqueous
forms)
$
0.69
to
$
2.23
$
0.32
to
$
5.65
million/
year
in
spent
solvent
waste
management
cost
savings
(
netting­
out
implementation
paperwork
costs).

2
Provide
"
headworks
exemption"
for
F001
to
F005
spent
solvent
hazardous
waste
combustion
"
scrubber
waters"
83
to
9
facilities
0.20
to
0.61
million
tons/
year
scrubber
wastewater
$
0.53
to
$
1.58
million/
year
in
scrubber
wastewater
management
cost
savings
3
Allow
"
direct
monitoring"
of
F001
to
F005
spent
solvent
waste
concentrations
in
headworks
influent
wastewaters,
in
lieu
of
"
mass
balance"
computations
1,4601,800
to
7,300
facilities
0.78
1.13
to
4.58
million
tons/
year
spent
solvent
wastes
(
aqueous
&
non­
aqueous
forms)
$
7.1110.09
to
$
40.88
million/
year
in
spent
solvent
waste
management
cost
savings
4
Revise
RCRA
hazardous
waste
"
de
minimis"
exemption
to
include
RCRA
F­
&
K­
listed
wastes,
and
to
include
non­
manufacturing
facilities
1,33770
facilities
60030
tons/
year
spill
incidents
$
0.500.03
million/
year
in
spill
response
cost
savings
5
Revise
RCRA
hazardous
waste
"
de
minimis"
exemption
to
include
nonmanufacturing
facilities
1,270
facilities
570
tons/
year
spill
incidents
0.48
million/
year
in
spill
response
cost
savings
Column
totals
=
(
with
­
15%
to
+
30%
estimation
uncertainty
intervals)
3,300
to
8,10010,400
facilities
1.2
to
2.11.37
to
5.78
million
tons/
year
$
8.4
to
$
14.911.4
to
48.6
million/
year
cost
savings
*
Economic
impact
based
on
year
2000
price
levels
for
waste
management
systems,
and
on
the
2%
discount
rate
for
amortizing
industrial
wastewater
management
system
lump­
sum
capital
costs,
into
average
annualized
equivalent
costs.
**
Hypothetical
expansion
of
the
RCRA
"
headworks
exemption"
to
include
all
four
chemical
solvents
examined
in
the
proposed
rule,
would
only
result
in
addition
of
one
wastestream,
at
an
additional
annual
cost
savings
of
about
$
19,000
(
consisting
of
16,817,000
tons/
year
aqueous
spent
solvent).

A
detailed
presentation
of
EPA's
methodology,
data
sources,
and
computations
applied
for
estimating
the
number
of
affected
entities
(
industrial
facilities)
and
economic
impacts
attributable
to
today's
proposal
is
provided
in
the
"
Economic
Background
Document"
to
this
proposal.

C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
Information
Collection
Request)

The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
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.
An
Information
Collection
Request
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
54
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
1189.
XX).
A
copy
of
this
ICR
may
be
obtained
from
Sandy
Farmer
by
mail
at
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,

Washington
DC
20460,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1676,
and
by
email
at
farmer.
sandy@
epamail.
epa.
gov.
A
copy
also
may
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.

EPA
proposes
the
following
conditions
for
reporting
and
recordkeeping
by
generators:
The
rule
requires
generators
wanting
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
headworks
rule
through
direct
monitoring
to
submit
a
one­
time
copy
of
their
sampling
plan
to
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
(
or
the
state
Director
in
an
authorized
state)

and
to
maintain
all
records
concerning
such
direct
monitoring
for
a
minimum
of
three
years.
The
sampling
plan
requirements
for
the
direct
monitoring
will
be
site
specific.

As
with
all
other
exemptions
and
exclusions
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
a
facility
is
required
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
7)
to
place
a
one­
time
notice
concerning
waste
generation,
subsequent
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
or
solid
waste
or
exemption
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation,
and
the
disposition
of
the
waste,

in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Generally,
such
notification,
as
well
as
certifications,
waste
analysis
data,
and
other
documentation
must
be
kept
for
a
period
of
three
years,
unless
an
enforcement
action
by
the
Agency
extends
the
record
retention
period
(
§
268.7(
a)(
8)).

EPA
estimates
that
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
for
the
new
paperwork
requirements
in
the
rule
is
approximately
136
hours
per
year
and
the
annual
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
55
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
respondent
cost
for
the
new
paperwork
requirements
in
the
rule
is
approximately
$
38,000.
However,
in
addition
to
the
new
paperwork
requirements
in
the
rule,
EPA
also
estimated
the
burden
and
cost
savings
that
generators
could
expect
as
a
result
of
no
longer
needing
to
comply
with
the
existing
RCRA
hazardous
waste
information
collection
requirements
for
the
excluded
materials.
EPA
expects
the
proposed
expansions
to
the
exemption
will
reduce
the
annual
paperwork
burden
by
97
hours,
but
the
paperwork
burden
associated
with
adding
direct
monitoring
as
an
option
offsets
this
labor
cost
reduction,
such
that
there
is
almost
no
net
change
in
paperwork
burden
cost
to
industry
($
36,000
compared
to
$
38,000
with
direct
monitoring).
The
net
cost
to
EPA
of
administering
the
rule
was
estimated
at
approximately
$
225
per
year.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,

maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;

and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
56
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

D.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
USC
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
that
has
fewer
than
1000
or
100
employees
per
firm
depending
upon
the
SIC
code
the
firm
primarily
is
classified;
(
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
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
hereby
certify
that
this
proposal
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
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
57
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
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
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.
For
more
information
regarding
the
economic
impact
of
this
proposed
rule,
please
refer
to
the
economic
background
document
to
this
proposal.

We
have
therefore
concluded
that
today's
proposal
rule
will
relieve
regulatory
burden
for
small
entities.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

E.
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
must
prepare
a
written
analysis,
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
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
58
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
§
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
§
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
proposals,
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
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
This
is
because
this
proposed
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
on
any
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments.
EPA
also
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
In
addition,
as
discussed
above,
the
private
sector
is
not
expected
to
incur
costs
exceeding
$
100
million.
Therefore,

today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
Sections
202
and
205
of
UMRA.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
59
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
F.
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"
is
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
proposal
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.
This
rule
directly
affects
primarily
generators
of
hazardous
wastewaters
containing
spent
solvents,
generators
of
scrubber
waters
derived
from
the
incineration
of
spent
solvents,
and
generators
releasing
de
minimis
amounts
of
listed
wastes
under
certain
conditions.
There
are
no
State
and
local
government
bodies
that
incur
direct
compliance
costs
by
this
rulemaking.
State
and
local
government
implementation
expenditures
are
expected
to
be
less
than
$
500,000
in
any
one
year.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
proposal.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
60
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
G.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments"
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Today's
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,

nor
would
it
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
them.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

H.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
The
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
EPA
determines
(
1)
is
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
addressed
by
the
rule
has
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
proposal
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
E.
O.
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
61
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
proposed
rule
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.

I.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution
or
Use
This
proposed
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
energy
action"
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
28355
(
May
22,
2001))
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
This
proposed
rule
reduces
regulatory
burden.
It
thus
should
not
adversely
affect
energy
supply,
distribution
or
use.

J.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
("
NTTAA"),
Public
Law
No.
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
proposed
rule
would
allow
facilities
to
demonstrate
compliance
using
available
and
applicable
sampling
methods
sufficient
to
establish
compliance
with
the
appropriate
weekly
standard.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
62
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
261
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
waste,
Recycling,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal.

______________________________
_________________

Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Date
Administrator.
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
63
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
261­­
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
261
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
6922,
6924(
y),
and
6938.

2.
Section
261.3
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
261.3
Definition
of
hazardous
waste.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
2)
*
*
*

(
iv)
*
*
*

(
A)
One
or
more
of
the
following
spent
solvents
listed
in
§
261.31
 
benzene,
carbon
tetrachloride,
tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene
 
Provided,
That
the
maximum
total
weekly
usage
of
these
solvents
(
other
than
the
amounts
that
can
be
demonstrated
not
to
be
discharged
to
wastewater)
divided
by
the
average
weekly
flow
of
wastewater
into
the
headworks
of
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
or
pretreatment
system
does
not
exceed
1
part
per
million,
OR
the
total
measured
concentration
of
these
solvents
entering
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
at
facilities
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
at
40
CFR
60,
61,
or
63
as
amended),
does
not
exceed
1
part
per
million
on
an
average
weekly
basis.
Any
facility
that
uses
benzene
as
a
solvent
and
claims
this
exemption
must
use
an
aerated
biological
wastewater
treatment
system
and
must
use
only
lined
surface
impoundments
or
tanks
prior
to
secondary
clarification
in
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
Facilities
that
choose
to
measure
concentration
levels
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
64
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
must
file
a
copy
of
their
sampling
and
analysis
plan
with
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
State
Director,
as
the
context
requires,
or
an
authorized
representative
("
Director"
as
defined
in
40
CFR
270.2).
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
constituents
to
be
monitored.
A
facility
is
eligible
for
the
direct
monitoring
option
once
they
receive
confirmation
that
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
has
been
received
by
the
Director.
The
Director
may
reject
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
if
he/
she
finds
that
(
1)
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
fails
to
include
the
above
information,
or
(
2)
the
plan
parameters
would
not
enable
the
facility
to
calculate
the
weekly
average
concentration
of
these
chemicals
accurately.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected;
or
(
B)
One
or
more
of
the
following
spent
solvents
listed
in
§
261.31
 
methylene
chloride,

1,1,1­
trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene,
o­
dichlorobenzene,
cresols,
cresylic
acid,

nitrobenzene,
toluene,
methyl
ethyl
ketone,
carbon
disulfide,
isobutanol,
pyridine,
spent
chlorofluorocarbon
solvents,
and
2­
ethoxyethanol
 
Provided
That
the
maximum
total
weekly
usage
of
these
solvents
(
other
than
the
amounts
that
can
be
demonstrated
not
to
be
discharged
to
wastewater)
divided
by
the
average
weekly
flow
of
wastewater
into
the
headworks
of
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
or
pretreatment
system
does
not
exceed
25
parts
per
million,
OR
the
total
measured
concentration
of
these
solvents
entering
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
at
facilities
subject
to
regulation
under
the
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
65
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
Clean
Air
Act
at
40
CFR
60,
61,
or
63
as
amended),
does
not
exceed
25
parts
per
million
on
an
average
weekly
basis.
Facilities
that
choose
to
measure
concentration
levels
must
file
a
copy
of
their
sampling
and
analysis
plan
with
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
State
Director,
as
the
context
requires,
or
an
authorized
representative
("
Director"
as
defined
in
40
CFR
270.2).
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
constituents
to
be
monitored.
A
facility
is
eligible
for
the
direct
monitoring
option
once
they
receive
confirmation
that
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
has
been
received
by
the
Director.
The
Director
may
reject
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
if
he/
she
finds
that
(
1)
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
fails
to
include
the
above
information,
or
(
2)
the
plan
parameters
would
not
enable
the
facility
to
calculate
the
weekly
average
concentration
of
these
chemicals
accurately.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected;
or
(
C)
*
*
*

(
D)
A
discarded
hazardous
waste,
commercial
chemical
product,
or
chemical
intermediate
listed
in
Sections
261.31
­
261.33,
arising
from
de
minimis
losses
of
these
materials.
For
purposes
of
this
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
D),
"
de
minimis"
losses
are
unscheduled,
uncontrollable,
insignificant,
and
inadvertent
releases
to
a
wastewater
treatment
system,
including
those
from
normal
material
handling
operations
(
e.
g.,
spills
from
the
unloading
or
transfer
of
materials
from
bins
or
other
containers,
leaks
from
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
66
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
pipes,
valves
or
other
devices
used
to
transfer
materials);
minor
leaks
of
process
equipment,
storage
tanks
or
containers;
leaks
from
well
maintained
pump
packings
and
seals;
sample
purgings;
relief
device
discharges;
discharges
from
safety
showers
and
rinsing
and
cleaning
of
personal
safety
equipment;
and
rinsate
from
empty
containers
or
from
containers
that
are
rendered
empty
by
that
rinsing.
Any
manufacturing
facility
that
claims
an
exemption
for
de
minimis
quantities
of
wastes
listed
in
Sections
261.31
­

261.32,
or
any
non­
manufacturing
facility
that
claims
an
exemption
for
de
minimis
quantities
of
wastes
listed
in
Section
261
subpart
D
must
either
have
eliminated
the
discharge
of
wastewaters
or
have
a
permit
subject
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
contains
limits
for
1)
the
constituents
for
which
each
waste
was
listed
(
in
40
CFR
261
Appendix
VII)
and
2)
the
constituents
in
the
table
"
Treatment
Standards
for
Hazardous
Wastes"

in
40
CFR
268.40
for
which
each
waste
has
a
treatment
standard
(
i.
e.,
Land
Disposal
Restriction
constituents);
or
(
E)
*
*
*

(
F)
One
or
more
of
the
following
wastes
listed
in
Sec.
261.32
 
wastewaters
from
the
production
of
carbamates
and
carbamoyl
oximes
(
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
No.
K157)
 
Provided
that
the
maximum
weekly
usage
of
formaldehyde,
methyl
chloride,
methylene
chloride,
and
triethylamine
(
including
all
amounts
that
can
not
be
demonstrated
to
be
reacted
in
the
process,
destroyed
through
treatment,
or
is
recovered,
i.
e.,
what
is
discharged
or
volatilized)
divided
by
the
average
weekly
flow
of
process
wastewater
prior
to
any
dilution
into
the
headworks
of
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
does
not
exceed
a
total
of
5
parts
per
million
by
weight
OR
the
total
measured
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
67
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
concentration
of
these
chemicals
entering
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
at
facilities
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
at
40
CFR
60,
61,
or
63
as
amended),

does
not
exceed
5
parts
per
million
on
an
average
weekly
basis.
Facilities
that
choose
to
measure
concentration
levels
must
file
a
copy
of
their
sampling
and
analysis
plan
with
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
State
Director,
as
the
context
requires,
or
an
authorized
representative
("
Director"
as
defined
in
40
CFR
270.2).
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
constituents
to
be
monitored.
A
facility
is
eligible
for
the
direct
monitoring
option
once
they
receive
confirmation
that
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
has
been
received
by
the
Director.
The
Director
may
reject
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
if
he/
she
finds
that
(
1)
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
fails
to
include
the
above
information,
or
(
2)
the
plan
parameters
would
not
enable
the
facility
to
calculate
the
weekly
average
concentration
of
these
chemicals
accurately.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected;
or
(
G)
Wastewaters
derived
from
the
treatment
of
one
or
more
of
the
following
wastes
listed
in
Sec.
261.32­­
organic
waste
(
including
heavy
ends,
still
bottoms,
light
ends,

spent
solvents,
filtrates,
and
decantates)
from
the
production
of
carbamates
and
carbamoyl
oximes
(
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
No.
K156).­­
Provided,
that
the
maximum
concentration
of
formaldehyde,
methyl
chloride,
methylene
chloride,
and
triethylamine
prior
to
any
dilutions
into
the
headworks
of
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
12/
18/
2002
DRAFT
68
DO
NOT
CITE
OR
QUOTE
does
not
exceed
a
total
of
5
milligrams
per
liter
OR
the
total
measured
concentration
of
these
chemicals
entering
the
wastewater
treatment
system
(
at
facilities
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
at
40
CFR
60,
61,
or
63
as
amended),
does
not
exceed
5
milligrams
per
liter
on
an
average
weekly
basis.
Facilities
that
choose
to
measure
concentration
levels
must
file
a
copy
of
their
sampling
and
analysis
plan
with
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
State
Director,
as
the
context
requires,
or
an
authorized
representative
("
Director"
as
defined
in
40
CFR
270.2).
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
constituents
to
be
monitored.
A
facility
is
eligible
for
the
direct
monitoring
option
once
they
receive
confirmation
that
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
has
been
received
by
the
Director.
The
Director
may
reject
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
if
he/
she
finds
that
(
1)
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
fails
to
include
the
above
information,
or
(
2)
the
plan
parameters
would
not
enable
the
facility
to
calculate
the
weekly
average
concentration
of
these
chemicals
accurately.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected.
