Land Disposal Restrictions: Granting of Two Site-Specific Treatment Variances to U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated in Grandview, Idaho and CWM Chemical Services, LLC in Model City, New York

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35924-35928]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my02-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-7214-4]

Land Disposal Restrictions: Granting of Two Site-Specific
Treatment Variances to U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated in Grandview,
Idaho and CWM Chemical Services, LLC in Model City, New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
promulgating two site-specific treatment variances from the Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) standards for wastes generated at U.S.
Ecology Idaho, Incorporated (USEII) in Grandview, Idaho, and CWM
Chemical Services, LLC (CWM) in Model City, New York. These waste
streams are derived from the treatment of multiple listed and
characteristic hazardous wastes, including K088 (spent potliners from
primary aluminum reduction), and differ significantly from the waste
used to establish the LDR treatment standard for arsenic in K088 non-
wastewaters. Accordingly, we are finalizing an alternate treatment
standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, measured using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), for the K088 derived emission
control dust from the USEII facility. We are also, for the CWM
facility, finalizing an alternate treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l for
arsenic, measured using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure,
for the K088 derived baghouse dust, incinerator ash, and filtercake.
This treatment variance requires USEII and CWM to dispose of their
respective waste in RCRA Subtitle C landfills provided the waste
complies with the specified alternate treatment standard for arsenic in
K088 non-wastewaters and meets all other applicable LDR treatment
standards.

DATES: This rule is effective May 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The official record for this rulemaking is identified as
Docket Number F-2002-TV3F-FFFFF and is located in the RCRA Docket
Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. The RIC is open from 9 am to
4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review
docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling
703-603-9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document
at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. (The index is
available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information on accessing them.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA
Call Center at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired).
The RCRA Call Center operates Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern
Standard Time. For more detailed information on specific aspects of
this rule, contact Laurie Solomon on 703-308-8443,
solomon.laurie@epa.gov, or write her at the Office of Solid Waste,
5302W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rule on Internet

Please follow these instructions to access the rule: From the World
Wide Web (WWW), type http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr.
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA has transferred any comments received electronically
into paper form and placed them in the official record which also
includes comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is
the paper record maintained at the RIC listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Why and How Are Treatment Variances Granted?
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Comment Summary and Final Rule
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
K. Congressional Review Act

I. Why and How Are Treatment Variances Granted?

Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

[[Page 35925]]

Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if any,
which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the
waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized.'' We have interpreted this language to
authorize treatment standards based on the performance of best
demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was
sustained by the court in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council vs. EPA,
886 F. 2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1989).
We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to
levels specified in the regulation (see 40 CFR 268.40) (51 FR 40576,
November 7, 1986). For such wastes, a treatment variance exists (40 CFR
268.44) that, if granted, becomes the treatment standard for the waste
at issue.
Treatment variances may be national or site-specific. A national
generic variance can result in the establishment of a new treatability
group and a corresponding treatment standard that applies to all wastes
that meet the criteria of the new waste treatability group (55 FR
22526, June 1, 1990). A site-specific variance applies only to a
specific waste from a specific facility. See 62 FR at 64505 (December
5, 1997). Under 40 CFR 268.44(h), a generator or treatment facility may
apply to the Administrator, or EPA's delegated representative, for a
site-specific variance in cases where a waste that is generated under
conditions specific to one site cannot or should not be treated to the
specified level(s). Under 40 CFR 268.44(h)(1), the applicant for a
site-specific variance must demonstrate that because the physical or
chemical properties of the waste differ significantly from the waste
analyzed in development of the treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated to the specified levels or by the specified method(s). Although
there are other grounds for obtaining treatment variances, we will not
discuss those in this notice because this is the only provision
relevant to the present petitions. U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated
(USEII) (Grandview, ID) submitted their request for a treatment
variance in September 2000. CWM Chemical Services LLC (CWM) (Model
City, NY) submitted their request in December 2000. All information and
data used in the development of this proposal can be found in the RCRA
docket supporting this rule.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

On July 24, 2001 (66 FR 38405), we proposed to grant two site-
specific treatment variances from the K088 (spent potliners from
primary aluminum reduction) treatment standard for arsenic. The first
proposed variance is for arsenic in the K088-derived emission control
dust from an air pollution control system from a stabilization and
containment building at the USEII facility. The second proposed
variance is for arsenic in roll-off boxes of K088-derived baghouse dust
and incinerator ash at the CWM Model City facility. This variance also
covers wastewater treatment filtercake from the CWM facility (66 FR
38405, July 24, 2001). To date, no K088 filtercake has been generated.
At both facilities, these waste streams are derived from the treatment
of multiple listed and characteristic hazardous wastes, including K088.
Under the RCRA regulations, when different hazardous wastes are
combined for treatment and there are different treatment standards for
a particular hazardous constituent, the treatment residue must meet the
most stringent of the applicable treatment standards. Section 268.40
(c). With the advent of the Universal Treatment Standards, this
situation does not arise often because most of the treatment standards
are identical. However, K088 has a ``non-universal'' treatment standard
for arsenic, which arguably might be considered more stringent than the
universal treatment standard. (63 FR 51257, September 24, 1998.) The
treatment standard for arsenic in K088 waste is to achieve a total
concentration of arsenic of less than 26.1 mg/kg. The wastes which are
the subject of these petitions would likely not achieve this treatment
standard. The treatment residues, however, feasibly can be treated to
meet the arsenic Universal Treatment Standard of 5 ppm measured using
the TCLP.
In the proposal, we concluded that an alternative treatment
standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, measured using the TCLP, is warranted
for the following reasons. First, the chemical properties of the
derived-from waste at both facilities differ significantly from the
waste used to establish the LDR treatment standard for arsenic in K088
non-wastewaters. Second, the alternative standard of 5.0 mg/l TCLP is
currently the standard applicable to arsenic in all other hazardous
wastes, except K088 non-wastewaters. Third, arsenic concentrations in
USEII's K088-derived emission control dust and in CWM's K088-derived
baghouse dust, incinerator ash and filtercake cannot be treated to a
lower treatment standard based on a total analysis. This is because
arsenic, as an element, cannot be destroyed and must be immobilized. In
the proposal, we concluded that these reasons meet the criteria for
granting a site-specific variance under 40 CFR 268.44(h)(1). (66 FR
38407, July 24, 2001.)

III. Comment Summary and Final Rule

We received three comments on the proposed rule. One commenter
supports EPA's decision to grant these variances based on its
experiences in meeting the relevant Land Disposal Restrictions. Another
commenter requests clarification regarding whether the alternate
treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l, measured using the TCLP, is limited to
CWM's wastes that are currently managed on-site. Our answer is that the
treatment standard granted under today's variance applies to existing
and future incinerator residue treated at the facility. It also applies
to existing and future baghouse dust generated at the facility, as well
as to any K088 derived-from filtercake generated in the future at the
facility (since the reasons for granting the treatment variance apply
in all of these situations).
A commenter also requested clarification regarding which
incinerator residue at CWM's Model City facility is covered by this
final regulation. The commenter sought clarification as to whether the
variance applies to just those wastes that are received from off-site
and treated on-site or to these wastes plus any K088 derived baghouse
dust and incinerator ash received from off-site and directly disposed
in CWM's Model City Subtitle C landfill without treatment. The variance
granted to CWM's Model City facility under this rulemaking is limited
to wastes generated or treated at the Model City facility. Facilities
other than CWM's Model City facility who believe their wastes meet the
criteria for a variance from the KO88 standard can submit their own
variance petition to the Agency for consideration.
Two commenters believe that the 26.1 mg/kg arsenic standard should
apply only to newly-generated K088 and that all other mixture, derived-
from and contained-in K088 should use the 5.0 arsenic TCLP universal
treatment standard (UTS). These commenters believe that the cost and
time spent by industry and EPA in preparing and responding to petitions
for variances would be more than offset by a revised treatment
standard. One commenter suggests that the rationale that EPA has used
in previous final and proposed variances--that the treatment residues
are physically and chemically different

[[Page 35926]]

from the waste analyzed in establishing the treatment standard--is
applicable in all cases where K088 is treated with other hazardous
waste and a K088-derived residue is generated. This commenter believes
that, as a result, the most effective course of action is to revise the
regulations and adopt a treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic,
measured using the TCLP, in K088 derived-from waste. Under this
suggested approach, the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard would continue
to apply to newly-generated K088 at the primary aluminum facility. EPA
would finalize a new standard for all other mixture, derived-from and
contained-in K088 wastes; this new standard would use the existing UTS
standard of 5.0 ppm arsenic.
Based on the limited number of variance requests we have received,
we believe that the existing regulation is sufficient. We disagree with
the commenter's cost estimate of revising the regulation versus
continuing to use variances. In cases where site-specific variances
from this standard are appropriate, EPA's regulations set forth a means
by which generators or treaters of hazardous waste can file petitions
for variances from the K088 treatment standard. To date, EPA has
responded to only four petitions regarding the treatment standard for
arsenic in K088. (66 FR 33887, June 26, 2001 and 65 FR 45978, July 26,
2000, plus the two granted today.) There are no outstanding treatment
variance petitions.
In conclusion, for USEII, EPA is granting an alternate treatment
standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic, measured using the TCLP, in existing
and future K088 derived-from emission control dust from its air
pollution control system. Likewise, at CWM's Model City facility, EPA
is granting an alternate treatment standard of 5.0 mg/l for arsenic,
measured using the TCLP, for existing and future K088 derived baghouse
dust, incinerator ash and filtercake.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because this final rule does not create any new regulatory
requirements, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

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

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. These
treatment variances do not create any new regulatory requirements.
Rather, they establish an alternative treatment standard for a
regulated constituent at two specific facilities. This action,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

[[Page 35927]]

entities. These treatment variances do not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, they establish an alternative treatment standard
for a regulated constituent at two specific facilities. Today's final
rule is not, therefore, subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA.

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

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The subject wastes will comply with
all other treatment standards and be disposed of in RCRA Subtitle C
landfills. Therefore, we have identified no risks that may
disproportionately affect children.

E. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898

EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response
to Executive Order 12898 and to the concerns voiced by many groups
outside the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER
Directive No. 9200.3-17).
Today's final rule applies to wastes that will be treated and
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, ensuring a
high degree of protection to human health and the environment.
Therefore, the Agency does not believe that today's action will result
in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income
communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule only changes the treatment standards applicable to a sub-
category of K088 wastes at two facilities. It does not change in any
way the paperwork requirements already applicable to these wastes.
Therefore, this rule is not affected by the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

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

H. 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 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
These treatment variances do not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, they establish an alternative treatment standard
for a regulated constituent at two specific facilities. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of governments.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These treatment variances do not
create any new regulatory requirements. Rather, they establish an
alternative treatment standard for a regulated constituent at two
specific facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.

J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

This 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 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.

[[Page 35928]]

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective May 22, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 7, 2002.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

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

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

2. In Sec. 268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by adding
in alphabetical order two new entries for ``CWM Chemical Services LLC,
Model City, New York'; and ``U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated,
Grandview, Idaho'' and Footnotes 9 and 10 to read as follows:

Sec. 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
(o) * * *

Table--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec. 268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Regulated ---------------------------------------------------------------
Facility name\1\ and address Waste code See also hazardous Concentration Concentration (mg/
constituent (mg/L) Notes kg) Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
CWM Chemical Services, LLC, K088\9\ Standards under Arsenic........... 1.4 NA......... 5.0 mg/L TCLP..... NA
Model City, New York. Sec. 268.40.

* * * * * * *
U.S. Ecology Idaho, K088\10\ Standards under Arsenic........... 1.4 NA......... 5.0 mg/L TCLP..... NA * * * *
Incorporated, Grandview, Idaho. Sec. 268.40. * * *

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ * * *
* * * * *
\9\ This treatment standard applies only to K088-derived bag house dust, incinerator ash, and filtercake at this facility.
\10\ This treatment standard applies only to K088-derived air emission control dust generated by this facility.

Note: NA means Not Applicable.

[FR Doc. 02-12768 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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

Land Disposal Restrictions: Granting of Two Site-Specific Treatment Variances to U.S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated in Grandview, Idaho and CWM Chemical Services, LLC in Model City, New York

Local Navigation