Document 93m0jORMEvB3oGBp13XOxOr6e

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V d a t e January 24, 1985 s u b je c t : B rie fin g to the Region V Dioxin Task Force Concerning the RCRA CDD/CDF ("Dioxin") Regulations fro m : David G. Dolan, Envi rormental S c ie n t is t S o lid Waste Branch t o : David A . Stringham, Deputy D ire c to r Waste Management D iv isio n 1. On A p ril 4, 1983, EPA published a proposal to l i s t as RCRA acutely hazardous waste, c e rta in wastes containing chlorinated dibenzodioxins (CDDs), -dibenzofurans (CDFs), and -phenols, and which also sp e cifie d management standards fo r these wastes. 2. On November 14,. 1984, EPA published a notice that e ffe c tiv e December 14 1984, Vertac (2 ,3 ,7 ,8 TCDD) disposal notices must be made to ,the AA fo r OSWER instead of the AA fo r OPTS ( i . e . Jack McGraw instead o f John Moore). 3. On Decenber 21, 1984, EPA issued a press release statin g th a t these dioxin regulations had been signed. They were published in the Federal R eg ister on January 14, 1985. I t is important to note that the e x istin g TSCA rule c o n tro llin g 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 TCDD disposal w ill be revoked July 15, 1985, the e ffe c tiv e date of these new reg ulations, to be supplanted by these more comprehensive RCRA reg u latio n s. I t is useful to h ig h lig h t the key p rovisions of the new li s t i n g . A. Land Treatment/Disposal Only f u lly permitted RCRA f a c i l i t i e s (with one exception) could land tre a t or dispose of these wastes ( i . e . interim status la n d f i ll s and land farms f a c i l i t i e s could not accept these wastes). Interim status land disposal f a c i l i t i e s , however, could accept residues re su ltin g from the in cin e ra tio n or thermal treatment of dioxin-contanrinated s o ils . The one exception is fo r wastes generated in a surface impoundment's part of a f a c i l i t y ' s wastewater treatment p la n t. 0 Before a f a c i l i t y could obtain a permit (and thus be e lig ib le to accept any of these wastes) i t must have a "waste management plan" that i s approved by the Regional Adm inistrator. This plan would address design and operational measures, above and beyond those in the land disposal reg ulations, which the f a c i l i t y would adopt in order to prevent the migration of these wastes. EPA FORM 1320-6 IHEV3-76) 2 B. Storage 0 Storage in tanks, containers and enclosed waste p ile s would be allowed a t most in te rim status f a c i l i t i e s provided that they met the secondary contai m ent standards of Part 264. Storage in underground tanks that could not be entered fo r inspection would be p rohibited. C. Incineration These wastes could be incinerated at only f u lly permitted f a c i l i t i e s (with one exception). These in cin e ra to rs would have to achieve a destruction and removal e ffic ie n c y (DRE) o f 99.9999% (six -n in es) in order to be able to accept these wastes. The one exception applies to interim status in c in e r ators that already have approval under TSCA to burn'PCBs, and th a t have been approved by an EPA headquarters review group as s a tis fy in g the RCRA technical standards fo r in cin e rato rs burning these wastes. There are only three such incin erators in the nation: SCA Chemical S ervices, Chicago, I lli n o i s ; R o llin s Envirormental S ervices, Deer Park, Texas; and ENSCO, El Dorado, Arkansas. SCA Chemical Services has previously refused to accept dioxin-contaminated wastes. __ D. Superfund Ramifications 0 The regulation w ill require that a ll CDD/CDF contaminated so il be managed at permitted RCRA f a c i l i t i e s . S o ils , d e b ris, and clean up m aterials associated with response actions or p rivate parly actions under CERCLA and transported o f f - s it e would be covered. Mote the p ro h ib itio n on disposal of these wastes at in terim status f a c i l i t i e s may delay clean up a c t iv it ie s by Superfund or PRPs. Although th is might be a lle v ia te d via storage at interim status f a c ilit ie s or incineration, practical and p o lit ic a l bottlenecks may preclude these options. E . RCRA Reauthorization Amendments 0 The RCRA reauthorization amendments (HSWA) contain at le a s t three provisions relevant to CDDs and CDFs. F i r s t , there w ill be a ban on the use of dust supressants containing hazardous waste. Second, EPA must determine by May 8, 1985, whether to l i s t other chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans. Wood preserving wastes containing pentachlorophenol w ill probably be addressed in a future regulation. F in a lly , EPA has 45 months (fran 11/8/84) in which to determine whether ce rta in wastes, in clu d in g d io x in s, must be prohibited from land d isp o sa l. I f EPA f a i l s to make a determination within the sp e cifie d time the wastes are autom atically banned from land disposal. 3 F . Impact of the RCRA "D iox in " Regulations on the SUB A ll persons who generate, transpo rt, tr e a t, store , or dispose of the wastes lis t e d under th is rule are required to n o tify EPA o r a State authorized by EPA no la t e r than A p ril 15, 1985. A ll e x is tin g hazardous waste management f a c i l i t i e s which tr e a t , store , or dispose of wastes lis t e d in these regulations and which q u a lify to manage these wastes under in te rim status must f i l e a P a rt A perm it a p p licatio n by J u ly 15, 1985. The number of f a c i l i t i e s expected to n o tify or submit P a rt A permit applica tio n s fo r these wastes i s not larg e. Several f a c i l i t i e s in the Region may submit or amend P a rt B permit a p p licatio n s fo r these wastes. Monday January 14, 1985 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 270, and 775 Hazardous Waste Management System; Dioxin-Containing Wastes; Rule 1&78 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1965 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 261, 264. 265, 270, and 775 [SW N-FRL 2701-3] Hazardous Waste Management System; Dioxin-Containing Wastes a g e n c y : Environmental Protection Agency. a c t i o n : Final rule. s u m m a r y : The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today amending the regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). by listing as hazardous wastes certain wastes containing particular chlorinated dioxins, -dibenzofurans, and -phenols^ and hv specifying n nagement standards for these wastes. These wastes are being listed as acute hazardous wastes. Because of this action, we are removing several commercial chemical products from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.33, since these listings are duplicative. For the same reason, EPA is revoking the regulation concerning the disposal of 2.3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD)-contaminated wastes under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) when the regulation under RCRA becomes effective. The effect of this rule will be to subject these dioxincontaining wastes to the hazardous waste regulations issued under RCRA. DATES; Effective date: The RCRA hazardous waste regulation becomes effective on July 15.1935 while the TSCA rule concerning the disposal of TCDD-contaminated wastes is revoked on July 15.1985. Compliance dates' All persons (including those who have previouslynotified the Agency under Section 3010 of RCRA) who generate transport, treat, store, or dispose of the wastes listed today are required to notify EPA or a State authorized by EPA to operate the hazardous waste program of their activities under Section 3010 no later than April 15,19B5. Notification instructions are set forth in 45 FR 12746 (February 26,1980).1 1Under the Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of 1900 [Pub. L. Dfe-452 (October 21. I960)). EPA was given the option of waiving the notification requirement under Section 3010 of RCRA. following revision of the Section 3001 regulations, si the discretion of the Administrator. In this instance, we believe that all persons handling or managing these wastes need to notify the Agency because of the extreme toxicity of these wastes. Therefore, all persons, including those individuals who have previoulsy notified EPA that they generate or All existing hazardous waste management facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 270.2) which treat, store, or dispose of wastes listed in these regulations and which qualify to manage these wastes under interim status under Section 3005(e) of RCRA must file with EPA or a State authorized by EPA to operate the hazardous waste program a notification by April 15,1985 and a Part A permit application by July 15.19B5. Facilities which have already qualified for interim status will not be allowed to manage the wastes listed in these regulations after July 15,1965 unless: (1) The regulation allows them to handle such wastes under interim status. (2) they file a notification with EPA or an authorized State by April 15,1965 and (3) they submit an amended Part A permit application with EPA or an authorized State by July 15,1985 (see 40 CFR 270.10(g)). AD D RESSES: Public Docket: The public docket for 40 CFR Parts 261,264,265. and 270 is located in Room S-212A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington. D.C. 20400, and is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The public docket for 40 CFR Part 775 is located in Room E-107 at the same address, and is available for viewing during the same hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (600) 424-9346 or (202) 362-3000. For technical Information contact: Dr. Judith S. Beilin, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B), Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460, (202) 362-4787. SUPPLEM ENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Summary of Regulation HI. Wastes Subject to This Regulation A. Wastes Containing Tetra- and Pentachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans B. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Manufacturing Wastes 1. Standards for Determining if Wastes Are Acute Hazardous Wastes 2. Whether Wastes From the Production and Manufacturing Use of Pentachlorophenol [PCP] Should Be Classified as Acute Hazardous Waste 3. Toxicity of PCP as a Measure of the Wastes' Toxicity 4. Changing the Regulatory Status of Discarded PCP Formulations 5. Alternative Basis for Establishing a 1 kg per Month Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Exclusion Limit handle other hazardous wastes, must notify EPA that they are generating or handling these dkndn* containing wastes. 6- Rt:gulii!iiin of v..tM>*, irmn previously used in pmrhif : m anufseturins um- of Pt.l* C. Wastes g'M: - '1 nr. c:,.*.;,: r.* previously used in the production i ii manufacturing u.-f* ot f* ami i*-**- chlornphenols 1. Scope of the Listing 2. Practicality of the Li*t;rc 3. Economic Burden 4. Historical Document! ion D. Hexachlorophen'-Mar. ifa1'tar n U TV. Management Altemam f*s anJ Requirements A. Land Disposal and Storage of Wastes 1. Management of Dioxin Wastes at Interim Status Faulror-, .Prohibitions on Management b. Interim status Facilities Allowed To Manage these wasu-c 2. Requirement of a Waste Management Plan 3. Prohibiting Land Disposal oilheit*----- Wastes 4. Secondary Containment at Permitted Tank and Container Storage Facilities B. Incineration of Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes 1. Burning at Interim Status Incinerators 2. Burning at Fully Permitted Incinerators a. Alternative DRE for Dioxin- Contaminated Wastes b. Requirements for Conducting a Trial Bum for These Wastes c. Special Notification to the Ke:on*! Administrator d. Periodic Compliance Tests 3. Amendments to Parts 204 and C. Burning at Interim Status Therm,;! Treatment Facilities V. Relation of this Rule to Regjlaiior. of TCDD-Conlaminated Wastes L'r.do: :h- Toxic Substances Control An VI. Comments on Other Issues A. Development of a Tom : *\ Characteristic for Defining D;o\:-.Contaminatrd Wastes as Hazardous B. Discarded Unused Formolat.or'a G Comprehensive Enviror.:r?r.\ i Response. Compensation, ar.ri l s :i.! .. Act cleanup activities D. Other Wastes Cor.tai-vrg CDD* d CDFs E. Wastes Containing Other Halogenated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans F. Small Quantity Generator Comments G. Comments or. Reuse and Recycling Issue H. Applicability of the Mixture Rule L Comments on the Analytical Method a" J the Background Document VH. Relation of this Regulation to Those Promulgated Under CERCLA section 102(b) (Reportable-Quantities) VIQ. State Authority IX. Economic, Environmental, and Regulatory ImpactB A. Regulatory Impact Analysis B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 X. References XL list of Subjects * Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1979 1. Background On April 4.1983. F.PA proposed to amend the regulations for hazardous waste management under RCRA by listing as acute hazardous wastes* certain wastes containing particular chlorinated dioxins. -dibenzofurans. and -phenols, and by specifying certain management standards for these wastes see 48 FR 14514-14539). Some of these materials already are hazardous wastes coder 40 CFR 261.33(0. a provision which lists discarded commercial grade, technical grade, off-speciflealion products, and discarded formulations when the toxicant is present as the sole active ingredient. Since we proposed to list these wastes as acute hazardous wastes, we also proposed to delete several commercial chemical products (i.e.. EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. U212, i.':30. U231. U232, L'233. and L'242) from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.33(0 in order to avoid i.stins the same waste under two dirfefent (and inconsistent) provisions. Finally. EPA proposed to revoke its rr-gulatior. concerning the disposal of 2.3.7.3-TCDD contaminated wastes unJer TSCA when the RCRA regulation tiocomes effective. EPA requested comments on ell 'p ti is of the proposed regulation The .iuenc\ has evaluated these comments md has accordingly modified the 'V.c!utiuns us well as the s.ippurting documentation. This notice finalizes the ''qulation proposed on April 4,1983. nd outlines EPA's response to many of . 't.-rr.ments received on that proposal ; 1he Agency's response- to the uther comments are set forth in the revised R-1ck.around Document for this listing.) t ::c Agency also notes that the proposed regulation was validated by Congress in the Hazardous and Solid !A.iste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA1. In particular, the bill requires EPA to finalize the "dioxin-containing hazardous waste numbered FO20. F021. P022. and F023 fas referred to in the proposed rule published by the Administrator in the Federal Register on April 4.1983)" within six months of the iiiiis enactment [Section 222(a)). In 'Th* HCRA definition of cute hazardous wxsir - .!* birth 4c CFh Cndei that '-i'lu'i-in. d material is not Rferev-ittily "uruiely m ihe wiiy (ha. lerm is -i*ed by loMLologiste " ,1`- ` `hr * .. **, .'ii i()i i i lv < s * u,,nit; IttiZoCUiUd *fuil through acute or chronic, exposure uiuse, or significantly contribute to un increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness" regardless of how they are managed. Wastes with particularly low L050 or LC501oxiei(iea, or wastes containing substantial concentrations of potent . ..iJtMiyens. die the moil likely for iiiling as .Rule Hazardous wa>iex {see 4P FR .13106- TiinT May 19. 1980J. addition. Section 201(e) of the law requires EPA to consider prohibiting the land disposal of the proposed listings. (The prohibition on land disposal is rebuttable under certain circumstances.) II. Summary of the Regulation1 This regulation designates as RCRA acute hazardous wastes process wastes from the manufacturing use of tetra-, penta-, or hexachlorobenzenes under alkaline conditions: wastes from the production and manufacturing use of tri-, tetra-, and pentachloro-phenols and their chlorophenoxy derivatives:4and discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-, and pentachlorophenols or formulations containing compounds derived from these chlarophenols. Also listed are wastes that are generated in the course of a manufacturing process performed on equipment previously used for such operations, except where the equipment was used only for the manufacture or formulation of pentachlorphenol (PCP) or its derivatives. The wastes covered by this rule include reactor residues, still bottoms, brines, spent filter aids, spent carbon from product purification, and sludges from wastewater treatment, but do not include untreated wastewater or spent carbon from hydrogen chloride purification. As a consequence, these wastes will all be subject to the 1 kg per month small quantity generator exclusion limit. See 40 CFR 261.5(e) and 261.30(d). Residues in containers that contain these listed wastes are also regulated under subtitle C of RCRA. unless the container has been triple-rinsed using a solvent capable of removing the waste, or !he container has been otherwise cleaned by a method that thas been shown to achieve equivalent removal. See S 281.7(b)(3)3In addition, soils 'The following acronyms and definitions are used in this document (and in the Background Document for this regulation): PCDDs ?al! isomers of all chlorinated tiibenzo-pdioxins. PCDFs=al! isomers of all chlorinated dibenzofurans. CPUs and CDFa = all isomers of the ters-. pentaand hexacholoro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. respectively.' TCDDs and TCDFs= all isomers of the tetra chlorodibenzo-p-dioxina and -dibenzofurans. respectively TCDD and TCDF = the respective li.3.7.S.-isomers The prefixes D. Tr. T. Pe. and Hx denote the di-. . penta *nd ht.-xa'.h!urodit>xi[i anil -ihbenzofuran congeners, respectively. `The proposed regulation specified these derivatives as the chlorophenoxy acids, esters, and amine salts, hut omitted reference to ether derivatives and other (e.g.. alkaline) salts. This inadvertent omission is rectified in the final regulation. ` If the container is cleaned, the container would be considered empty and no longer subject to contaminated with these wastes are also regulated since soils contaminated by hazardous wastes spills are defined as being in the RCRA system. These wastes also will be subject to special standards when land disposed, incinerated, or stored. Since these wastes will now be subject to regulation under RCRA. we are also revoking the TSCA dioxin rule. III. Wastes Subject to This Regulation EPA proposed to list as acute hazardous wastes process wastes from the manufacture of tetra-. penta-. or hexachlorobenzenes under alkaline conditions; wastes from the production and manufacturing use of tri-. tetra-, or pentachlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy derivatives: and discarded unused formulations containing tri-. tetra-, and pentachlorophenols or formulations containing compounds derived from these chlorophenols. We also proposed to list wastes resulting from the production of materials on equipment previously used for such operations. This section of the preamble discusses the comments received on the listing of these wastes as acute hazardous wastes, as well as our response. A. Wastes Containing Tetra- and Pentochloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans * In listing these wastes as acute hazardous wastes. EPA relied principally upon the presence, in significant concentrations, of CDDs and CDFs in the wastes, and to a lesser extent on the presence of certain rhlorcphenols and chlorobenzenes. Thr CDDs and CDFs are, for certain animal species, the most potent man-made toxicants known. These wastes also have been associated with some of the most serious hazardous waste damage incidents known, including those at Love Canal (NY), and at Times Beach (MOJ. The levels of TCDD in these wastes are of concern in terms of the potential fur serious harm to human health if they are released to water or air. either in soluble form or adsorbed to soil particulates. Based on its carcinogenic potential, the Water Quality Criterion for 2.3.7,8-TCDD is 10 MO Tppb (U.S. FPA. 1978b). This value is a very small fraction (about 10 :5) of the concentration of TCDDs in the listed wastes. regulation. However, the rinaate that ia generated nub! tx* <tn acute hazardous waste, and. thus, subject to regulation. See 45 FR at 78S28 (November 25.1B90|. 1980 Federal Register / Vo) at). No. 9 / M onda;. January 14. 198;> / Rules and Rec'dVi'T* Con'.T'Tit* r* d\i ni>l challenge that production wastes containing TCDDs and TCDFs were properly listed. We therefore are adopting these listings as final today. Challenges to EPA's decision to list wastes generated on equipment previously-used to produce wastes containing TCODs and TCDFs are discussed in Section C. of this aection of the preamble. Several respondents, however, did comment on EPA's use of structure/ activity relationships in its decision to list ell CDDs and CDFs as toxicants of concern, stating that it is not scientifically valid to consider all the CDDs and CDFs as having the same toxicologic properties, and that there are species-specific exceptions to the correlations cited between biochemical endpoints and toxicity. Several commenlers also suggested that EPA's reliance on the case of EDF v. EPA {568 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir., 1978J), cited in partial support for EPA's determination, is incorrect. The commenters stated that the court's determination in the case of EDF v. EPA (which involved polychlorinated biphenyls} (PCBs) allowed EPA to infer toxicity based on structure-activity relationships because the congeneric composition of the PCB mixture was not known, and because the toxic characteristic of all the congeners was not known. EPA agrees with the commenters that there is considerable variation in the acute and chronic toxicity, as well as in the biochemical activity of the various CDD and CDF congeners and isomers. We alluded to these differences in the preamble to the proposal. See 48 FR 14515, April 4.1983. In addition, these differences were noted both in the background document and in the health and environmental effects profiles. However, we continue to judge that, because most of the isomers of the listed CDDs and CDFs are very toxic, albeit to different degrees, and because the Agency believes that most of these wastes contain a certain percentage of the most toxic (TCDD) component, it is appropriate and permissible to rely, in part, on the known structure/activity relationships to establish the potential toxicity of these wastes.6 It shmSd also be noted that the Agency is not evaluating the toxicity of the HxCDD and HxCDF congeners--the chlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurans * We alto believe that the identification of individual isomers in the w atte (<>.. analyze the waale (or the specific dioxin and dibenxofuran isomers) would be quite ooatly and wnweessary becaaae of tbe toxic nature of tbs dioxin and dibenzofuran isomer*. miist i'i wi^li s iron', TCP production and manufacturing use-- solely by reference to structural similarity with TCDD and TCDF. Rather, we hate made an imleper.deni assessment of the toxicity of the HxCDDs. and believe that they are also very potent carrinrspens. albeit less potent than TCDD. We are. however, relying on structure/activity relationships in stating that all forms of HxCDDs and HxCDFs are constitutents of concern. B. Pentachlorophenol (PCPJ Manufacturing Wastes 1. Standards for Determining if Wastes Are Acute Hazardous Wastes Before challenging tbe Agency's substantive determinations, some commenters argued that EPA does not have tbe authority to regulate the designated wastes as acute hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 281.31. In particular, these commenters argue that the criteria cited in the regulation for listing acute hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)] allows EPA to classify as acute hazardous wastes only those wastes whiJ i meet all of the criteria set forth, and that tbe criterion that such a waste be "capable of causing or significantly contributing to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness" is impermissibly vague. We believe that the commenters have misinterpreted the cited regulation. The regulation (40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)] clearly states that a waste is considered to be an acute hazardous waste if its acute toxicity meets the criteria for acute lethality as defined in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). or if it can cause or contribute to serious irreversible illness. The regulations do not state that an acute hazardous waste must meet all of the listed criteria; the conjunction "or" is employed. As to the lack of definitiveness of the qualitative criterion, the regulation quotes the statutory' standard verbatim. No one has challenged the statutory provision (Section 1004(5)(A]] as impermissibly vague, nor did we receive any comments on this criteria during the comment period following the promulgation of &261.11(a)(2) on May 19.1980. Furthermore, in the preamble to that regulation. EPA stated its intent to apply this standard to wastes "containing substantial concentrations of potent carcinogens . . ." (See 45 FR 33107). TCDD and several HxCDDs are among the moat potent carcinogens tested in rodents, and are present in these wastes in substantial concentrations. We therefore believe that neither the statute nm the rer -f'- ir -'' vague, and that we hint f<J!v articulated the reasons foi our conclusion that.these wastes mf**-' {.*. criterion for lisung'as a:.ul* ha/..::.: wastes. 2. Whether Wastes From the Prod-ir'.-H and Manufacturing Use ui PentachlorophenoT (PCP) Should Ii.Classified as Arute Hazardot:.- W.:-; " EPA proposed to list wastes from th^ production and manufacturing us of PCP. discarded unused formulations containing PCP. and wastes from equipment previously used for tfcp production or manufacturing use of PCP as acute hazardous waste. Generators nf these wasteB questioned whether the wastes should be classified as acute hazardous wastes. They argued ths' these wastes do not contain the most toxic dioxin or dibezofuran congener-- , (2,3,7,8-TCDD or TCDF). and went on to argue that the dioxin congeners the\ do contain--HxCDDs--are not carcinogenic or otherwise toxic enough to justify the Bcute hazardous waste classification. They also maintained that there are no other reasons to justify listing these wastes as acute hazardous wastes. As already explained, wastes, ?.rv listed as acute hazardous waste under the criteria for listing contained in 40 CFR $ 261.11(a)(2). The principal ba?.i for listing the PCP wastes as acute hazardous wastes is the pr<*s-:-r;s i-t substantial concentrations of HxCDD? and HxCDFs, and of PCP. which hrpotential chronic systemic effects.1* While TCDDs are very rarely found in PCP or in wastes resulting fro:.; production or manufacturing us; of F'Cr (Buser and Bosshard! (1976) rrpvru c 0.50-0.25 ppm of an unidentified `TCDD" isomer). HxCDD concentrations range from 1-39 ppn (USEPA. 1981a: Miles et a!.. 1984', i. addition, an isomer-specific anai;*`<determined that the carcinogenic 1.2,3;6.7.8-HxCDD constitu:-*? about 2060% of the HxCDDs present (UShTA. 1978: Miles et ai., 1984). Moreover. PCP contains about 0.12 ppm each of TCDF? and PeCDFs. and from 9-99 ppm of 'Feiotoxic and teratogenic effects (statist h Miy significant skeletal and soft tiasur anomalies, frial growth retardation, and increased embryonic resorption*! have been reported in rats exposed t.. commercial and purified PCP (USEPA. 1901a). 'These w allet also contain hexachlorobenzenc (HCB). a compound identified by thr Agency 's Carcinogen Assessment Croup as a potential human carcinogen. Because the Agency has no data on the concentration of HCB in these manufacturing waslas. HCB is not at this time cited as a toxicant ol concam (Appendix VU constituent), tf data warrant, these listing* may accordingly be amended. 4 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1981 HxCDFs [USEPA. 1978). As discussed 'i.'hm iSfCtun III B. 3 ) levels re uf regulatory concern. Several commenters disputed EPA's determin.ition that the two HxCDDs arc carcinogenic. They submitted an p\pert`s review of the bioassay conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of a mixture of two HxCDDs (Squire. gail--* The expert reviewer reported a lower incidence uf neoplastic nodules in female rats than t^ut reported by NCI ;.tr:J ori^naliy accepted by EPA). He evaluated several of the lesions diagnosed as tumors by NCI as non-neoplastic regenerative nodules, but concluded that there is "equivocal" evidence that these HxCDDs are potential human carcinogens. As a result of these comments, scientists from EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) and the National Toxicology Program (NTPJ have reviewed both the reviewing expert's comments and the underlying data [histology slides) gathered in the original NCI study. Their re-evaluation confirms the original conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that the mixture of HxCDDs studied by NCI is carcinogenic as indicated by a statistically significant increased incidence of liver tumors in female rats and in mice of both sexes (Haberman and Bayard. 198-1; Hildebrandt. 1983. McGaugh}. 1984). This rt*.:..w led EPA to estimate that the carcinogenic potency of the two HxCDD isomers ranged from 0.59 (male rat) to 11 (male mouse) per jig/kg/day. The CAG recommended that 8.2 per g/kg/day, derived from hepatocellular carcinoma and adenoma data in the male mice and female rats (the test systems in which the response was most strongly evident) be used as the best estimate of the upper limit potency estimate far HxCDD (Mr.Gaughy, 1934). Even the lowest of these estmales, hewever. makes HxCDD one of the most potent carcinogens identified by the Agency. For example, this mixture of HxCDDs. although about Vzs as potent as TCDD, is as patent a carcinogen as Aflaloxin Bi (a well recognized potent carcinogen), and is about a thousand times more potent than ethylene dibromide (EDB). Commenters also submitted an epidemiologic study of the effects of several chemical preservatives, including PCP. on the health of woodworkers, as evidence .that no deleterious health effects can be ' This leiiw* w** sutim:ii,-J *,-11 after the .iijse if the comment period, bat the Agency chose to >(insider it m part of the rulemaking record. ascribed to these chemicals [AWPI. 1983).'" EPA reviewed this study, and notes that it has severe limitations (Frdreich. 1983: Ris. 1983). First, a crosssectional study design is not a suitable method for detecting a cancer effect, because in such a study persons with cancer who are currently employed are not likely to be identified as having the disease n addition, other deficiencies were pointed out. viz., small sample size: insufficient follow-up period following 'he onset of exposure: and lack of exposure definition. EPA, therefore, concludes that the submitted epidemiological 9tudy is not adequate lor assessing the presence or absence of a cancer risk or other health effects in wood treaters exposed to PCP (Erdreich. 1933: Ris, 1983). In addition, reports have been accumulating in the open literature which indicate that workers in occupations associated with PCP exposure are at increased risk of nasal and nasopharyngeal cancer, stomach cancer, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma [Grufferman et al,, 1976: Bishop and Jones. 1981: Hardell et al,, 1982: Gallagher and Threlfall, 1984). Since these are reports of studies of occupational exposure, it is of course unclear whether the tiologie agent is PCP or its associated CDD or CDF impurities. However, these reports reinforce EPA's decision regarding the capability of these wastes to cause or contribute to serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness. Several commenters also suggested that the toxicity of HxCDDs at the levels found in PCP are not of regulatory concern. The commenters argue that, because the amount of HxCDDs which, they estimate, is contained in the median rat lethal dose of PCP is less than the teratogenic lowest observed effect level (LOEL) noted for HxCDDs, EPA should be more concerned with the acute toxicity of PCP than with the chronic toxic effects of its HxCDD contaminants. They further state that no increased risk of oncogenicity will result from HxCDD exposure resulting from exposure to PCP at its NOEL for reproductive effects. EPA disagrees with these statements. When we consider cancer, daily exposure even at one hundredth of the LDso of PCP containing IS ppm of HxCDDs would result in exposure to 18 ng HxCDD/kg/day.'1 Lifetime exposure **T1iis review alto wai aubmitted well after the <me of the public comment period, hut the Agency again chose to consider tl aa part of the rulemaking record. " Vmo > LD50 X 13 ppm HxCDD/PCP y l/body *e!hf lu * r 120 mg PCP/kg/day a (IS 10'* ms HxCDO'mg/PCP) x 10*ng/mg - IBng IWCDD/kg/d 0.018 fig HxCDD/kg/day. at this level could entail a potential excess cancer risk as high as one in a hundred. With respect to reproductive toxicity, the Allowable Da:!> Int-ik (ADI) is estimated as one hundredth (NAS. 1977) of the reproductive NOEL, or 1 ng HxCDD/kg/day. Someone exposed to a dose approaching the median LD established in thq.rat (120 mg PCP/kg/day) therefore wouM receive a dose 1800 u times larger than the ADI anticipated for the reproductive effects of HxCDD. Therefore, the reproductive effects of HxCDD potentially occur at doses three orders of magnitude lower than those at which the lethal effects of PCP are expected. Additionally, the levels of HxCDDs in PCP wastes are of concern in terms of the potential for serious harm if they are released to water or air. either in soluble form, or absorbed to soil partcula tes." Based on its carcinogenic potential, the Water Quality Criterion for 2.3.7.STCDD has been set as 10_s --1 0 '7/ig/l (USEPA. 1984b). Since a mixture of two HxCDDs is about 4^ as potent a carcinogen as TCDD (McGaughy. 1984). and because the water solubility, soil sorption characteristics, and bioaccumulation potential of HxCDDs and TCDD are very similar (see Background Document for this listing), an appropriate estimate for a similar criterion for HxCDDs is about 25 times as large as that for TCDD. viz.. 10_T--10-6/ig/l. This value is a minuscule fraction fit)"10) of the concentration of HxCDDs in the PCP wastes. We therefore comdude that the potential toxicity of HxCDDs at the levels found in PCP are of regulatory concern and that these wastes contain significant concentrations of potent carcinogens. These wastes therefore meet the criteria of 40 CFR 261.31(a)(2). justifying the listing of these wastes as acute hazardous wastes. 3. Toxicity of PCP as a Measure of the Wastes' Toxicity One commenter noted that PCP. which is contaminated with carcinogenic HxCDDs. was not carcinogenic in several bioassaysT and therefore questioned the Agency's conclusion that the two HxCDDs are potential human carcinogens. We do not believe that the PCP bioassays are adequate to support a conclusion concerning the potential carcinogencity of PCP and HxCDDcontaining wastes. The carcinogenic risk *'Expo*ur/ADI --(15x 10*` mg HxCDD 'mg PCP 120 mg PCP/kg/d x 108 ng/mg) /1 ng HxCDD/ kg/day = 1BOO. 1982 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 19B5 / Rules and Regula lions of PCP remaining ppm concentrations of HxCDD is not expected to give positive results at the dosages used in these bitmssays. At the lowest dose used in the HxCDD oral bioassay (1.25 ug HxCDD/kg/day), tumor rates of 0 and 20% were noted in groups of 50 female and male Osbome Mendel rats (U5DHH.5,1980). For a dose of 0.3 ug HxCDD/kg/day [the amount of HxCDD contained in the highest PCP dose used in the PCP study) a 0-5% response rate would be expected in the same rat train. This rate iB far too low for reliable detection. Moreover, the two best PCP bioassays (USDHHS. 1980 and Schwetz, 1978) were conducted in rats of different strains, that may differ in response. A review of these and other PCP bioassays also noted procedural deficiencies, such as an inadequate observation period, the use of only one animal species per test, and inadequate numbers of animals (Williams. 1982). Therefore, we believe that these studies do not permit a conclusion as to the potential carcinogencity of PCP. In addition, as outlined above, there are several reports showring increased cancer risk (of unknown etiology) in occupations associated with PCP exposure. Moreover, the fact that HxCDDs are potential human carcinogens of very high potency renders them of great regulatory concern. We therefore conclude that, because these wastes contain the potent carcinogen HxCDD at levels of regulatory concern, they meet the criteria of 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). and are properly listed as acute hazardous wastes.4 4. Changing the Regulatory Status of Discarded PCP Formulations Several respondents commented that EPA does not have the authority to regulate tetra- and pentachloropheno) containing wastes as acute hazardous wastes. These persons called attention to prior RCRA rulemaking involving these compounds. More specifically, in the hazardous waste regulations published on May 19. 1980, PCP was listed as an acute hazardous waste ( 261.33(e)) because the Agency was under the mistaken impression that its oral LD5G in the rat was le^s than 50 mg/kg. When this error was pointed out. the Agency's determination was rectified, and PCP was listed as a hazardous waste under f 261.33(f) (see 45 FR 70533. November 25.1980). However. EPA's evaluation considered only the acute oral toxicity of PCP. and did not consider its known contamination with CDDS and CDFs. It would not be in the best interests of the public if EPA allowed a previous determination to go unaltered when additional data show that prior rulemaking was in error. Thus, the regulatory classification of PCP was initially rectified when data seemed to warrant it. In the current regulation, that status is once more changed, because reconsideration of additional data warrant such action. 5. Alternative Basis for Establishing a 1 kg per Month Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Exclusion Limit In response to the arguments that these wastes are not acute hazardous wastes, we note that we also have an alternative (and independent) justification for a small quantity generator limitation of 1 kg per month for these (PCP) wastes. Under S261.11(c) of these regulations. EPA may consider the criteria for listing contained in S261.11 fa)(2] and (a)(3) of the regulations to establish small quantity generator limitations for particular wastes that are lower than 1000 kg per month. EPA will do this where "the general exclusion limits of 1000 kg per month is insufficient to protect human health or the environment." [See Background Document to Section 261.11. May 19. 1960. at p. 60.) That situation is the case for these wastes. As explained in the preamble and the Background Document for the proposed rule, and restated here, these wastes contain significant concentrations of potent carcinogens, and high concentrations of other - compounds (HxCDFs and PCP] that are also very toxic. These contaminants have proven to be mobile and persistent in the environment. There also have been many damage incidents involving PCP formulation wastes (see Background Document for this listing). For all these reasons, we believe that these wastes could [and have) cause(d) substantial harm to human health and the environment when managed at unregulated facilities, and that a 1000 kg per month SQG limit is inappropriate for these wastes. In order to ensure that these wastes will be managed at Subtitle C facilities, the appropriate exclusion limit established in the 40 CFR Part 261 regulations is 1 kg per month. This same reasoning applies, with equal force, to the other wastes covered by this listing. The legislative history of the newly enacted HSWA also states unequivocally that these wastes [i.e.. all of the wastes covered by the April 4 proposal) are not to be excluded from regulation by virtue of the small quantity generator exemption. See S. Rep. No. 98-284. 98th Cong. 2nd Sess. at 34. We are making a conforming c h a n g e to 261.30(d) of the regulations (o indicate that these wastes are subject to the 1 kg. per month small quantity, generator limitation. (It should be noted, however, that w read 5 261.30(d) as a provision for designating toxic as well as acute hazardous wastes as subject in the lower small quantity generator limits). 6. Regulation of Wastes from Equipment Previously Used in the Production or Manufacturing Use of PCP Based on the arguments presented above, the commenters also believe that wastes from equipment previously used in the production or manufacture usp of PCP should not be regulated as acute hazardous waste. Although we generally disagreed with the specific points of toxicology made by the commenters. we nevertheless have decided not to finalize this provision at this time. Iif reviewing our data base, we determined that, unlike wastes that are generated or equipment prev ously used in the production or manufacture use of triand tetrachlorophenols or their drivtes, we have insufficient information on the concentration of HxCDDs and HxDCFs in wastes generated on equipment previously used in the production or manufacture use of PCP to determine whether these wastes contain HxCDDs and HxCDFs in sufficient concentrations to be regulated generically as acute hazardous or hazardous waste. As a result. EPA expects to further investigate the wastes that are generated on previously contaminated equipment: based on those findings, we will take appropriate regulatory action. In the meantime, these wastes may still be hazardous waste if they either exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste, or if the waste is already listed (or curtains a waste listed) in Subpart D of Part 26. C. Wastes Generated on Equipment Previously Used in the Production and Manufacturing Use of Tri*and Tetrachlorophenols Several respondents commented on EPA's proposal to regulate, as acute hazardous wastes, wastes resulting from manufacturing processes conducted on equipment previously used to produce tri- and tetrachlorophenols (proposed EPA Hazardous Waste No. F022). These wastes were listed based on sampling and analysis data which show that wastes generated on equipment previously used in the production and manufactumg use of tri- and tetrachlorophenols are contaminated with CDDs even after production shifts Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1983 >c other products: in many cases, these foxicants have been found to remain in the wastes years after production shifted. In addition, there is a history of environmental contamination resulting from these contaminated equipment wastes at such places as Verona. Missouri, to justify these regulations. Furthermore, there is precedent for listing these wastes in that some of them are currently regulated under 40 CFR Part 775. a regulation issued under 5ection 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), based on a finding that unregulated disposal presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Nevertheless, a number of I'ommenters questioned the scope and pi ricticaiity of the resu.'a'ions and suggested several changes. 1. Scope of the Listing la) Several ccmrr.enters Mi that the proposed deiinition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F022 was broader than upended by EPV In p^-r'icular. they in>! *'ated that EPA Hazardous Waste No. F021 refers only to the r-unufacturirg use of certain chlorobenzenes under alkaline fundi'ions. but does r.ot cover the actual production of the compounds themselves. These coir.menters argue thrti the prcposed listing of FQ22 refers to wastes from the production of materials on equipment previously used fo* the production or oicrtu'ccluring use c-f materials listed jnder FO20 and F021. Thus, the commenfers believe that there is an unintended inconsistency in the rules as proposed. In reviewing these comments.-we ..grce that the proposal erroneously read to include wastes generated on equipment once used to produce chlorobenzenes. Therefore, we have modified the listing to make it clear that tne listing only applies to wastes from equipment used previously in the trnnufactunr.% use of designated chlorobenzenes (under alkaline .''ndp.or.-; '!*new hazardous waste listing F028 1 (b) One commenter ?rgued that the effect of the contaminated equipment listing is extremely broad, and indicates that, while it is not explicitly stated, storage, treatment, and disposal facilities that have ever managed these chforophcnols and chlorobenzenes will be deemed to be part of the "equipment" used to manufacture.these products, and thus, be covered under this listing. Consequently, they argue that all waste management facilities in this category would be shut down until full permit si.miis is achl^v etl. We disagree with the point made by the commenter. As currently drafted, and as discussed in the supporting documentation, this listing applies and is only meant to apply to equipment used in the actual production or manufacturing use of the appropriate products [i.e.. reactor vessels, distillation columns, filtration equipment, etc.), and does not apply to equipment used by waste management facilities (/.e.. treatment, storage, and disposal facilities). The existing TSCA rule (40 CFR 775.183(g)) is likewise so limited. The commenter raises a valid point, however, that needs to be investigated to determine whether the listing should be expanded. EPA will, therefore, investigate the extent of dioxin contamination in wastes (e.g.r incineration residues) generated from waste management facilities that previously managed these dioxin wastes. However, until these investigations are completed and a decision is made, this listing will only apply to wastes generated on equipment used as part of the actual production process. It has also been argued that like the wastes tha: are generated from manufacturing operations--namely, the production and manufacturing use of tri- and tetrachlornphenols--that have become contaminated from past production or use. the equipment on which these wastes were generated {i.e.. reactor vessels, product storage tdnks. etc.) when they are taken from service and scrapped (rather than cleaned) should likewise be regulated under RCRA. In fact, extensive TCDD contamination at a scrap metal salvage facility in Newark (NJJ has been traced to the presenoe of scrapped reaction vessels which, it is thought, were once used for the production j f 2,4.5-T. Scrap metal wipe samples, taken many years after the equipment has been scrapped, showed extensive contamination: 250 ng TCDD/m* at the surface of a large reaction vessel in the center of a waste pile. Soil adjacent to cut tanks contained about 3 ppm of TCDD, and low ppb concentrations were detected in surrounding properties (USEPA. 1964k Although situations such as these are of great concern to the Agency, we have decided not to list this equipment, even if discarded, as hazardous (or acute harzurdous) waste at this time. EPA has very limited information to define, on a generic basis, all equipment which at one time was used to produce tri- or tetrachlornphenols as hazardous for acute hazardous) waste under RCRA. However, as is the case for residues which are generated from waste management facilities, EPA plans to study the extent of environmental contamination from (his equipment if it were discarded prior to decontamination. Once these investigations are completed, we will take the appropriate regulatory action. (c) One commenter argued that the regulation regarding contaminated equipment waste should be^imiteJ to equipment used during the actual synthetic process and the subsequent purification procedures, since these wastes would tend to have the highest concentrations of CDDb and CDFs. The commenter also suggested that EPA should specifically exclude equipment used for subsequent handling of products in ways which are not expected to generate additional CCDs or CDFs. We cannot agree that the listing should be limited in this way. While it is true that wastes generated on eqn-pment used in synthesis or purification are expected to contain CDDs and CDFs in concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than in waste generated on equipment used onlv for formulation, (i.e., several hundred ppm vs. several ppm), the latter levels are still of regulatory concern. Accordingly. EPA has decided that all wastes :hat are generated on equipment which has become contammated from previous manufacturing operations must be managed as acute hazardous wastes, unless a delisting petition establishes that a particular waste is not of regulatory concern or should not be considered an acute hazardous waste. 2. Practicality of the Listing Several commenters questioned the reasonableness of listing as hazardous, wastes that are generated on equipment that may. at any time in the past, have been used in processes generating CDDs or CDFs. They argued that such a listing is not necessary since current cleaning practices (i.e., triple rinsing or other equivalent cleaning methods) will ensure that any wastes generated from such equipment will not be contaminated. They, therefore,suggest that a person be allowed to make such a demonstration. They believe that sjch a showing could be accomplished by demonstrating that the equipment has been adequately cleaned [e.g, by vapor phase degreasing, solvent washing, etc.), or by testing the waste to determine if it contains significant concentrations of CDDs/CDFs. (The commenters. however, did not indicate how such a demonstration of adequate cleaning would be made, short of testing the wiiste.l One cnmmenter felt, in duy 1984 Federal Register / Vn). 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations event, that after some lime period during which the equipment has been in another use. the equipment should automatically be considered to no longer be contaminated with CDDs/CDFs. In particular, they suggested a reasonable time period would be three years, as it is common for industry ffi retain records for this time'period. EPA agrees that persons should be allowed to demonstrate that their waste is no longer contaminated with CDDs/ CDFb. However, we believe the only way to make this showing is by testing the waste and submitting an exclusion petition (commonly referred to as "delisting"] under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. These procedures have been in use for several years, and we see no reason to set up a special set of procedures. There is no difference between a petition making such a demonstration for these wastes, and petitions to exclude any other waste from the hazardous waste regulations, or petitions to change the regulatory status of a waste from acute hazardous to hazardous. We do not believe, however, that a showing of equipment cleanliness could easily be made by evaluating the concentration of CDDs and CDF9 in equipment rinsate. Such a showing would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make without knowing a great deal of detail for each equipment train, such as its size and complexity, and the amount of rinsate that was used. Even knowing this information, however, may not suffice, because of the many factors that need to be considered to set a standard for CDD/CDF "cleanliness". For example, large equipment trains are difficult to rinse, and the concentration of CDDs and CDFs in the rinsate would depend in part on the amount of solvent used; compliance would therefore be difficult to determine. In an effort to get additional information on this option, however, we requested the commenter (and several other industrial entities] to provide the Agency with data showing in what manner, and to what extent adequate decontamination of manufacturing equipment might be achieved and demonstrated. We did not obtain a response. Additionally, experience indicates mat decontamination is, in fact, very difficult, even if strenuous attempts are made (see. for instance, Bleiberg, 1964; Goldmann, 1973; Dalderup. 1978; Fishbein. 1982; Sambeth. 1983). We likewise do not believe that enough information is available to set a time period after which wastes that are generated on previously contaminated equipment should be deemed noncontaminated. Quite the opposite: recent sampling and analysis at b facility which used 2.4.5.-TCP almost eight years ago showed ppb concentrations of TCDD in still bottoms from 2.4-DCP manufacture (where the presence of 2.3.7.8.-TCDD in such concentrations is not expected, absent contamination from an outside source]. We also requested further information from those commenters who made this last point (/.e.. set a time period after which the waste is no longer considered to be contaminated with CDD's/CDF's): however, no response was returned, indicating a lack of information to justify setting any time period at this time. 3. Economic Burden Several commenters argued that this listing will result in economic hardship by requiring premature discarding of "contaminated" equipment, especially to those who prudently cleaned and are reusing the equipment. They believe that such a requirement bears no relationship to whether or not any contaminants may be present and would preclude the use of some very sophisticated and expensive equipment to establish the absence of hazards in wastes that they claim would present no risk. We disagree with these comments. As discussed above, generators who have cleaned their equipment can show by analysts of their wastes, and a delisting petition, that their wastes do not contain the toxicants of concern at levels that are of regulatory concern. Generators also can dispose of the wastes generated on this equipment as acute hazardous wastes, rather than discarding the equipment (/.e.. nowhere in this regulation does the Agency require (or even suggest) that existing production equipment must be scrapped and discarded]. In any case, a regulatory impact analysis conducted for this regulation (see Section DC. A. below) has convinced us that its economic burden will be modest. The details of this analysis are discussed in Section IX. of this preamble. 4. Historical Documentation As part of the proposal, the Agency also solicited comments on the appropriate recordkeeping time periods and types of historical records that should be considered adequate for a showing that equipment was not used for processes generating CDDs/CDFs. Several commenters suggested that three to four years should be set as the typical document retention period. Otherwise, they argue, the approach will nut have murh t<! **\. $;ni e mno corporations will not have the records necessary to make the requisite showing. Regarding the. types of ;*' :!* that should be considered adequ-;'- they suggest that production process and product records would supply the npcessary information. In requesting comments in this area. EPA was concerned as to how a ' generator could legitimately know whether the equipment in question was previously used in thpse processes If records are kept for only three to four years, as claimed by the commenters. a generator could question how this regulation could be enforced, i e.. will every generator be required to test th"lr waste to determine whether it is contaminated with CDDs/CDFs if records are not available? ___ Upon re-evaluation of this point, we now believe this to be much less of a problem than originally thought. More specifically, as part of its preliminary investigations conducted as part of the dioxin strategy. EPA has identified most, if not all. of the manufacturers and formulators of tri- and tetrachlorophenois and :heir derivatives from the list of registrants who have notified the Agency, under the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Roder.ticide Act (FIFRA). In addition, the Agency, through its Regional OiPces. has contacted man> of these companies to verify the Agency's information. Therefore, we believe that the-?? companies who once made these products, and whr still use the equipment, will m::?; !;k-.I\ knew, this regulation applies :o them. The same is true for those who bought equipment from companies that produced or formulated tri- or tetrachlorophenols (or their derivatives), and who knew what type of equipment they bought (.;e.. these buyers know that this equipment is contaminated with CDDs and CDFs. and that the resultant wastes are regulated under RCRA). Therefore, the only group of persons who may not know that the waste? they are generating are regulated under these dioxin rules are those who unknowingly bought equipment used to produce or formulate tri-or tetrachlorophenols or their derivatives. This group of individuals may have difficulty in knowing that they are subject to the regulations. However, as indicated above, the Agency has been able to identify most, if not all. companies that produce or formulate these products. Therefore, any person who suspects that he may have equipment that is contaminated with CDDs or CDFs should contact EFA for further Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1985 information. In any event, this list will be useful for any person wishing verification that they are generating dioxin-contaminated wastes. It should also be noted that some of these persons should already be aware of this contamination, since they have been subject to the TSCA rule since May 1980. D. Hexachbrophene Manufacturing Wastes^ One bommenter believes that EPA had approximately excluded wastes from the production on Hexachbrophene (HCP) synthesized from highly purified 2,4,5-TCP from the proposed FO20 listing,13but added that, because CDDs atid CDFs are not generated in that process, HCP production and formulation wastes should similarly be exempted from the proposed F022 and F023 hazardous waste listings. EPA agrees with the commenter that a similar exception is warranted in cases where such HCP is the only ingredient in the discarded formulation. The regulatory language has been changed to reflect this point. It should also be noted, however, that HCP is itself toxic. Therefore, we anticipate listing HCP manufacturing wastes and discarded formulations which contain HCP as hazardous wastes arsome future date. IV. Management Alternatives and Requirements A. ic p d DisposeI end Storage of These 11`cstes The Agency proposed a degree of hazard approach for these wastes. In light of their inherent danger and previous poor management history, EPA proposed that these wastes be prohibited from being managed at most types of interim status facilities, and ihd: b ad disposal be conducted pursuant to additional special standards implemented during the course of the permit proceeding. We also requested comment as to whether incinerators, and tank and container storage facilities should be subject to additional management standards when they manage these wastes. This section of ,J EPA has re-ex mined in Jecision nut to lint vvdSl-s j s avjie hazardous wasU'S. and haI developed an engineerinq analysis for this process. (The document Iwhich contains Confidential Business Information| is available in the docket for this rulemaking.) Based on this analysis, the Avenny believes th: astes from the production of HCP vnthesiznd f.->m h-yhly purified 2.4.5-TCP prepared by the usual route could contain TCDDs. However, since there aFe no present producers of HCP using this route, the wastes from HCP production re nut listed. The Agency is aware of a new mute of synthesis for 2.4 VTCP during which no CDDs or PDFs .ire fnrmed |CB! inform.Oionl. the preamble describes the comments to these proposals, and the Agency's response and changes in approach made in response to comments. We also note that all of these wastes are specifically identified as candidates for being banned from land disposal in two years under the HSWA (See RCRA amended Section 3004(e)). Thus, the following discussion describes an interim regulatory regime, insofar as it pertains to land disposal of these wastes. 1. Management of the Dioxin Wastes at Interim Status Facilities a. Prohibitions on Management. Several comments related to EPA's decision prohibiting the management of CDD- and CDF-containing wastes at land disposal, incinerator, and open pile storage interim status facilities. Several commenters suggested that interim status facilities that are properly equipped and managed (i.e., that meet the Part 264 standards) should be allowed to manage these wastes. Other commenters suggested that the proposed rules should be changed to allow the incineration of dioxin wastes in interim status incinerators that have approval, under TSCA. to bum PCBs. This suggestion was put forth since the process of gaining fully permitted status under RCRA would take some time. The .commenters, therefore, fear that the requirement in the proposed rule would lead to a shortage of available management capacity. The Agency continues to believe that, for these wastes, management in fully permitted facilities is preferable due to the extreme toxicity of these wastes, the persistence of the toxicants of concern, and the wastes' mismanagement history.14At the same lime, the Agency is concerned about possible shortages in short-term management capacity for these wastes. We thus reject the suggestion that these wastes should be prohibited from all interim status facilities. We believe that certain types of interim status storage facilities can provide adequate management in the short term. Other interim status facilities, we think, can be evaluated for compliance with the Part 284 standards without undue administrative complication, and so also should not be prohibited from managing these wastes. We do not believe, however, that interim status land disposal facilities should be allowed to manage these wastes. (There is one exception, for " We are, however, allowing the residue resulting from the incineration or thermal treatment of dioxin-contaminated toil logo to interim status facilities, See Section VI,C for discussion. interim status impoundments in which these wastes are generated.) Not only are the interim status standards insufficient to prevent an unreasonable risk (see 45 FR 32682). but it is very difficult to evaluate these facilities for compliance with the Part 284 standards in the absence of a permit proceeding, because, under today's rule, land disposal facilities must seek approval of a waste management plan. ^ The only interim status facilities that may accept these wastes are: (a) Impoundments holding wastewater treatment sludges that are created in those impoundments as part of the plant's wastewater treatment system. (b) waste piles that meet the requirements of 3 264.250(c) (referred to in this preamble as "enclosed waste piles"), (c) tanks, (d) containers, (e) incinerators if certified, and (f) thermal treatment units subject to regulation under Subpart P of Part 265. if certified. (See next Section for more detailed discussion.) However, we believe it appropriate to discuss here the management of sludges in impoundments in which the waste was created. For surface impoundments, the Agency has determined that this is a situation when a distinction between new and existing facilities may permissibly be drawn. (See RCRA Section 3004 and 48 FR 14519). If the Agency were to ban all interim status impoundments from managing these wastes, facilities generating wastewater treatment sludges in impoundments would have to build and receive a permit for new capacity before they could legally manage these wastes. As a practical matter, this would require halting the manufacturing process for some undetermined period of time. The short-term management of these sludges in interim status impoundments could be protective, since the CDDs and CDFs will adsorb to the sludges, and other mobilizing organics will be present in these wastes at low concentrations due to dilution and biological treatment (USEPA. 1982).1SIt should also be noted that these facilities also mustpbtain a Part 264 permit (which includes compliance with the waste management plan), so that management at these impoundments will be upgraded as part of the permitting process. This could :iOne facility, that used to produce PCP. estimated that process wastewater could con'ain various chlorophenols at <100 to >1000 ppm. However, these data a n estimates submitted to the Agency, and were not verified by sampling and analysis. Because they differ greatly from sampling data at other facilities, they are judged to be too inreliable for use in the present context. 198fr Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 19H5 I Rules and Regulations result, for example, w a requirement removal of principal organic hazardous that the impoundment not be allowed to constituents in the waste). Likewise, receive the wastes unless it is lined, if interim status thermal treatment units the permit writer concludes that there is can also be approved to handle these potential for leaching from the w astes.5` The Agency also may issue impoundment (See text at FN 2L below.) emergency permits {see 40 CFR 270.61) Thus, interim status impoundments in to facilities to store these wastes in which these wastes are generated might situations where there is no other not be able to continue receiving these realistically available management wastes indefinitely. In addition, under the new legislation, within four years capacity. For example, if no management capacity is available these impoundments must be upgraded to meet the technical permitting standards for new surface impoundments (subject to certain following a dioxin waste dean up. an emergency permit could be issued to a facility if the alternative is to leave the wastes m place in an nnsecure setting. enumerated exceptions). See RCRA B. Interim Status Facilities Allowed To amended Section 30050). (These Manage These Wastes impoundments, however, will not be immediately prohibited from receiving these wastes as a result of this rule.) In light of all of these circumstances, we have decided to allow surface impoundments in which wastewater treatment sludges are generated to * continue to manage these sludges. The suggestion that land disposal facilities which Ineet the requirements for fully permitted facilities be allowed to handle these wastes is reasonable only in theory. The evaluation process presently needed to ascertain whether a facility meets the requirements of Part 264 would need to be thorough, and EPA judged that, in terms of necessary documentation and public participation, the process of ensuring this fact would be equivalent (or virtually equivalent) to the evaluation needed for issuing a Part Two persons commentrd on EPA's proposal to allow interim status facilities to handle these wastes. One of them stated that the Agency should, at a minimum, require submission of a Part B application: a demonstration, with respect to surface impoundments, that the wastes will not migrate: and notification to the Regional Administrator on the part of interim status facilities handling such wastes.11 The commenter further stated that management in unlined impoundments should not be allowed. In view of the fact that we will require a waste management plan for fully permitted land disposal facilities, one commenter also questioned how EPA can allow interim status land disposal facilities to handle these wastes. As discussed above. EPA agrees that 264 permit. This is particularly true for for these wastes, management at fully preparing and evaluating the waste permitted facititles is preferable. management plan. This pian must be However, as outlined above, pragmatic discussed with the permit w riter there as well as environmental considerations is no way a facility can be evaluated in motivate the Agency to allow interim advance to determine if they meet this status facilities to manage some of these standard. EPA thus believes that there is wastes for an interim period under some no reason for either applicants or EPA to conditions. go through the permitting pror.pss tw'icr. In foe case of surface impoundments We generally agree that allowing in which the wastewater treatment these wastes to be disposed of only at sludges are generated, we have fully permitted facilities (except as determined that the manufacturing discussed below) will, in the short term, facilities now generating the listed lead to a shortage of facilities able to wastewater treatment sludges would handle these wastes. This problem will probably have to dose down until they be alleviated, as is the case at present, by the possibility of storage in tanks, containers, or enclosed waste piles at 'The Agescy must provide u s leg?) meant of tumdl.xp these mnteri&U white disposal caP'ir<t\ t*. interim status facilities. Such storage will not in foe short term be harmful to human healft or foe environment and will reduce foe pressure to permit a made available th'nuyf the permxtisp pror*r.. " As already mdkatnd. afl persona who genera ittransport. B u t. lore. c* diepoM of these Q3D/ CDF-conIninDated wastes are required to no? '> EPA of their activities under Section 3010 of RCRA facility to handle these wastes immediately without a full evaluation of the facility's performance. Interim status incinerators will also be allowed to burn It should he noted that the newly enacted HSV\ A creates atataiturj d--dlftvre fcr eiihrai--i f at Pert B pplicatwD* by facihtie* U w | inlerun su its. See newly amended Section 3005(e). Under the statute, land disposal ficiBties must submit applications by these wastes if they can demonstrate compliance with foe performance standards for fully permitted incinerators (including destruction and November 8. IMS, incinerators must submit appBcalkias by Nosvmbar ft lMft aad all ether facilities must wbout appbcaliooa by November ft IMS. A facility wlecb tails to meal these deadlines w ill under the statute, lose i M ria status. can obtain permits lor lhi-ir impoundments or build alternative trf*atjm*n1 faciblies. (See 46 FR at 14M9 ) In addition, and as described above, allowing these interim-status surface impoundment tastore r treat these wastewater treatment sludges should present t limited risk in the short-term due to. the reduced potential of the CUlJs and COFs to migrate into the environment. These impoundments, however, must obtain a Part 264 permit which will include whatever requirements are imposed by the waste management plan. EPA also judges that interim statu* tank and container storage facilities provide adequate short term management of these wastes. Aitnuugh not providing maximum protection, they do provide control of these wastes to prevent them from posing a substantial environmental hazard or an unreasonable risk in the interim: tanks __ or containers at interim status facilities that will accept these wastes must meet most of foe requirements required for fully permitted tank and container facilities. See. e.g.. |$ 265.171.265.173. and 265-174 (containment, management, and inspection of conti.ir.ers) and 265.192 and 265.194 (containment and inspection of tanks). In addition, the Agenc\ judged that storage in interim status enclosed w-:* piles also represents a minimal, and acceptable risk. By "enclosed waste pile" we mean a pile that meets the requirements of 264.250(c)--namt-h. that the pile is inside a structure th;:t provides projection fre rr. run-on. precipitation, and wind d'.speral. dues not generete lea chats, and does nc: contain free liquids. This reguJe'jjr. allows enclosed waste plies to acctp! these wastes without first obtaining a permit, because enclosure of this typr will guard in the short-term ag-i;..-: ;ht exposure pathways of concern (run-off. wind dispersal, and leaching! Allowing this type of inter.m sta;- fct....;. j accept these wastes should help provide necessary management capacity until disposal facilities receive perm it to manage these wastes. The Agency also believes that uteri ci status incinerators that are evaluated !> EPA to determine whether they can meet the performance standards for these wastes contained in i 264.343 will provide adequate protection to human health and the environment (see Section IV. B. 2. for detailed discussion on the use of interim statu* incinerators to burn these dioxin wastes). Similar consideration* justify allowing interim status thermal treatment units subject to regulation under Subpart P of Part 265 tc> Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1987 receive ihese wastes. [Examples are pyrolysis units not designed as incinerators.) These units will be evaluated the same way as interim status incinerators, and, thus, must be certified as meeting the applicable performance standards in S264.343 (including the 99.9999% DRE for POHC's in the waste). Procedures for obtaining certification likewise will be the same as for interim status incinerators. Another reason for allowing these interim status thermal treatment facilities to receive these wastes is that there are presently no Part 264 permit standards for these facilities. A prohibition on interim status facilities consequently, would prohibit these facilities from receiving these wastes at ail. This result is unwarranted since a means exists to evaluate their compliance with the most important environmental standard, and these facilities may prove to be one of the optimal means of managing these wastes. Managing these wastes at these types of interim status facilities is therefore judged to present minimal risks until final permits are issued. Several commenters stated that interim status facilities should be allowed to handle wastes containing PCP. since these wastes do not contain TCDD, other CDDs do not pose substantial risks of chronic or acute toxicity, and there is no history of mismanagement of these wastes. We generally agree that wastes derived from the production or manufacturing use of PCP are unlikely to contain 2,3,7,8-TCDD or other TCDDs or TCDFs at levels of concern. These wastes, however, are likely to contain high concentrations of HxCDDs and HxCDFs--the PCP in these wastes is non lamina ted with these potent carcinogens. While we agree that these congeners are less toxic than 2,3,7,8TCDD, we believe them to be sufficiently toxic to warrent the designation of wastes containing these substances as acute hazardous wastes. (The reasons for this determination were outlined earlier in this preamble.) In addition, there is a substantial history of mismanagement of wastes (including spilled or abandoned formulations) resulting from the use of PCP in wood treatment processes. These wastes, or very similar wastes, have been mismanged repeatedly, causing very serious damage incidents. There have been many actions under RCRA and CERCLA involving wood treatment facilities using PCP solutions and wood preservation wastes: in addition, there are 22 damage incidents involving these chemicals at sites on the National Priorities List for Actions under permit application.'*Therefore, it will be CERCLA. These mismanagement considered in the normal course of the incidents (outlined in the revised permitting process, so that no special Background Document for this listing) EPA review procedures are required. include discharge of process wastes into The waste management plan should off-site drainage ditches, storage (in address the factors mentioned at most cases for many years) of such proposal [see 48 FR at 14520] including wastes in impoundments which were waste volume, concentrations of CDDs improperly sited, improper storage of and CDFs in the waste, atosol/ treatment solutions in leaky tanks and particulate dispersion, viol^tilization of containers, etc. These mismanagement the toxicants of concern, soil incidents resulted in PCP contamination attenuation properties, waste leaching of soil, surface water, and ground water; potential, and anticipated solvent co- in several instances, this contamination disposal. To assist the owner or was at very high levels. In one instance, operator in preparing this document, the soil of a residential area surrounding EPA will provide detailed guidance for a wood treating facility that the presentation of a waBte management mismanaged these wastes was analyzed plan. This document will discuss the for HxCDDs and HxCDFs. In four physiochemical properties of the waste samples, HxCDDs ranged from 1.5 to 12 constituents, and the specific factors to (average. 4) ppb, while HxCDFs were be addressed for disposal of these present at 1.7 to 21,[average 9.5) ppb. wastes at each type of land dispasaL The clean up of these contaminated facility [Le., land treatment units, sites can be quite costly. surface impoundments, open waste Because these wastes are very toxic, piles, and landfills). The document will because the toxic components of the explain (1) how the existing Part 264 waste are mobile, persistent and standards should and can be (particularly the HxCDDs and HxCDFs) implemented for these wastes where will bioaccumulate, and because of their specific guidance is appropriate [Le. history of mismanagement, EPA judges wind dispersal, liner compatibility) and that they must be managed at fully (2) what new requirements should be permitted facilities when land disposed, imposed for such wastes [e.g. soil types, incinerated (except as already co-disposal, etc.). discussed), or stored in open piles. More specifically, this guidance 2. Requirement of a Waste Management -Plan document will address a number of areas where existing regulations already provide adequate control. However, due Several respondents commented on to the extreme toxicity of the toxicants EPA's proposal to require a waste in these wastes, further guidance is management plan to specify additional provided to the permit writer and the requirements for land disposal facilities owner or operator of the land disposal intending to manage these wastes. Most facility on how the existing regulations agreed that such a requirement is can be applied to these wastes. For desirable. (In fact, one commenter example, the existing management stated that a waste management plan standards under Part 264 are adequate should be required for all management to prevent the dispersion of the CDDs options for these wastes.) However, and CDFs by wind dispersal. See several respondents stated that a waste S3 264.221. 264.250. 264.273, and 264.301. management plan would not be However, because of the toxicity of the adequate to ensure proper handling of CDDs and CDFs, the waste management these wastes. Still others stated that guidance document will provide specific interim status facilities which meet the management techniques for controlling Part 264 requirements should be allowed this exposure pathway [Le., immediate to submit such a plan (and thus be able cover of wastes when placed in landfills to handle these wastes) before receiving and open waste piles, air monitoring to a final permit. ensure compliance with this provision, After reviewing these comments, the etc.). In addition, the existing regulations Agency still believes that a waste already address liner compatibility. See management plan will help provide SS 264.221. 264.251, 264.301. and 264.302. assurance, as far as is practically However, the waste management possible, that these wastes are properly guidance document includes a managed in a land disposal situation. The waste management plan will be the 'Sections 270.17, 270.1S. 270.20. and 270 21 of the interim vehicle for assuring hai ardous waste regulations have also been individualized consideration that the wastes will be managed safely. The plan must be submitted by the owner or operator of the facility as part of the amended to include the specific Part B information requirements concerning the waste management plan that must be included in the permit application Tor surface impoundments, non-end oed waste piles, land treatment units, and landfills. 1988 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 195 / Rules and Regulations discussion of an advanced liner design thermal treatment units, tanks, system to assist the Region and the containers, or enclosed waste piles to owner or operator oi the land disposal submit a waste management plan. For facility to comply with these incinerators, the requirement (see provisions.>v below] of a trial bum showing 96;9999l In a d d -o n to the existing standards, (six 9s') destruction and removal we believe that additional requirements efficency fDRE) is adequate protection (for which the existing rules do not for proper incineration of these wastes. address) also heed to be considered in The same is also true for thermal land disposing these dioxin-containing treatment facilities. The regulatory wastes. Therefore, the waste requirements fur tank, container, and management guidance document will enclosed waste pile storage facilities discuss the types, the additional factors likewise provide the Agency with the permit writers should consider in sufficient information to evaluate the approving the waste management plan. storage facility's ability to contain these In particular wastes, and the additional requirement (1) Co-disposal--The appropriateness for secondary containment for such of disposing of the dioxin-containing facilities [see Section IV. A.4. below) wastes with other wastes that may provides further protection. increase the solubility of the CDD* and We also do not agree with the CDFs. En general, we believe that it is suggestion that interim status facilities more desirable to mono-dispose these be allowed to submit a waste wastes. management plan and manage these (2) Soil Types---The appropriateness wastes. (See. also, Section TV. A. 1. of using various soil types at land above rejecting the suggestion that disposal facilities. In particular, we interim status facilities meeting the believe these wastes should be disposed requirements of fully-permitted facilities of in facilities with underlying soil of be allowed to accept these wastes.) Wre high sorptive capacity for organic hare determined that interim status chemicals (i.e,, high organic carbon facilities, in general, shoald not be content) and low permeability, this allowed to manage these wastes. In fact, could be accomplished by bringing soils where management at interim status with high sorptive capacity and low facilities is allowed. EPA expects to permeability to a particular site. issue permits quickly, in order to limit (3) In-situ Treatment--The the interim status period. Therefore, the appropriateness of using in-situ Agency will not allow interim status treatment such as mixing with carbon facilities that have submitted a waste or other sorbents, to minimize the management plan to manage these migration potential of the CDDs and wastes. CDFs. and the formation of ^f-e liauids (4) Liners--The appropria o' disposing of these wastes in unlined 3 Pruh:V,'.:irLc land Disposal of These Wastes units. In general, we believe that these Several commecters suggested .that CDD and CDF-containing wastes should land disposal of these wastes should be not be stored or disposed of in unlined prohibited except "in exceptional units."This does not mean that owners circumstances." One person. howe\ er. or operators of existing facilities will felt that a better approach would be to need to retrofit the facility to put in develop a "level of concern" (LOCI liners. Rather, we expect that the permit above which all dioxin-containing witter *ould preclude placing these wastes should be prohibited from land waste* in unlined units after a specified disposal: however, the commenter did date. Permittees wishing to continue not specify what Buch a level should be. placing wastes in the unit would have The recently enacted legislation gives the option of lining the unit. the Agency two years to determine With respect to the other comments, whether these wastes should be banned we believe that it is neither necessary from some or all types ofland disposal, nor appropriate to require incinerators. except for underground injec.iion in which the Agency has 45 months to '*k ihoutt tkit. puditne* ductw aii make such a decision, and the may also be appropriate frr pthr- hu7J>rdati* wur-tt-* cicumstances under which they should that ( onlyin tirrfljdr hazbidoas uirsliiuent.i >i*. be banned. The Agency has recently chlorophenots). "A * already diacuaaed. we will aOnw i tudpr iksti >n penp-m^d in interim .taint, surfarr impoundment* (even il unlinedl bb part ot the plant'* wastewater treatment system to m ana^ initiated a program to explore whether certain hazardous wastes should be restricted from some or all types of land disposal, what the nature of the tiip*e w a fts . h iM f impoundment* are u biecl ft* all Pari 2M standard!., how npt. Thun, thv pf-miit wr;ip* will adfl'Pss wfcpthrr il : appTi>priatP for unlined imputindmrnh- tr>continue to reu-itr ihen restrictions should be. and what treatment and recycling alternatives exist for such wastes. CDD/CDFcontaining wastes are currently being examined under this program for possible restriction- For more details on this program, see the Advance Notice ol Proposed Rulemaking published on February 15,1964, at 49 FR 5654. In addition, as discu&seddn the April 4 proposal for this regulation (46 FR 14521). EPA is considering developing special management standards for CDD/CDF-contaminated wastes ir addition to the special standards required by today's rule. It is possible that our investigations may enable us to define concentration limits within which land disposal should be prohibited. However, until these studies i>re* completed, we behove* it inappropriate to make any decision with respect to prohibiting these WStt> mn: disposal 4. Secondary Containment at Permitted Tank and ConiaiM r St.'rcgt: Tc. .i ,u*s PA solicited comments as to whether secondary* containment for tanks that store or treat CDD- and CDFcontaminated wastes should Lk required bb part of their permit (Interim status facilities would not be subject to this requirement.) As justification, we cited the wastes' toxicity as well as long storage periods, and described mismanagement incidents irvolving both containers and m-ground and above-ground tanks. Some commenter* disagreed with such a requirement and argued categorically that secondary containment requirements at such facilities are not warranted. Howe\ ei many other commenter* argued us: a*strongly that seumdary um ia'pn.i-i requirements are needed, and u~gi*d their adoption. We have derided that seconda 'y containment should be required a?- permit requirement for all tanks that treat or store these wastes presently subject to the existing tank design urn: operating standards in 40 CFR Prt 2C4 Subpart J. namely above-ground and inground tanks, and all undergo un l tanks that can be entered for inspectior.. It is the Agency 's intent to guard against the risks posed by storing or treating these wastes in all types of tanks, including covered underground tanks that cannot bt. intered tuf inspection. H ovww , tp;latter type of tank is not present'/ subject to the Part 264 Subpart ] requitemints (st-e 25-i.lSiv'iHi and. as such, cannot receive a permit to treat or store these wastes. In addition, the use of secondary containment at such facilities was explicitly discussed in the April 4. 1BB3 proposal. Therefore, we believe we must First solicit public comment on our intent to require secondary containment at covered Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1989 underground tanks that cannot be entered for inspection that handle CDDand CDF-contaminated wastes. We in'pnd to address this issue in forthcoming regulations dealing comprehensively with management standards for tanks. We believe that the secondary containment requirement for the storage or treatment of these wastes in tanks is justified based an the following three considerations: (1) When released into the environment, it is well-documented that these extremely toxic wastes present a substantial hazard to human :1th or the environment: (2) these wastes may be stored for a long time before a disposal or incineration facility is found that is willing or able to accept them (for example, the same wastes at the Vertac facility have now been stored on-site for nearly ten years): and (3) EPA's experience indicates that these wastes are particularly difficult and expensive to cleanup when spilled, and therefore warrant the additional promotion afforded hy secondary containment. For the same reasons cited above, we believe that secondary containment should be part of the permit requirements for all facilities that store CDD- and CDF-containing wastes that are not free liquids in containers. (EPA specifically solicited comments on this approach in the proposal, but commenters did not reach a consensus on this issue. Some commenters supported it while others opposed this aspect of the proposal.) Accordingly, all the present requirements for secondary containment will apply to container storage facilities, except for the waiver provision in 264.175(c). This waiver allow s an exemption from the secondary containment requirements for non-liquid wa-t'es. an exception which we believe shuuiu not apply to container facilities storing CDD/CDF-contaminated wastes. Rather, we have concluded that all possible releases of these wastes to air. ground water, and surface water from such facilities must be prevented. Therefore, a waiver of secondary containment requirements for containers will not be allowed. A container storage area must have a base which is sufficiently impervious and continuous to prevent spills or leaks of these non liquid wastes into the environment. With respect to tanks, we have chosen to implement the secondary cort.iinmfcr? requirement-through a general performance standard. Therefore, the rule does not specify the types of designs for the containment ;valem. but rather requires the owner or nperalor to choose a design and propose it in the RCRA permit application for EPA review. Under new 9 264.200(a). facilities seeking permits for tanks that store or treat these wastes must have a system designed and operated to detect and adequately contain spills or leaks from the tanks. The design of acceptable containment and detection systems can vary considerably according to the type of tank and other factors, as discussed below. An example of a containment system that might be acceptable for a tank situated above-ground is one with an impervious base (such as concrete, or a synthetic liner) underlying the tank, and walls or dikes around the tanks that provide containment for at least 100% of the design capacity of the largest tank in the containment area. This is to prevent release of CDD- and CDF-contaminated wastes into the environment from the tank in the event of a complete (worstcase) tank failure. The Agency does not believe that the regulations need protect against the extremely remote possibility of simultaneous multiple tank failures in one containment area. Each containment system must also have a method of mechanical or visual detection that will identify leaks of CDD- and CDFcontaminated wastes from the bottom of the tank. An example of a containment system that might be acceptable for an inground tank is one with a synthetic-type liner underlying the tank, or a liner placed inside the tank so that the tank itself provides the secondary containment. In either configuration, the containment system must be compatible with the wastes being stored, and must be installed and have sufficient strength and thickness so as to prevent failure due to abrasion, pressure grad:ents. or climatic conditions. A meihod lo delect any leaks between the primary and secondary containment system must also be provided. An example of a containment system that might be acceptable for underground tanks that can be entered for inspection is a vault structure constructed of material impervious to the wastes being stored in the lank or simply compatible with the wastes and lined or coaled with an impervious material. This type of containment system must also have a method to detect any leaks from the tank. As n genera! altema'ive tn these examples of containment systems, double walled tanks equipped with an interstitial zone monitoring device to detect leaks that enter the space between the walls would also be considered acceptable for meeting the new standard prescribed in 9264200(a). Today's rule requires tank facilities storing or treating CDD- and CDFcontaining wastes to provide EPA with information in its permit application specifying: The precise design of the secondary containment system and its accompanying leak detection method: the choice of construction material and specifications: and whether additional run-on or precipitation controls are needed to preserve the system's integrity. These new technical information requirements are specified in new 9 270.16(g) and must be addressed by each individual facility in its RCRA permit application. This information will be evaluated by EPA before a permit is issued. With the addition of today's secondary containment requirements, we have also decided it is necessary to require tank facilities storing CDD/CDFcontaining wastes to address in the facility contingency plan the steps to be taken should a leak be detected. When a leak is detected, the owner or operator must act promptly to prevent release of the hazardous waste into the environment, and wastes must be removed from the secondary containment system as soon as possible. The plan also needs to specify how the tank will be removed from service and repaired, if there is a leak and containment is breached. These new steps are provided in revised 9 264.194(c) and build upon the procedures that already must be specified in the contingency plan under existing 9 264.194(c). It should be noted tbat today's action should not be viewed as a determination by EPA that secondary containment requirements are only appropriate for tanks that store or treat CDD- and CDFcontaining wastes. EPA is presently considering whether to require secondary containment for hazardous waste storage and treatment tanks, including tanks that have not yet been permitted and that are presently covered under the existing Part 265 interim status standards. In addition, we are also considering whether to propose several more requirements that we believe are needed to more adequately control the risks posed by all hazardous waste storage and treatment tanks, including those that store orlreat CDDand CDF-containing wastes. For example. EFA is r- -rr.f.y evaluating the need for a secondary containment system at all hazardous waste tanks that would provide containment of mure than just leaks in the tank's shell. Possible hazardous waste discharges to 1990 Federal Register / Vol. 50. Nu. 9 / Momhiv. Jnminrv 14. 19H5 / Rules mil Reyulitlions the environment that EPA believes mav also warrant secondary containment include leaks from nearby tank ancillary equipment (e.g.. valves, pumps, and flanges in close proximity to the tank) and spills of hazardous waste in in* area immediately surrounding the tank from overflows of the top of the tank or from tank in-filling practices (both caused by equipment failure or operator error]. An example of another requirement presently being considered by the Agency is secondary containment for alt generators storing or treating hazardous waste in tanks or containers for less than 90 days without a RCRA permit under $ 262.34. The Agency believes that leaks and spills at such facilities are no less prevalent than at other RCRA tank facilities and therefore may warrant similar secondary confinement requirements.* B. Incineration o f Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes 1. Burning at Interim Status Incinerators . As discussed in the April 4,1963 proposed rule, EPA does not believe that current regulatory controls on interim status incinerators are sufficient to limit the risks associated with dioxins. Interim status incinerators are not required to meet the performance standards for destruction and removal efficiency, HC1 removal, and particulate emissions that are necessary to prevent an unacceptable level of risk from burning these wastes. In addition, they are not subject to the rigorous scrutiny of operating and management procedures that result from the RCRA permit review process. Thus, the final regulations prohibit combustion of these wastes in incinerators that have only interim status. We have decided, however, to allow interim status incinerators to bum these wastes without first obtaining a RCRA permit if they are certified by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response as satisfying the performance standards in Subpart O of Part 264 for RCRA incinerators burning these wastes.31In addition, there must be an opportunity for public comment on EPA's determination before the detQpnination becomes final. We ace allowing this exception because \ve think incinerators meeting these conditions are virtually as protective as those receiving Part 2641 11It ihould be noted that >ome type of teat bum data wiJl be required which demon*tralra that the incinerator achieve* 90.9999* deatmetion and removal efficiency fDRE) before the incinerator would be certified. See Section IV.Bib. below. permits." and to provide additional incineration capacity for these wastes until there are more fully-permitted RCRA incinerators. Interim status incinerators that have been approved . :.dt:r thf Toxic. Substances Oir.tii ! A:.! (TSCA) to bum polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a type of incinerator that may wish to apply for certification. As pointed out by commenters. PCB incinerators are a logical choice to bum these wastes without first receiving a RCRA permit because they are required to meet the same performance standard (99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency] that we are requiring for the dioxin and dibenzo-furan-containing wastes, and PCB's, in some cases, are more difficult to incinerate than the dioxins and dibenzofurans. (See Section IV. B. 2. b. below.) We accordingly are promulgating a new 8 265.352(a) stating that RCRA interim status incinerators may bum these wastes if they meet the conditions outlined above. Procedures for applying and obtaining a certification are found in | 265.352(b). Applicants should submit information to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response demonstrating that they can meet the performance standards in Part 264. The most pertinent data is that required by 8 270.19(b) and (c). and, if a trial bum is necessary, 8 270.62. The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response will make a tentative finding whether the applicant can meet the Part 264 performance standards. These tentative findings will be submitted for public comment, and persons in the vicinity will be notified by newspaper announcement and radio broadcast (this last requirement is consistent with the 8 124.10(c)(2)(ii) notice procedures for RCRA permits). The comment period will remain open for 60 days. At the end of that time, the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response will issue a decision whether or not to certify the incinerator. This decision is final Agency action. Any facility receiving a certification, however, must still obtain a Part 264 incineration permit. A number of commenters stated that the complexity in complying with the standards in Subpart O and the time required to obtain a full RCRA permit would, in the short term, limit the "T h e only algnificanl difTerenc* i* that thesp Incinerator* would not ye! be evaluated to determine if they meet the facility standards in Subpan A through H of Pan 2B4. (Most of these standards, however, sre required by the Pan CSS interim status standards.) locations where those wasies could hr incineraled. creating a capacity short fall. W'e believe that the potential problem should not become severe. First, the wastes'to which this reslrirtinr appi.'-i L't t.- . * . .*.( . 1: .. quantities. Secondly, as discussed above, we are allowing interim stritu1- incinerators that have been certified In . the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response to burn these dioxin wastes. Finally, an owner or operator of an interim status incinerator who wishes to incinerate these wastes can speed up the permit' process by voluntarily submitting the Part B of their permit application instead of waiting until the permitting official requests that it be submitted. This should reduce the time lag and give more incinerators the capability of burning these wastps. 2. Burning at Fully-Permitted Incinerators ----- The proposed rule also discussed the management of these wastes at fully permitted incinerators. It was EPA's initial view that burning these wasies in an incinerator which has a proven capability to assure 99.99% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE] for the principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) which are as difficult, or more difficult to incinerate ih-ir. :h*. CDDs or CDFs, was sufficiently rigorous to ensure the proper management of these wastes. However, we specifically requested comments concerning the possibility of requiring a DRE greater than 99.99 . wrier. tS se wastes are incinerated. The Ager,r> also discus'-ril the possibility of rpq:*>;ng spinal notification to the Reg oral Administrator when a fecilitj burns these wastes. c. Alternative DRE fc: D:o\ Contaminated Wastes. While some commenters were opposed to chanring the present DKE requirement, most cf the comments focused on more stringent standards, i.e.. 99.9999% (six 9s) DRE. The commenters pointed cut that six 9s DRE is required of incinerators burning polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (4f! CFR 761.70] compounds that are less toxic than the CDDs and CDFs. They argue that, since CDDs and CDFs an* among the most toxic compounds known, nothing less than the best achievable performance should be required. In addition, they argued that six 9s DRE will result in the lowest achievable emission rate. Furthermore, one commenter submitted risk modelling data indicating that a large incinerator burning wastes containing 20 parts per million oFTCDD with a 99.99% (four 9s) Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1991 DRE could result in ambient air concentrations which could present a public health hazard for residents living in the facility's immediate vicinity. In evaluating these comments, the Agency conducted its own risk assessment in order to determine the potential risks from burning these wastes at different levels of performance in certain'hypothetical situations. As pari of this analysis. EPA evaluated the potential risks presented by the TCOO content of the wastes, and by the content of total CDDs and CDFs. The latter analysis-assumed that the CDDs and CDFs in toto have thirty times the carcinogenic potency of TCDD. (This may not be a very conservative assumption, since, for the soot generated in the Binghamton. N'Y PCB transformer fire, it was estimated that the CDDs and CDFs present had 56 times the carcinogenic potency of TCDD (Eadon. 1982).1 If only the HxCDD components are considered, the potential carcinogenic risks are about one twentyfifth of these calculated for the TCDD component. sirve ihu* s the ratio of their carcinogenic potencies. The risk to the maximum exposed individual 23 and the average exposed individual was 'hi-n estimated. The variables examined w-re the concentration of the dioxins in the `f'ed. the siie of thp incinerator, and the DRE (which ranged from 99.00% to 99.9999%). The conclusions reached from this effort indicated that wastes containing ppm concentrations of TCDDs. HxCDDs or CDDs/CDFs. burned in large incinerators achieving four 9s DRE could result in ambient concentrations that present a lifetime excess cancer risk level of 10"*. With small incinerators, lower feed rates, lower (ppb) dioxin concentrations, or better meteorological conditions, the modelling showed that four 9a DRE p; id-ad levels of risk lower than 10"*. Based on these results, the Agency considered three op*:ons. The first was to establish "jccepiable" levels of risk and to use risk modelling on a case-by s' A p-i son who spends 24 hour a day. 3SS days a year for 70 years at the site of maximum ground level concentration. Thi9 person weights 70 kg. breathes 20 m*i oi air per Jd. <md retJins 50`S, of alt '..mi tririnnis `nhdirft It was also assumed that the inur.eiaior bums the waste consistently for the 70 year exposure period, and that "worst case" mrieoroloBica! jon<l:*ions would prevail Obviously. :hir>e aie conservative assuirp'iuns However, this analysis dw s not consider outer sources of exwtsnre. the possible svneristic effects of i oiir.urt'.r.' evp'!-- .r>*s . : 7f -r 'e fact that some of the POHCo. such as chlorobenzenes and chtoraphenoH. can. in the course of Indnerafinn eive rise to CHDs and CDFs. Thus, .'ike all risk assessments, this analysis represents a ruuqh balance of factor* relevant to iinien`.a) irptni'S. case basis to set limits on the waste not be sufficiently protective of human concentration or feed rate for each health. incinerator; the second option was to b. Requirements for Conducting a leave the standard at 99.99% DRE; the Trial Bum for These Wastes. One third option was to establish a commenter argued that incinerators performance standard of six 9s DRE. the burning these wastes should be required current standard for PCB wastes. to demonstrate compliance with the The first option is now effectively incinerator performance standard for precluded by statute. See RCRA organics by conducting trial bums for amended Section 3004(a)(1)(B) stating dioxins, rather than by using a surrogate that facilities receiving permits after Principal Organic Hazardous enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Constituent (POHC) that is more Waste Amendments of 1984 must at a difficult to incinerate. The commenter minimum meet the 99.99% DRE standard. also argued that trial burns should be The Agency also rejected the first option conducted on waste matrices physically because, while it is theoretically more similar to those that would be burned. precise from a conceptual standpoint, Although the commenters point is and allows for tailoring of the regulation desirable in theory, determining to specific circumstances, it is extremely compliance with a six 9s DRE (or even a resource intensive for the government, four 9s DRE] standard for these wastes the regulated community, and the would be very difficult, if not interested public. It also requires impossible, without a system for agreement on the models, assumptions, surrogate POHCs as established in and acceptable risk levels. Since such S 264.342. The concentrations of the " modelling is inherently subject to CDDs/CDFs in these wastes are too low debate, EPA questions its practicality to find measurable amounts in the stack for case-by-case applications in this gas (at six 9s DRE) at present limits of context. detection, and public health As described above, a four 9s DRE could result in risk levels for certain situations that are in a range that is of questionable acceptability. Partly because of this, we have decided to considerations preclude, in most cases, "spiking** the waste with higher concentrations of CDDs or CDFs. Therefore, it is not possible to measure and calculate a six 9s DRE using CDDs/ impose a more stringent performance requirement of six 9s DRE for CDD/CDF wastes. In addition, this level of destruction and removal is technically feasible. Incinerators burning PCBs are CDFs as the principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) with the needed accuracy. However, by selecting a POHC in the waste mixture or by spiking the waste with a compound that required to operate under conditions that result in six 9s destruction. Consistent destruction to six 9s have been measured at a number of incinerators \e.g.. those of SCA. Inc. in Chicago, IL: Rollins Environmental is more difficult to incinerate than the CDDs and CDFs. and that is present in sufficient concentrations to determine a six 9s DRE, it is possible to use a trial burn to predict compliance with a six 9s DRE for the CDDs and CDFs. Services, in Deer Park. TX; the facilities We also agree with the commenter operated by Energy Systems Company that the waste mixture used for the trial in El Dorado, AR; and by the General burn should, as nearly as possible, be in Electric Corporation in Waterford. NY the same physical matrix as the wastes (MR1.1983; USEPA, 1981c and 1981d)]. to be routinely burned (see 5 264.345(b) Similar DRE's are expected to be indicating that incinerator permits will achievable for CDDs and CDFs, since allow variations in the waste feed PCBs. and CDDs, and CDFs have a physical properties so long as the similar degree of incinerability. (See variations will not affect compliance Table 1below.) The second factor is one with the incinerator performance of general environmental policy. If one standards), and the waste shouldiie fed is to incinerate waste containing one of into the incinerator at the same rate. For the most toxic substances known, one example, if the CDD/CDF wastes that should use the best incinerators are to be incinerated are contained in a operating at their peak capability. (See. sludge, the trial burn should be for instance. 46 FR at 7686, January 23, conducted on a similar sludge, 1981.] Several commenters made this containing the POHC selected to prove point, including a commenter for a compliance. Additional information facility that incinerates hazardous waste' concerning POHC selection and physical commercially. In addition, the decision state is contained in the "Guidance is reinforced by our estimate that, in Manual for Hazardous Waste certain situations, the other principal Incineration Permits". SW-966 (July technological option (four 9s DRE) might 1983). 1992 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Ruits and Regula lions EPA uses heat of combustion as its incinerability hierarchy. Table 1lists the heats of combustion of the CDD and CDF homologues. as well as of PCB homologues and a few compounds commonly selected as POHCs. The lower its heat of combustion, the more difficult a compound is to incinerate. c. Special Notification to the Regional Administrator. In the proposal, EPA considered requiring owners or operators of incineration facilities burning these wastes to notify the Regional Administrator of that fact. Such notification was considered because it was felt that Regional authorities might wish to determine compliance monitoring priorities for facilities incinerating these wastes. Although a few commenters did not believe that a notification requirement is necessary, most of the commenters felt that such a requirement is important, and should be required. The requirement of a six 9s DRE standard for these wastes will, in most instances, require a trial bum and full permit issuance procedures. Thus, the Regional Administrator will, in most instances, be aware that a facility may bum these wastes. However, this is not true in all cases. If an incineration facility has a permit based on trial bum data showing six 9s DRE capability for a substance more difficult to decompose than the CDD8 or CDFs [e.g.. trial bum data showing six 9s DRE for certain PCBs) there would be no need to inform the Regional Administrator that the facility plans to bum CDD/CDF wastes. EPA will, therefore, require owners or operators of incinerators managing these wastes to notify the Regional Administrator of that fact. d. Periodic Compliance Tests. A few commenters suggested or implied that incinerators burning CDD/CDF wastes should undergo periodic performance verification. Repeating the trial bum on some periodic schedule might be reasonable in cases where strict operating parameters are not established. For example, under the Clean Air Act. a stack could not emit more than some amount of pollutant per given time. No specific operating parameters are established by the regulatory and, instead, periodic compliance checks are conducted. T able I Con*xxr*J CNomatad Dtwnzo-jvD<oun3 Tetra..................... ............ CHOoeniat- bLBdOn (Leal. (T*l J 34fi Table I--Continued Compound tHoOemfat bu!K>n (kgel"aii. Heia . . - ....... ............................ Cnio^aied Oaeniofurans ' Tetra ............... 1 Pente...... .............. ........................................ : Heia .... ......................... .............. ............. CMonnateo Efcphwtyit Mono..................... .......................... .............. Tatra....... ..............................--..........- ....... H e ia .-...-.--- ------- --------------------------------------------Hapta________ ______________________ Type*) POHCa Trracworomeffiane........................ ,,...... ........ TetracNoroemane............... j Hexacnkvoeeniena............................ .....- ...... 1,1,1 Tncrtoroemane...... - ________________ I PentacWorepnenof..................k.------ ------------------1 3 10 2Pi 366 3 AO 3 07 7.75 6.36 510 4.29 366 3.29 2.96 2 72 024 1.39 1.79 1.99 209 In contrast, during the RCRA permit process, very carefully choBen operating conditions are established in the permit. These conditions, measured during the trial bum, establish the range of operating conditions of the incinerator, within which it has been determined to meet the performance standards of Subpart O. Should it operate outside this range, it would not be in compliance with the standards and would have to stop incinerating the waste. In addition, if the owner or operator wishes to change any of the critical operating parameters, they would have to request a permit modification, and have to conduct another trial bum to prove compliance with the standards under different operating conditions. Therefore, we do not believe it necessary to require periodic testing. 3. Amendments to Parts 264 and 265 Today's notice amends 5 264.343 to require that incinerators burning the listed CDD/CDF-containing wastes must achieve a DRE of 99.9999% in addition to the other standards contained in Subpart O. The amendments specify that six 9s DRE will be measured on a POHC that is more difficult to incinerate than the particular CDDs or CDFs. For example, using the heat of combustion hierarchy, and burning wastes containing, for example. HxCDD. a POHC would be selected with a heat of combustion less than 2.81 keal/gm-- perhaps 1,1,1, trichloroethane. The permit application procedures in Part 270 and permit issuance procedures in Part 124 are not changed by today's amendment. For a new incinerator (or an interim status incinerator seeking certification), the trial bum plan would show how the unit will be operated so as to comply with the standards in Subpart O in r lu d r v rp qiii'fiT if six 9s DRE. EPA experts thal thr permit for a new incinerator would not allow any of the listed CDD/CDF-contaimng wastes to be burned until the trial burn is complete and final operating conditions are established. In addition, none of the listed CDD/CDF-containing wastes should be burned during the prr- trail bum and post-trial bum periods described in 264.344 and 270.62 which provide that the Regional Administrator place limits on the feed to the incinerator until assurance is provided that the unit can meet the standards. If an incinerator already has a RCRA permit, it may bum CDD/CDF wastes (provided the owner or operator ha? notified the Agency of this fact} if its previous trial bum, or data in lieu of a __ trial burn, demonstrates a six 9s DRE"? o a POHC or compound more difficult to incinerate than the CDDs or CDFs in the waste. This may be the case for incinerators that have TSCA permits for PCB destruction. During the trial burn for PCBs, the unit would have had to ascertain six 9s DRE on a specific chlorinated biphenyl, or a compound that is more difficult to incinerate than the chlorinated biphenyl in the waste. If this chlorinated biphenyl or the surrogate is more difficult to incinerate than the CDDs or CDFs in the waste feed, and if it was in the same physical stale, another trial bum may not be required. For example, if an inlineratur proved six 9s DRE on PCP. which has a heat of combustion of 2.09 keal/gm. it could incinerate all the CDDs and CDFs. since the CDD/F compound most difficult to decompose is HxCDD with a heat of combustion of 2.81 kcal/gm. However, if the incinerator has not demonstrated six 9s DRE. or it had shown six 9s DRE on a POHC less difficult to burn than the CDDs or CDFs (e.g.. tetrachlorobiphenyl (4.29 kcal/ gm)J, another trial burn would be necessary, and the permit would need to be modified. For additional information see the "Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incineration Permits" [op. cit.). Today's notice also amends 265.340 to exclude burning of CDD/CDF waste* in incinerators with interim status, except as previously discussed. An interim status incinerator may not bum these wastes until a permit is issued or the incinerator is certified to bum these wastes. C. Burning at Other Interim Status Treatment Facilities The Agency also believes that interim status thermal treatment units subject to Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1993 regulation under Subpari P of Part 265 are insufficient to limit the risks associated with dioxins, just as they are insufficient to limit risks associated with interim status incinerators [e.. most of the requirements address administrative rather than technical controls}. However, the Agency also believes that means exist to determine their environmental performance. Therefore, we will allow interim status thermal treatment units to be certified if they can demonstrate that they can properly treat these wastes. Under the existing regulations, these units cannot be permitted since there are no existing RCRA permitting standards. However, such treatment units may provide a very promising way of treating these wastes. In particular, a number of emerging thermal treatment technologies may be used to treat CDD/ CDF-conlaining wastes in order to render (hem non-hazardous (or at least, less hazardous). Some of these technologies are thought now to be practical, while others are in the pilot stage, and pilot scale Held experiments need to be performed. In the absence of RCRA permit standards, such pilot scale research activities would not be allowed. This would stifle and discourage he development of new alternatives and the development of innovative technology for treatment of these very toxic wastes. We believe such an outcome is undesirable. As a result, we have decided to promulgate a new 265.383 stating that interim status thermal treatment units may bum these wastes if they are certified by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that they can properly treat these wastes. These units will be evaluated the same way as interim 'ulus incinerators, and thus must be certified as meeting the applicable performance standards in 9 284.343 (including six 9s DRE for POHCs in the waste). In addition, the procedures for obtaining certification will he the same as for interim status incinerators (see Section IV. B. 1.. above). In particular, the applicant must submit an application to the Assistant Administrator lor Solid Waste and Emergency Response which demonstrates that they meet the applicable performance standards in Subpart O of Part 264. The most pertinent.data to be submitted is the same as for interim status incinerators, that is the information cited in 270.19 (b) and (cj and. if a trial.bum is necessary. 3 270.62. However, since these units are somewhat different than incinerators, additional data and information may be required. See 270.19 (c)(7). Because the type of present an unreasonable risk (see 45 FR additional information that may be 32680, May 19.1980). We also required will vary with the type of determined that disposal of TCDD thermal treatment unit, we suggest that wastes by other persons without prior the owner or operator of the thermal notification to EPA would present an treatment unit contact the Agency unreasonable risk. These determinations before submitting their application to were reached, in p art because the then determine whether any additional existing RCRA regulations for the information will be required, and if so, treatment and disposal of hazardous what type of data will be needed. This waste were not appropriate fifr TCDD- information will then be evaluated for contaminated waste, since EPA had not compliance with the appropriate yet developed final permit standards for performance standards. The Assistant the land disposal or incineration of Administrator's tentative decision will hazardous wastes. then be published (after public notification) for a 60 day comment period; at the end of that time, the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response will issue a final decision whether or not to certify the thermal treatment unit. As with interim status incinerators, this decision is final Agency action. As explained at proposal (see 48 FR at 1451B), the general RCRA regulations are now effective, and provide a means for properly evaluating the land disposal and treatment [i.e., incineration) of TCDD-contaminated wastes, thus ensuring that these wastes are managed in a manner that does not present an unreasonable risk. (This also is true of* V. Relation of This Rule to Regulation of those interim status incinerators and TCDD-Contaminated Wastes Under the interim status thermal treatment units Toxic Substances Control Act that are certified to burn these wastes, Many wastes containing TCDD are presently regulated under 40 CFR Part 775, a regulation issued under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).MThe relationship between that regulation and the rule being promulgated today tinder RCRA, was discussed at proposal (see 48 FR at 14518). At that time, we slated that the regulation of the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes properly belongs under RCRA. and that the Agency should avoid overlapping and potentially contradictory approaches to the same problem under different regulatory authority, e.g., TSCA and RCRA. In fact, Section 9(b) of TSCA provides that EPA must utilize its authority under the other environmental laws it administers where these laws are adequate to protect against unreasonable risk, and where there is no strong public interest in taking action since these units must be able to meet the same performance standards as fully-permitted incinerators, and must notify and be evaluated by the Agency before they begin burning.) Therefore, when the RCRA dioxin waste rules are effective and the TCDD-contaminated wastes are controlled under RCRA, their disposal will no longer pose an unreasonable risk finding under TSCA. Consequently, we proposed to revoke the TSCA rule when the rule, under RCRA. becomes effective. No one disagreed with this provision of the proposal; in fact, several commenters explicitly agreed that EPA should revoke the TSCA rule. Today's action, therefore, revokes the TSCA Section 8(a) regulation that applies to the Vertac Chemical Corporation, and those that require a sixty-day notification to EPA on the part of persons wishing to dispose of TCDD-contaminated wastes. under TSCA. VI. Comments on Other Issues in the proposal, we argued that RCRA provides the appropriate long-term A. Development o f a Toxicity solution for controlling the management Characteristic for Defining Dioxin- of TCDD-contaminated wastes. EPA Contaminated Wastes as Hazardous promulgated the TSCA 9 6(a) rule based on a determination that the unregulated disposal of TCDD-contaminated wastes presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and determined that removal for disposal of certain TCDD wastes at Vertac's Jacksonville. Arkansas site would Several respondents commented on EPA's question regarding the advisability, practicality, and desirability of dc. eloping a "characteristic" definition of hazardousness under 40 CFR Part 261 for CDD/CDF-cantaining wastes. Several commenters agreed with EPA that this might not be a suitable MTCDD waitea are defined a i those resulting from the prwduction of 2.4,5-TCP or Ha pesticide derivatives, or substances produced on equipment that was previously used for the production of 2.4,5TCPor its pesticide derivatives. regulatory alternative, adding that to set a lower limit of concern might encourage dilution as a means of circumventing regulation. Several others, however. 1594 Federal Register / Vol. 50. Nu. 9 / Monday. January 14. 19U;i / Rules and Regulations staled that a clear indication ol a lowri level of concern would be a desirable regulatory goal: one commenter suggested what such a lower limit might be. stating that b l ppb level in soil might be a suitable level. One other commenter also suggested that a level of concern should be set as a regulatory threshold, but not as a basis for listing. On reconsideration of the advantages end disadvantages of setting a lower level of concern (LOC) for the toxicants in these wastes, and of the data needed to perform the needed risk assessments, we have concluded that, with the data presently available, it is not possible to make a determination regarding such a level. The matrix variability of these wastes, ranging from still bottoms to filter aide to contaminated soite. is very great, and their specific isomeric composition is not known. It is also very difficult to judge the bioavailability of the CDDe and CDFs in these different matrices. H ie development of exposure* and risk assessments would therefore be extremely difficult in this case, and even more suspect than is usually the case because it would entail even more assumptions than those usually made in such a procedure. Therefore, EPA has not developed a LOC for the toxicants-- in particular, the GDDs and CDFs--in these wastes. EPA. however, will continue to explore this alternative as additional information becomes available. B. Discarded Unused Formulations This regulation designates as RCRA hazardous wastes discarded unused formulations containing tri-, terra-, or pentachiorophenol and their derivatives (EPA Hazardous Waste No. FQZ7), except those discarded as household wastes. In proposing the regulation, EPA solicited comment as to how generator* could identify' whether these formulations are subject to this regulation. Two respondents commented on this problem. One person stated that chemical product labels should contain recommendations for disposal: another recommended that EPA coordinate with OSHA to require that OSHA Form 20 (Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDSJ) bp amended to require disposal informstioh. In particular, they indicated that Sectidp VD. of the MSD5 (Spill and Leak Procedures) provides space for the manufacturer's recommendations for disposal of the chemical or its waste reeidues..T1iey suggest that manufacturers be required to state in this space that the product, when discarded, is a hazardous waste, list the hazardous waste number, and include a statement concerning the appropriate waste disposal method. EPA agrees that implementation of these suggestions would go a long way. toward solving the problem. If chemical products were identified on the label as an EPA hazardous waste, when discarded, there would be no need to divulge specific (and possibly proprietary] information, and users of such products would not be in doubt that the product in question, when discarded. 10 subject to RCRA regulation. However. EPA does not have the authority under RCRA to label products and provide disposal information. In addition, form OSHA-20 seldom accompanies a product, and therefore would not solve the problem. However, EPA possesses authority under other statutes to deal with this problem. Under the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (F1FRA). the Agency, under the Label Improvement Program, has sent a notice to all registrants [Notice 81-3] indicating to them that pesticide products that are RCRA hazardous wastes, when discarded, must include a statement which indicates that the pesticide (when discarded) is a hazardous or an acute hazardous waste. This requirement becomes effective on January 1.1985 for all pesticide products except foi pesticides discarded by the householder This same label provision will be required for those pesticide products covered by today's regulation for these pesticide products, the label will indicate that they are acute hazardous wastes (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F027) when discarded. The label will not provide specific instructions as to its disposal, but rather will refer the user or any other person who handles these specific pesticides to contact the EPA Regional Office or the State environmental office for disposal instructions. Thus, the label on all pesticidal products containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachiorophenol or their derivatives, will identify whether the formulation is hazardous, if discarded, and will provide the uBer with instructions on who to contact if disposal information is necessary. C. Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA) Clean Up Activities Several commenters fell that the proposed rule, while beneficial and important, is predominantly slanted toward prevention of future accidental releases of CDDs and CDFs to the environment rather than cleanup of existing contaminated areas (Ae.. Times Beach. MO). The commenters expressed concern that certain portions of the piupused rule*"may hinder or prevent remedial action of contaminated sites For example, incineration nf soil with relatively low- concentrations of TCDU could be costly to accomplish, and. since the residue of hazardous waste treatment is still a hazardous waste, there would be little incentive to incinerate contaminated soils Alsu, permitting a site under RCRA could In very'difficult, possibly delaying nr preventing remedial action which could be conducted under CERCLA While we agree that the proposed rule is slanted toward prevention of future accidental releases of CDDs/CDFs to the environment, we do not agree thus this rulr will significantly hindrr nr prevent cleanup of exist.ng contaminated sites. The major waste that is generated at these sites, as implied by the commenter. is soil contaminated with CDDs/CDF's. Thest soils are acute hazardous wastes, since ' soil contaminated with hazardous waste spills arc defined as being in the RCRA system. See 46 FR 2508. January 19.1983: see S<3H*3(c)(2). Ongoing and anticipated cleanup activities have generated, and will continue to generate, large volumes of soils contaminated with CDDs/CDFs. For instance, it is conservatively estimated that shout 500.000 cubic yard? of CDD ''CDFcontaminated suii will result from CERCLA remedial ariinr. Eirt'viiir- in Missouri. The Agency developed a strategy fndealing with dicxin [USEFA. which, among other things, deals wit): alternatives for the cleanup nf contaminated sites. These ahem afves include securing the soil ir. place, novel remediation techniques (e.c. solvent extraction), incineration, and removal of soil to a secure containment system (r .0 a concrete VL-Jt). The Aeerry hi.s indicated that remediation and enforcement measures under CERCLA will be carried out as- expeditiously as possible. In addti.ur.. wc an also aHovvin*: the disposal of residues resulting irur.i tinincinerati on or thermal treatment of dioxin-contam'r.Rted soils at interim status hind disposal facilities.1 ar.d to allow treatment, storage, or disposal at facilities pursuant to the usual Part 264 standardb U.i\. not peering the special standards foT other dioxin-containing wastes, such as secondary containment or a waBie management plan). Although " Although the incineration of dioxincontaminated aoila is not practiced to any grt-ut extent B*A pleas to invuel^ate this management option for dioxin-contaminated soils, and. in feel has allocated considerable resources in this area Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1995 there are ver> few data on the characteristics of the residues resulting from soil incineration, data are available on the incineration of materials such as PCB capacitors and sewage treatment sludges. These data indicate that the residues resulting from such incineration contain PCBs at levels three to Tour orders of magnitude less than that contained in the original waste before incineration. Most dioxin-contaminated soils contain less than 1 ppm of TCDD. Thus, it is expected that the concentration of this isomer in the residue from the incineration of soils will be less than about 1 ppb. This concentration in soil was determined to be a reasonable level at which to consider limiting human exposure in a residential setting IUSDHHS, 1984). We believe the same is true for the other chlorinated dioxin isomers of concern, as well as for the dibenzofurans. Data on carbon regeneration show similar results. These data indicate that toxicants such as PCBs. that bind strongly to activated carbon or organic carbon can be effectively removed and destroyed from such matrices such that very low levels of the toxicants remain ' in the resulting residues. There is no reason to doubt that CDDs and CDFs [of similar incinerabilityl when bound to organic carbon in a soil matrix will behave any differently. We have therefore determined that the residues of incineration or thermal treatment of CDD/CDF contaminated soils, present much less risk than the untreated soils, and thus can be managed at interim status land disposal facilities.26We h i'.e. therefore, provided a special designation (LPA Hazardous Waste No. r02HJ for these wastes. D. Other Wastes Containing CDDs and CDFs Several respondents commented on the need to list other wastes which contain CDDs and CDFs. i e .. chlorinated benzenes and PCBs. dichlorophenol process wastes, fly ash and emission control dusts from the lowI*r:p. rat`i;e combustion of -'O'Kfr .').ox'T-<.r)r:.nrini{ -.vHiiei, ara 'xpseted to . u.-i'-'t. n ., h hi jhi'i , . f . i t ih#1<!k,<ins and dnrenzoturant. Thi;ri?ture. Me would expect the revduc from thp inr;tni r;!';(jn of rheac wastes to disc i' '*ill! T'ii*'l *! !*i i**,ns !ti*!*>]'" ind {Jit'enziifjr.ins- we I)i.*!il,vr that dll other incineration residue* should be managed us .rule hazardous w.isi,, .,nd comply wuh the spt'i idI mun.iyemiiiii s!.in*,.i"Jv tiowev^r. any p*-rson max petition ih** diimiirctiuior |uruler JS 2*ji1.2(1 and 260.22] to exclude their waste Irum i>'Ui;Uiorv control [nr at least argue that the waste .*i<ii.!t* :mi he i *- . .i -.! ,m ,i* *ptp hazardmi* v..i.t, : if r:n-x ' .in p.'1'itn iiix'r i'i*n.i.h forts in thi'ir t.hlnniphennls. and presenlk unlisted residues from wood preservation. The recently enacted HSWA specifically provides additional time to the Agency for evaluating whether to list additional dioxin-containing wastes. See RCRA amended Section 3001(e): As stated in the preamble to the proposed regulation (48 FR 14523), EPA is presently conducting a study on wastes from the production of dichlorophenol. Under HPA's Industry Studies program, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has performed engineering analyses, and has gathered sampling and analysis data from several dichlorophenol production facilities, and from facilities that use dichlorophenoLThese data are presently being evaluated. In addition, under Tier 4 of the "Dioxin Strategy" (USEPA, 1983), EPA is investigating possible combustion sources of CDDs and CDFs. These materials will be listed if evidence demonstrates that they are indeed hazardous (or acute hazardous) wastes. We also have begun investigating whether additional wastes from wood preservation processes using PCP should be listed as hazardous (or acute hazardous) wastes, and whether CDDs and CDFs should be added as constituents of concern in the wood preservation process waste already listed (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K001. Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol). After completion of those studies, we will take regulatory action, if warranted. With respect to wastes resulting from the manufacturing use of chlorobenzenes, such processes are not expected to generate CDDs or CDFs except under alkaline conditions and elevated temperatures. We therefore judge that these processes are adequately covered by the present listings. It is passible that commercial preparations of mono- and dichlorobenzene (which are not covered by today's listing) contain homologues with higher degree of chlorination, and thus could give rise to CDDs and CDFs at levels of concern. If further investigation proves that this is the case, we will list the wastes from such processes. With respect to PCBs, we agree that CDDs and CDFs may well occur in processes involving these materials. Ilowever, PCBs are no longer manufactured in the U.S., and their use and disposal are currently regulated under TSCA (40 CFR Part 761). The major problem at present is the generation of CDDs and CDFs resulting from transformer fires. The regulation of the disposal of thp wastes [including soot) from such fires is presently being studied under the dioxin strategy, and EPA recently proposed a regulation intended to control the potential hazards resulting from PCB transformer Tires (see 49 FR 39986-39989. October 11.1984). Wastes Containing Other Haiogenerated Dioxins and' Dibenzofurans " Two respondents commented that EPA should not limit its consideration to processes which are expected to generate tetra-. penta-, or hexachlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurans. because the brominated analogues are also of great concern in terms of their potential to harm human health, and because the congeners of higher degree of chlorination can undergo dechlorination in the -----environment. We agree that the brominated analogues are a potential threat. EPA has investigated whether there are at present manufacturing processes generating these toxicants. It was determined that there are at present no U.S. manufacturers of the brominated chemicals (bromophenols. bromophenoxy derivatives, brominated biphenyls) which are expected, from knowledge of chemical reaction, to be contaminated with brominated dioxins and -dibenzofurans. We are continuing to investigate, however, whether there are users (formulators] of such compounds. We are also evaluating other organobromine manufacturing processes. If warranted, we will list wastes from such manufacturing operations, and will include brominated dioxins and -dibenzofurans as toxicants of concern. With respect to the higher chlorinated diuxins. we agree that dechlorination occurs. However, it is very difficult to predict the extent of this process, and the equilibrium composition of the various isomers. Both photochemical synthesis and degradation of CDDs and CDFs can occur under ambient conditions. The photochemical formation of OCDDs from PCP-has been shown to occur, both in solution, and on PCP-treated wood (Crosby et at.. 1973: Crosby and Wong. 1978: Lamparsky. I960]. Resistance to degradation increases with degree of chlorination (Hutzinger, 1973; Crosby. 1973; Desideri. 1979: Dobbs and Grant. 1979: Nestrick. 1980). In most situations, photodegradation by reductive photodechlorination exceeds photosynthetic processes, and reaction routes and rates are dependent on reaction conditions. Rate constants 1996 Fede.rnl Register / Veil. 50. No 9 / Mnnclr). Jirni.vr) 14 19f'.r< / Rules and Renulritinnx show that this process is a relative!) minor pathway for the destruction of the orta-. hrpta-. and hexachlnrodioxms. accounting for less than 1P`V- of ortachlnrndioxin destruction (Dobbs and Grc-.t. 19"P'. I'r.ici t:,`iej compounds with gas chromatop-aphit. rrtiT.tion times longer than that or OCDD are also formed. While photodechlorination can occur rapidly in solution under laboratory conditions, it can be slow in soil, or on leaves (Ooshy*_1977). Contradictory results have been obtained in the laboratory1 experiments on pholodegradation in the adsorbed state (Crosby. 1977: Wong, 1978). When degradation does take place, however, the congeners produced are usually those of less toxic concern. Although displacement of chlorine atoms ortho tn the oxygen atoms does occur (Buser. 1979: Crosby. 1973: Lamparski. 1980]. most investigators have noted that the lateral halogen atoms are the most labile [Stehl. 1971: Dobbs and Grant. 1979: Nestrick. 1980). Therefore, the 2.3.7,8-substituted isomers are those most likely to degrade. Thus, the photodegradation of highly chlorinated CDDs and CDFs is not likely to generate the less chlorinated isomers of most toxic concern. We therefore conclude that, in view of present knowledge, the regulation of wastes containing tetra-. penta-. and hexachlorodioxins and dibenzofuroP.F adequately endress cue present regulatory concerns. F. Small Quar.iity Generator Comments S evc;J respondents commented that tins regulation constitutes an excessive and unwarranted regulatory burden One commenter stated that because of the Limited disposal options small quantity generators now exempt from regulation would need to apply for siatuB as storage facilities. One persor. argued that EFA must show a "sound basis'"for the 1 kg/month small quantity generate: linnu.rion for these wastes EFA does not agree with the comments stating that this regale Lion represents an unreasonable burden on the regulated community. The ecnnomi; impart analysis performed for this regulation (set- Section IX.) determined that the costs incurred by this regulation are extrelnely modest (about eight million dsjlars per year, maximum I -* When compared with the costs of cleaning op the mismanaged wastes (more than thirty million dollars for Times Beach. MO. alone] this modest economic burden is entirely warranted. Moreover, thr economic analysis did not This sio(K assumed that all (eeneMont wwdd n od an RCRA sloraj- permi* consider that mam* generators mu\ already be covered by RCRA or TSCA regulation, and that the disposal of some of the listed formulations (those in which the listed chlorophenols or their derivatives are bdIc active ingredients) is already regulated under fi 261.33 of RCRA. Additionally, because of their inherent value, we do not believe that the regulated community will usual!) discard substantial quantities of these formulations With respect to the comment that EPA must show a basis for the 1 kg/month small quantity generator limitation, this comment was previously discussed in Section 111. B. 5. above. C. Comments on Reuse and Recycling Issue Several commenters stated that the . provisions in the proposed regulation which would list and regulate these wastes as hazardous wastes would prohibit their reuse and recycling. This was said to be at odds with the recycling objectives of RCRA. Two commenters suggested that EPA should allow on-Bite recycling and reuse of the listed wastes without regulation. Most of the comments concern issues which art part of a different rulemaking proceeding, amending thp existing definition of solid waste and establishing management standards fur hazardous wastes that are recycled. Sec 48 FR 14422. April 4.1983 proposing these rules. Tnus. we will address those comments in finalizing that rulemaking We note, however, that nothing in this proposal or in existing rules would prohibit recycling of these wastes. Rather, these wastes would remain subject to regulation when they are Ip be recycled. H. Applicability of the Mixture Ruu One commenter questioned whether, and to what extent, surfuce water runoff and plant sweepings would be considered hazardous waste unde: tin mixture rule. As stated in 261.3(r)(2|. precipitation run-off is not automatical5) considered a hazardous waste, but plant sweepings which contain an acute hazardous waste are residues of cleanup operations. and would be cor.shli'Td to be acute hazardous waste, unless put to direct use as a pesticide or incorporated back into product. /. Comments on the Analytical Method and the Background Document Several respondents commented on the proposed analytical method for CDDs and CDFs. In general, these persons commented on specific details of the method, such as the need for sample preservation, the size of the specified extraction vesx*h th* suitability of the (.hrun.ntug: substrates, the Hppcnp-iaicnpss of cal... - two s'.und *.. * u.. . . * *' ** * proct-dures. Spveiu! t i*n:nii r.t> v.:- also received on th r Bhi.kprou;.il Document for this listing These continents an, res;*.' th-:*' t* i: :i* * " :.* the Background Document fut tl.t*- listing Where app-nprietf th: analytical method (see Appendix I.\ ft Part 2f-1 of this notice ) and th* Background Dmtinnr.' have bee* modified. VII. Relation of This Regulation to Those Promulgated Under CERCLA Section 102(b) (Reportable Quantities) All hazardous wastes (or. ir. tins cum; acute hazardous wastes] included in today's final nde actum; tiraHy heroine hazardous substances ur.de: the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and LiaKLt) Act of 1980 (CEFCLA). fSee CERCLA Section 101(14).) CERCLA requires that persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which hazardous substances have been released in quantities that are equal to or p ra te r than the repur:;:M; quantities (RQ1-: imnpdistelv notify the National Res Con'.' * :\ `FC' o' the release. (See CERCLA Section in;..: Except for those s,.hr t;mef- air* ad) oi. the list of CEFCLA h.~za'*: substances wr'ch will rrt;.:: i'-'c EQ already a!: hf-zarJu. r v.. *` designated unclf' RCRA will havr a: RQ of one pound until adjusted b* reguli-tiur u:ide- CX.KCLA S'* S 102. Ila v -v a s ii hu<- ** :*: th .* : < constitulent of u-rirer:. !;* V-v-t s* LQ assigned to ar.v oov o f tfu . o r . - : ts present in the waste represents the FQ fro the waste. If a pr~son complete!) analyzes the wests. hnwevr:. ar.d determiruis th./ th* RQ fo- i.c i tin constituent1- of rone err <sr< b; w ;1-. RQ establishi; iV rfaJ o'th . :- compounds, no nn:iiic:u::. is. rei.i.hei. Thus fu: the diiAir-cunti/'v* ,, listed today, a one pound RQ sh; ">hi assigned upon promulgation of th s ru!i since a onp pound RQ has ahead) U*: spevibt:d b) operation of lew liTFCi. t Sectior 102; fur a number of tin constituents of concern.*2*The* ft*.o if a person were to spin one peur.-.i u1nuv o' the wastes covered by todav's iuIo. hi would need to notify thp XRC of the release, unless the person rietenr.ines n RQt be best mignd fu: tht trim* hi; r.onfUluvnUnfennef^n chlu-npSfimls ;4STOT 2 4.6-TCP. TCI ID it', ur.i'. . 1 ~ and. and ituli. online, and win: dern ai.vt-f am' S1\ e \ and Is efiem- lpfi tbs Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1997 ' thai there is less than ar. RQ of each hazardous constituent in the waste. ' The one pound RQ is currently the lowest level es taWished for reporting releases of hazardous substances for emergency response reporting. The basis for this RQ level was established under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as the smallest quantity container generally shipped m commerce. Many substances on the CERCLA Section 101(141 hazardous substance list may be f xtremely toxic, or ntherw ise extremely hazardous, and. there lure, may need to be controlled at- levels well below the RQ levels. For instance, the CDDs and CUKs deserve special noie iur their r*\renie toxicity. The RQ triggers are intended to if. \ de notice of releases sc that an OnSc.c-ne Coordinator (OSCJ. pursuant to `be National Contingency Plan (40 CFR -iiKm. c.m assess the hazard and the .:t:t lies that may be taken by the federal government. It is emphasized that the legal obi cation lor the responsible party tn ffitify the NRC is independent of : taker, by an OSC. The different RQ ievt Is do not reflect a determination that a release of a substance will be hazardous at the RQ level, or not u..: .rdi.:s U Y-w ;"at level. ETA has not ..t:< xjeed if m.. kt i j t h a de termina non ; iTi-.j.-e the actual hazaid will vary with he unique cireun-ntances of the release, ovd extensive snentific data and analysis would be necessary to estimate the precise hazard presrnted by each s.b.'-tance in a nur-tiLr of plausible f.iiuumstancfcs. Instead, the RQs reflect EPA's judgment that the Federal government should be notified of fleases to which a response might be pecesso-y. The RQ. in themselves, do rut 'i-pr* <-i r.l dt itT-i notion that releases of a particular size are actually harmful to public health or the St-e A'c PR lir-fKi Mr.y 25 !983. Many other considerations besides quantity released afTrct the guvwnrruT.i's decision cuuLi.-ruuig whether and how it should respond to a uariicular release. The location of the -(--asp. ?rs proximity to drinking water supplies or other vLh.abie resources, the likelihood of exposure or injury to nearby populations, and other factors must be assessed on a case-by-cusp basis. The report.ng requirement is, however, the tnecer fur assessments tn be made (set TR 2,,5t4l). While the one pound RQ is dearly the siTif.llest emerrrrney revp^nse notification tr.i.t : V.i ihe present time b.r CFRCl.A and CAY4 releases. FTA an tek u response, cleanup, and othei actions below RQ levels. The RQ is a It*\el ;f*ai leev!'. .tv. '(-> reporting by the responsible party. There obviously may be instances where EPA would need to know of releases well below the one pound RQ level While EPA. in future refinements to the RQ scales, may consider lower levels, this process is independent of today's rulemaking. The reader is also advised that notification requirements within RCRA may require notification for releases which may be harmful regardless of RQ determinations under CERCLA or the CWA Specifically, the responsible party may be required to provide notice to EPA or the National Response Center under RCRA regarding spills aud leaks of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that may enter the environment (see 40 CFR 262.34 263JO. 264.56. and 265.56). to addition, each person who generates, transports, treats, stores, or disposes af these wastes must notify EPA of their activities, and thus. EPA will be aware of those persons who handle these extremely hazardous wastes. VTH. State Authority A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States Under Section 3006 of RCRA. EPA may authorize qualified States to administer and enforce the RCRA program within their States. (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) Authorization, either interim or final, may be granted to State programs that regulate the identification, generation, and transportation of hazardous wastes and the operation of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Interim authorization is granted to States with programs that are "substantially equivalent" to the Federal program (Section 3006(c)). Final authorization is granted to States with programs that are equivalent to the Federal program, consistent with the Federal program and other State p*cgrams, and that provide for adequate enforcement (Section 3006(b)). Under RCRA. prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste .Amendments of 1984. once EPA authorizes a State program. EPA suspends administration and enforcement withm the State of those parts of the Federal program fur which the Stale is authorized. In authorized States. EPA does retain enforcement c.ihurity under Sections ~D3. and 3013 of RCRA, although authorized Slates have primary enforcement responsibility. However, under Section 3006(g) of the Hazardous and Sofid Vl.iste Amendments of 1984. any requirement pertaining to hazardous w.i*.ies promulgated pursuant to the Amendments is effective in authorized States at the same lime it iseffective in other States. EPA will administer and enforce the requirements in each State until the State is authorized with respect to such requirements. The listing and related m^naguneitf standards promulgated in today s rule are applicable in all Stales since the requirements are imposed pursuant to the Amendments. Thus EPA ill implement these standards until authorized States revise their programs to adopt these rules. B. Effect on State Authorizations Under RCRA. authorized Slate programs must be revised to incorporate new requirements imposed by statute or EPA regulations. The procedures and schedule for State adoption of these requirements is described in 40 CI3L271.21. See 49 FR 21676 (May 22.1964). States that have final authorization must revise their programs within a year of promulgation of today's regulations if only regulatory changes are necessary. These deadlines can be -xirntird >n exceptional cases. See 40 CFR 271.21(e). States that submit official applications for final authorization less than 12 months after prr irrigation of today's regulations may be approved w:hout including standards equivalent :o those promulgated. However, once authorized, a State most revise its program to include the listing and related management standards substantially equivalent or equivalent to EFA's within the time period discussed above. Under the HSWA. states revising their programs to adopt new requirements imposed under the HSWA may do so based on stale requirements thai are equivalent or substantially equivalent to the HSWA requirements. See Section ?rip6[gl[2) Thus a s*utc authorization for today s amendments may do so based on controls that are equivalent nr suHptaTVii.Hy equivalent tn today's ruie. IX. Economic. Environmental and Regulatory Impacts A Regulatory Impact Analysis. Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must determine whether a regulation is " m a j o r a n d therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Arwysis. These umtadmunts. ir. part, replace regulations under a different statute fSection 6(dl of the Toxic SuInstance Con mol Actt. and impose an additional regulatory burden on only a small number of manufacturers of chlorophenols. and their chlorophenoxy derivatives. In addition, some 1991' Federal Register / Vol. SO, No. 9 / Monday. Jann.irv 14, 1`iBn / Ru!'*q ami Rpyulalionc manufacturers who use equipment w hich may h r r.nptamir.iiipd wMh CDDs and CDt .s may dl.su n.ivc an a d d iiiu n a l regulatory burden. EPA has analyzed the potential economic impact of these amendments (JRB, 1984). This analysis considered various disposal scenarios; this analysis also assumed that all generators of these wastes would need a permit for their tank or container storage facility, [i.e., none of these generators would qualify for the short storage provision in 40 CFR 1 262.34), including the requirement for seoendary containment. Based on this analysis, we estimate the cost of this regulation to be between six and eight million. In addition, we also carefully evaluated the impact of these rules on the costs, prices, and markets of these products (dePoix, 1984]. Based on this analysis, EPA has determined that major increases in consumer prices are not 'likely, and since these products have negligible foreign competition, the implementation of these regulations will have little or no adverse impact on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in either domestic or export markets. Therefore, since EPA does not expect that the amendments promulgated here will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not result in a measurable increase in costs or prices, or have an adverse impact on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises in either domestic or export markets, these amendments are not considered to constitute a major action. As such, a Regulatory Impact Analysis is not required. This amendment was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA, and any EPA responses to those comments are available for public inspection in S-212 at EPA. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.. whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the rule on small entities (/.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however. If the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The hazardous waste listed in 201.31 Chuudrv et wl. 1H77 Svnlh^sis of rhi<...<1 pf lhi> fir il ri'O'ii.iMnn an- (! r * ` ; * .V , , . : generated by small entities. The overall diphenyletheiE in acetone solution compliance costs associated with the rule are modest. (See report entitled. "Cost Impact Analysis for the Proposed Rule Regulating Certain Waste Containing Certain Chlorinated Dioxins. Chemosphere. 6:327-332. Crosby. D.G, et al. 1971. Pho!oder.umpi>s`'i.in of chlorinated dibenzu-p-dioxms. Si im ..0 rv 173:748-749 - Crosby. D.G. et al. 1973. Environment,,1 generation and degradation of -Dibenzofurans. and Phenols" for cost dibenzodioxins and dibensofurans Lr.\ estimates.) The only one of these wastes - Health Persp. 5:259-266. that small entities would discard are the Crosby, D.G. and A.S. Wong. 1977. formulating wastes, and EPA does not Environmental degradation of 2.3.7.S- believe that small entities will dispose TCDD. Science. 1337-1338. of significant quantities of the Crosby, D.G. and A.S. Wong. 1978. Photolys - commercial chemical products. Nor did commenters present any quantified Information that significant amounts of these commercial products are discarded by large or small entities. In addition, many of these formulations are already listed wastes. See, e.g.. Hazardous Waste No. U242. Thus, today's amendment is unlikely to have a of pentachlorophenol in water. Env. Sri. Res. 12:19-25. Dalderup. LM. 1978. Safety measures for taking down buildings contaminated with toxic materials. T. Soc. Geneesk. 52:582- 588; 616-623. de Poix, G.. 1984. Memorandum to M. Straus on economic impact analysis of dioxin listing- September 4. Dobbs. A. and G. Grant. 1979. Photolysis of significant economic impact on a highly chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins by substantial number.of small entities. sunlight. Nature. 278:163-165. ----- - This regulation therefore does not Desideri, A. et al. 1979. Photolysis of 2.3.7.6- require a regulatory flexibility analysis. C. Paper Wort: Reduction Act TCDD in isooctane, hexane, and cyclohexane. Bull. Chem. Farmcc. 118:274- 281. The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned OMB Eadon. G et al. 1982. Comparisons of chemical and biological data on soot samples from the Binghamton State Office Building. Center for Laboratories and Research. N.Y. State Department of Health March. Erdreich. L 1983. Memorandum to ]. Beilin on evaluation of epidemiologic study of wood control number 2050-0012. workers in Hawaii. December 8. X. References Fishbein, L. 1982. Halogenated contaminant dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans Ir. ADL 1983. Analysis of flexible membrane Handbook of carcinogens and hazardous liner chemical compatibility tests. Draft substances. Malcolm C. Bowman, ed. final report. March 31, Marcel Dekker Inc. New York. Akermark. B. 1978. Photodechlorination of Gallagher. R.P, and W.J.T. Threifali. 19.14 haloaromatic compounds. In: Dioxins: Cancer risk in wood and pulp worker* Toxicological and Chemical Aspects. F. Cattabani et al.. eds. S.P. Medical and Scientific Books. N.Y. pp. 191-202. AWP1.1983. Effects of Chemical Preservatives on the health of wood treating workers in Hawaii. 1981. Bishop. C.M. and A.H. Jones. 1981. N'on- Hodgkins Lymphoma of the scalp in workers exposed to dioxins. Lancet [ii] 369. Bleiberg. J. et al. 1964. Industrially acquired porphyria. Arch. Dermatol. 89:793-797. Buser, H.R. 1976. Preparation of qualitative atantard mixtures of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans by ultraviolet and gamma-irradiation of the octachloro compounds./ Chromut. 129:303-307. Buser. H.R. and H.P. Bosshardt. 1976. Determination of polychlorinated dibenzop-dioxins and dibensofurans in commercial chlorphenols by combined gas chromatography mass spectrometry./. Off. Altai. Chem. 59:562-567. Carcinogens and mutagens in the environment. CRC Press. Boca R.i'on F: (In. press). Goldmann. P.J. 1973. Schwerste akite Chloracne, eine Masse In'oxikrt'mn durrh 2.3.4.8-Te;r:,chiurdiber.7.o-p-:i:ovn. Hautcrzi. 24: 149-156. Grufferman. S. et al. 1976. Occupation and Hodgkins disease. / Sat. Cancer Inst. 57: 1193-1195. Hardel!. L. et al. 1982 Epidemiologi*: stud;. nasal and nasa-pharvngeal cancer and their relationship to pkenoxy acid or chlorophenol exposure. Am. / lnd. M?d. 3:247-257. Haberman. B.H. and S. Bayard. 1984. Memo to Judy Beilin (05W) on qualitative evaluation and unit ri3k estimate for hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin carcinogenicity data in animals, fanuarr 3 Hilderbrandt P.K., 1983. Letter to E.E. McConnell (NIEHS) on histology review of Buser. H.R. 1979. Formation and identification liver tissue from HxCDD-treated rats. of letra- and penlechlorodibenzo-p-dioxins October 31. from photolysis of two Isomeric Hutzinger, O. et al. 1973. Photochemical hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. degradation of di- and octachloro Chemosphere. 8:251-257. dibenzofuran. Env. Health Persp. 5:267-271. > Federal Register / Vol. 5Ql No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1999 [KB Associates. 1984, Cost impncl analysis Environmental health adv isory committee. for the proposed rote regulating cerium . - Science Advistury Board. December. (EPA/ "'w astes containing certain chlorinated ' J- SAB/7B/001). dioxins, -dibenzofurans. and -phenols. USEPA 1981a. Creoaote. inorganic April. arsenicals. pentachloropheno!. Position Kimbrough. R.D. et al. 1983. Risk Assessment Document No. 2/3. Office of Pesticides and document on 2. 3. 7. 8-Tetrachloro- Toxic Substances. January. dibenzodioxin (TCDD) levels in soil. USEPA. 1981b. Interim evaluations of health U5DHHS;CDC/NIEHS December. risks associated with emissions of Uamparski. LL et al. 1980. Photolysis of tetrachlorinated dioxins from municipal pentachlorophenol-trealed wood: waste resource recovery facilities. Office of chlorinated d:benzo-p-diuxin hirniiition the Administrator. (November 19). Env. Set. Technoi. 14:196-201. L'SEPA. 1981c. Incineration of PCBs; McCaughy. R. (ORD). 1984. Memorandum to Summary of Approval Actions: Energy A. Rispin (OPP; on carcinogenic potency Systems Company [ENSCO). El Dorado. estimate for HxCDDs. April 19. AJft EPA Region 6. February 8.1961. Miles. W.F.. et al. 1984. Isomer specific USEPA 1981(L tncineration erfPCSs; determination of hexacMurndioxins in Summary of Approval Actions; Rollins technical pentachlorophenol (PCP) and its Environment] Services, Deer Park. TJL svi.l:;.,-n salt. 4th. ir.trrr.i. Svntp. Chid EPA Region 8. February 6.1961. i *1'-1. V..- i.1."',: . ^ . . i..r - tO u n 'f lii O il 1i'- USEPA. 1982. Development Di'cument fur 19- Effluent Limitalions Guidelines and VRI 983. Determination of the destruction Standards for the Pesticides. EPA 440/1- o! PCSs at SCA Chemical Seri .;es Inc. B2-079b. (Proposed). mcineraior. final Kepvri. Part I. l-SEPA. 1983. Dioxin strategy. OWRS: 'technical Sununary MR1 P^ivt: Number OSWER. November 28. Wipf. H X et al. "M-2C- Jan_=;ry 21. 19*8. Field trials on photodegradation of V.:*i*rid! Academy of St iences. 1977. TCDD on vegetables after spraying with l)':ti^i"K Hnter and henith. NnUtmul vegetable oil. In: Dioxins: toxicological and A. .nil of Sciences. Washington. D.C. chemical aspects. Op. Cit. V T f et ai 1980 Indcnlificbtion of USEPA. 1984. Project for performance of ti fT.n l.>rt :i:i:er.zc-p-dic\in isomers at thf remedial response activities at * ng '.eve! by photoiytic degradation and uncontrolled hazardous substance pi.t'irn rec.'ET.ition techniques. Aiat facilities, zone 1. Analytical results from 865-18~4. Brady Metals, Newark. N.J. EPA Region 2. i ii.r.me:. j.R. ami V.I Khngbiei. 1971. f\ 'h r.uivr. p^oiosensii.ied DX.dbbur. of 2. NUS Corporation. March 21 [Pinal draft). USEPA. 1984b. Ambient Water Quality 4-dir.hlorophenol: assessment of possible chlorinated dioxjc formation. Science Criteria for 2.3,7.S-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin. EPA 440/5-84-007. 174-404-408. Williams. P I - 1982. Pentachloropheno!. an t'am.'.it:. |.R el oL 1974. Pnoiuihac.ibUy ul d,l>enzn-p-dioxins. .4dv. Cheat. 120:44-54 Pyaer, M and C. Schlatter1980. Influence of assessment of the occupation**! hazard. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. /. 43:799-810. Wong. A.S. and D.G Crosby. 1978a. si.i'.cnis and ahsorbance or dermal and intestinal absorption of TCDO. Fd. Cosmet. To'tcui. 18:477--161. Decontamination of 2.3.7.B- ____ tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD*) by photochemical action. In: Dioxins: R-i C (EPA/ORD1.1983. Memorandum to J.S. toxicological and chemical aspects. Op. Cit. Betim [EPA/OSWl. memorandum on 1981 Wong. A.S. and D.G. Crosby (1978b). Hawaii epidemiology s>:u:i>. September 16. Photolysis of Pentachloropheno! in Water. S.,mbe:h. J. 1983. The Sevesr, accident. Chemusphere lfi81-68& Environ. Sci. Rea. 12:19-25. Schwetz. B.A. et al. 1978. Results of two-year XI. List of Subjects toxicity and .-rp.-oduciion studies on pentachlorophcnol in rats, in: 40 CFIi Part 261 Pentachiorophenol chemistry. Hazardous materia Is. Waste 7k; -rac.riif'm.. and environmental treatment and disposal, Recycling. nivo/.i-gv K.R. Rao. ed.J. Plenum Press. \ . Y 40 CFR Part 264 V -iie. K.A 1983. An of the t xpi-nmental ev alence for potential r itrr innecnir.ry of hixachlornriilxTiZO-i>- li 'i\ 2y. SlbeL tt. et aL 1971. The stability of pentachlorophenot and chlorinated dioxins Hazardous materials. Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Security measures. Security bunds. Waste treatment and disposal. to sunlight, heat and enmhustion. 162nd annual meeting. Amer. Chem. S>>c. Sept 40 CFR Part 265 (Abstract 92|, Hazardous materials, Packaging and I SDHHS. 1960. Bioaf-'ay ofn mixture of 1.2.3A.7.EP and 1.I.3.7.8.9- hexnchlorodibenzo-p-dioxins for possible can :nngi r>irt\. !9H0 NTP. No fail-12. USDDH5. 1984. Health risk estimates fur 2. 3 containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures. Security bonds. Waste treatment and disposal. Water supply. 7. 8-tetrachloro-dibenzodiozin m soil. *.h'rhdity and mortal'tv weekly repo'l * 40 CFR Part 270 Administrative practice and t 'MTA. 1978. Report of the Ad Hnr. Study procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping cn.np for pentuchlrirophenol contuminimts requirements. Hazardous materials. Waste treatment and disposal. Water pollution control. Water supply. Confidential business information. ' " 1 - 40 CFR Part 775 Environmental protection. Hazardous materials, Pesticides and pests, Waste treatment and disposal. Dated: December 20.1984. Alvin L. Aim, Acting Administrator. ^ For the reasons set out in the preamble. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows; PART 281--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 1. The authority citation for Part 261 reads as follows: ___ - Authority: Secs. 1006. 2002(a). 30U1. and 3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as emended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery' Act of 1976. as amended [42 U.S.C 6905. 6912(a). 6921. and 6922J. 2. In 261.5. paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) are revised to read as follows: 9 261.5 Special requirements for hazardous waste generated by small quantity generators. ft le)-** (1) A total of one kilogram of acute hazardous wastes listed in 5 261.21. 261.32. or 261.33(e). (2) A total of 100 kilograms of any. residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spilL into or on any land or water, of any acute hazardous wastes listed in s 5 261.31. 261.32. or 261.33(e). ft * ft 3. In 9 261.7. the introductory text of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) are revised to read as follows: 261.7 Residues of hazardous wasta in empty containers. a mo * (b)(1) A container or an inner liner removed from container that has held any hazardous waste, except a waste that is a compressed gas or that is identified as an acute hazardous waste listed in } 261.31.251.32. or 261.33(e) of this chapter is empty if; * * (3) A container or an inner liner removed from a container that has held an acute hazardous waste listed in $9 261J l . 28132, or 261.33(e) is empty if: * * A ft ^ 4. In 9 261.30. paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows: 2000 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January' 14, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 9 261.30 General. ^ _ # * * "" (d) The following hazardous wastes listed in 9 261.31 or 261.32 are subject to the exclusion limits for acutely hazardous wastes established in 9 261.5: EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. FO20, F021. F022. F023. F026. and F027. ,, **. 5. In 261.31. add the following w,iv streams: ^ > ; 261.31 Hazardous w aste from nonspecific sources. Industry EPA ou osti No. Hazoidoui ut* zor- FOOT West Incept waste**) and vent carton tram hyOogon eMonda purhcatioft) tram the production or marwfactunng use las a raacun*. eft*mi:ai iwi intarmedle. or oomporwm n a lornaiatmg process) of tv or MbacNorophonol. or oi enarmedtcs usad to product the pesb&oe denvanv* (Ims bang does no) ncJuda n M tram the production pt HaxacNwaphww (ram toghty prfd 2.4.5-tncrUorcorwnotj FOOT Waataa (ncapi wattewat and para carbon tram hydrogen efUonda piatAcahon) from the produebon 0 manufaetiamg use t u a-rtactant. chamcai ihi ntarmad!#. or component in lomiaong proceaa) oft pentacNorophenol. 0 ol ntarmackatas uaad to produce its derivative FOOT WasMa (excapi waslewei and van) carbon tram hydrogen cMwxlt putfieauon) tram the manutactiamg uaa (aa a raactarn. chameai niamwdte. or (Hj component ma formulating proceaa) ot ten-, pen-, or hnactaarQbonxane* unMt eftain* oonddnna. FOOT Waataa (except wastewalar and para carbon trom hydrogen entomb purification) from the production ol mate-iau on eouramem prevcu**y used 'or |H) the produebon.or menufactunng um (aa * raactarn, chatmcal iraarmaOite. component m a larmUatmg process) o* t- and tabittucroonenois (Ttaa bating doaa not rduda wastes bom aqMpmant uaad otdy tor t produebon or uaa of Haxachtorophana from tvgfuy piaitd 2.4.Sfrichtoropnenoi.). FOOT Waataa (except wtsiowalw and v e rt carton from hydrogen chfonda pubtaatai) from the produebon of materials on aquvmara previously used lor (ht| * mervfac&mg uaa (aa a raactant, chemical ntarmeda. 0 component in a formulating process) of leu*-, pmu-. hoxachiorobeniene unde* Seine condition. FOOT Oiacarded unused fomulaiioni containing bv, taba-, or pentachioropnanef 0 dwevtfad uruaed fcrrmAafapna centainmg compomds derived bom these -fH>---- chkxophanot*. (The Wbng does n0 mdbde tormuiabona contamg Hexachtorophana aythesaad bom pruntied 2.4,$-tncnioropnenoi aa me sole component). FOOT Resduea resutting bom the incinerauon 0 thermal treatment of aoi oontanwiatad with EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOOT. F021. F022 FOOT FC26 (T) and FOOT. 6. 5 281.33(f] is amended by revising the hazardous waste numbers for the following substances: 1 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical product, off-speciflcatlon species, container residues, end spill residues thereof. * * * ft (I)*' - Hazardous waata No Substance e SaaFOOT....... Pefiisdiiorcohenoi i Saa FOOT----- Phenol, pwitaertoro-. Do.-------- Phartoi, 2.3.4.6>tebachion>Do............ Rnol. 24.5-tncWproDo--- .... Phanoi, 2.4.6-bKWoro- So* FOOT____ Proporne acd. 2-12.4.5-tncMoropnenoxy).. Sa* FOOT... . Sftvw* Sa* FOOT___ Z4^.T. Sa* FOOT___ 2.3.4.6-Tetractuoropnenol. S**FOOT,,-- Z4,S-Tridilorophenol. OP,tiaufe,#,. 2,4.6-TicN0 Oph*n0 . Do.__ __ 2.4.S-Trcftloroptwroiyacabe acal. 7. Amend Table 1 in Appendix III of P v t 281, by removing the entry "chlorinated dibenzodioxins", and adding the following entries in alphabetical order. Appendix III--Chemical Analysis Test Methods T able 1.--Analytical Metho d s for O rganic Chemicals Contained in SW -046 Compound First Second fehon aebbon metnodls) metnodis) CNonnaiad dbenzo-d-doxww___ __________ Chlortnatad dbenzohrana............... ............. .... S2S0 SOTO 8. Amend Table 3 in Appendix III of Part 261, by adding the following entry under Organic Analytical Methods-- Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectroscopy Methods (GC/MS) after the entry entitled "GC/MS SemiVolatiles, Capillary: Table 3.--Sampling and Analysis Methods Contained in SW-B46 Fast adfton Soecnoenrd. Tnw Sk ton No. Mathod No. Sacbon No; Mathod No- AnWysia of CNonnatad Dion and Diwnzphen ______ -_________________ __ 8.2 BOTO 9. Add the following entries in numerical order to Appendix VII of Part 261: Appendix VII--Basis for Listing Hazardous Wastes EPA hazard ous waits NO. Hazardous coniWuents 1 wmen i*s1e- FOOT..... Tab- and pemacMpradit-e-zo j-d'c-"s tet*a and pentacMorod-oanzbiuians in- a~z tatrachlorophenois ana t w cntoroonei'o 3^ iwBtivc asios, enera. etnei, amine arc one* tana. F021 .... Poma, and heiacworoifibe-io-p-d ox ns pe-ra and naiachioradOonrotuians peivarurT phenol and its oenvafvn FOOT___ Taba-, pama-, and haxactuorotkbenzo-jvoor"* taba-, penta-, and hexacNorotKie'izofurin FOOT .... Toba-, no oentacniorodie-'j-jxJoi'i's tetra- and penuehlarodibenzoii.rar,s tn ana tetra* chioropnenois and iner croorooneroxy oen.abve ic e s estar, ether, amme anc ere* satis FOOT Toba-, penta-. a"d haiacnio*odioeni;.p.rini -s taba-, penta-, and rwxacruorodioenzoruran FOOT___ Taba-, penta-, and nexarn'oroa-ocnzo^-ftoin! taba-, penta-, and neiacniototioenzoturans bK taba-, and pomacmoropnenoi and me-Chtorophanaxy derivative adds este: etner amine and otnm iaits FOOT....... Teca-, per.-, end neaehiodioenzo-p-dioiir> be-, penta-, and hexachtorodioe-tzofurars tn-, tra- and pentaenicrophenots and men cnioroonnoxy derivative aoos esters etre-i emme and other sans 10. Add the following constituents in alphabetical order to Appendix VIII of Part 261: Appendix Vm--Hazardous Constituents *** hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins hexachlorodibenzofurans pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins pentachlorodibenzofurans Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 2001 telrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins telrachlorodibenzofurans *- -, ^11. Appendix X is added to Part 281 to read as follows: Appendix X--Method of Analysis for Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans L114 Method 8280 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method measures the concentration of chlorinated dibenzo-pdiuxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans in chemical wastes including still bottoms, filter aids, sludges, spent carbon, and reactor residues, and in soils. 1.2 The sensitivity of this method is dependent upon the level of interferences. 1.3 This method is recommended for use ntv by analysts experienced with residue analysis and skilled in mass spectral analytical techniques. 1.4 Because of the extreme toxicity of these compounds, the analyst must take necessary precautions to prevent exposure to himself, or to others, of materials known or believed to contain CDDb or CDFs. 2. Summary of the Method 2.1 This method is an analytical extraction cleanup procedure, and capillary column gas chromatograph-low resolution mass spectrometry method, using capillary column GC/MS conditions and internal standard techniques, which allow for the measurement of PCDDs and PCDFs in the extract. 2.2 If interferences are encountered the method provides selected general purpose cleanup procedures to aid the analyst in their elimination. 3. Interferences 3.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and other sample processing hardware may yield 'This method is appropriate Tor the analysis of tr:ra-. pema-, and hexachlonnaied diberuo-p- and -dibenzofurans. 1Analytical protocol Tor determination oiTCDDs in phenolic chemical wastes and soil samples ob'aired From the proximity of chemical dumps. T O. Tieman and M, Taylor Brehm Laboratory. VVr.jihl State University. Dayton. OH 45435. 'Analytical protocol for determination of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans in river water. T.O. Tieman and M. la v lor. Brehm Laboratory. Wrichl State Umversiiv. Dayton. OH 45435. In general, the techniques that should be used to handle these materials are those which are followed for radioactive or infectious laboratory materials. :n evaiuuiirg lal,j;utor> prai.tites may be obtained from industrial hygienists and persona specializing in safe laboratory practices. Typical infectious waste incinerators are probably not satisfactory devices for disposal of materials highly contaminated with CDDs or CDFs. Safety instructions are outlined in EPA Test Method fir*1;4.0) See also: 1) "Program for monitoring potential contamination in the laboratory following Ihe handling and analyses of chlmiruiled dtbenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans" by F. D. Hileman et at.. in. Human and Environmental Risks Of Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds. R.E. Tucker, et at. eda.. Plenum Publishing Carp.. 1983.2) Safety procedures nuili.ied in EPA Method 513. Federal Register volume 44. No. 233. December 3.1979. discrete artifacts and/or elevated baselines causing misinterpretation of gas chromatograms. All of these materials must be demonstrated to be free from interferences under the conditions of the analysis by running method blanks. Specific selection of reagents and purification of solvents by distillation in all-glass systems may be required. 3.2 Interferences co-extracted from the samples will vary considerably from source to source, depending upon the diversity of the industry being sampled. PCDD is often associated with other interfering chlorinated compounds such as PCB`i which may be at concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than that of PCDD. While general cleanup techniques are provided as part of this method, unique samples may require additional cleanup approaches to achieve the sensitivity stated in Table 1. 3.3 The other isomers of tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin may interfere with the measurement of 2,3.7.8-TCDD. Capillary column gas chromatography is required to resolve those isomers that yield virtually identical mass fragmentation patterns. 4. Apparatus and Materials 4.1. Sampling equipment for discrete or composite sampling. 4.1.1 Grab sample bottle--amber glass. 1- liter or 1-quart volume. French or Boston Round design is recommended. The container must be washed and solvent rinsed before use to minimize interferences. 4.1.2. Bottle caps--threaded to screw on to the sample bottles. Caps must be lined with Teflon. Solvent washed foil, used with the shiny side towards the sample, may be substituted for the Teflon if sample is not corrosive. 4.1.3. Compositing equipment--automatic or manual composing system. No tygon or rubber tubing may be used, and the system must incorporate glass sample containers for the collection of a minimum of 250 ml. Sample containers must be kept refrigerated after sampling. 4Z Water bath--heated, with concentric ring cover, capable of temperature control (2 *C). The bath should be used in a hood. 4.3 Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer data system. 4.3.1 Gas chromatograph: An analytical system with a temperature-programmaSle gas chromatograph and all required accessories including syringes, analytical columns, and gases. 4.3.2 Column: SP-2250 coated on a 30 m long y. 0.25 mm I.D. glass column (Supelco No. 2-3714 or equivalent). Glass capillary column conditions: Helium carrier gas at 30 cm/sec linear velocity run splitless. Column temperature is 210 *C. 4.3.3 Mass spectrometer Capable of scanning from 35 to 4S0 amu every 1 sec or less, utilizing 70 volts (nominal) electron energy in the electron impact ionization mode and producing a mass spectrum which meets all the criteria in Table 2 when 50 ng of decaf]uorotriphenyl-phoBphine (DFTPP) is injected through the CC inlet The system must also be capable of selected ion monitoring (SIM) Tor at least 4 ions simultaneously, with a cycle time of 1 sec or less. Minimum integration time for SIM is 100 ms. Selected ion monitoring is verified by injecting .015 ng of TCDD C13T to give a minimum signal to noise ratio of 5 to 1 at mass 328. 4.3.4 GC/MS interface: Any GC-to-M5 interface that gives acceptable calibration points at SOng per injection for each compound of interest and achievesacceptable tuning performance criteria (see Sections 6.1-0.3) may be used. GC-t*MS interfaces constructed of all glass or glasslined materials are recommended. Class can be deactivated by silanizing with dichlorodimethylsilane. The interface must be capable of transporting at least 10 ng of the components of interest from the GC to the MS. 4.3.5 Data system: A computer system must be interfaced to the mass spectrometer. The system must allow the continuous acquisition and storage on machine-readable media of all mass spectra obtained throughout the duration of the chromatographic program. The computer must have software that can search any CC7"" MS data file for ions of a specific mass and that can plot such ion abundances versus time or scan number. This type of plot is defined as an Extracted Ion Current Profile (EICPJ. Software must also be able to integrate the abundance, in any EICP. between specified time or scan number limits. 4.4 Pipettes-Disposable. Pasteur, 150 mm long x 5 mm ID [Fisher Scientific Co.. No. 13G78-6A or equivalent). 4.5 Flint glass bottle (Teflon-lined screw cap). 4.6 Reacti-vial [silanized] (Pierce Chemical Co.). 5. Reagents 5.1 Potassium hydroxide-(ACS}. 2%in distilled water. 5^2 Sulfuric acid-(ACS), concentrated. 5J Methylene chloride, hexane, benzene, petroleum ether, methanol, tetradecanepestiride quality or equivalent. 5.4 Prepare stock standard solutions of TCDD and " C1-TCDD (molecular weight 328) in a glove box. The stock solutions are stored in a glovebox, and checked frequently for signs of degradation or evaporation, especially just prior to the preparation of working standards. 5.5 Alumina-basic. Woelm: 80/200 mesh. Before use activate overnight at 600`C. cool to room temperature in a dessicator. 5.8 Prepurified nitrogen ges 6J) Calibration 8.1 Before using any cleanup procedure, the analyst must process a series of calibration standards through the procedure to validate elution patterns and the absence of interferences from reagents. 6.2 Prepare GC/MS calibration standards for the internal standard technique that will allow for measurement of relative response factors of at least three CDD/'TIDD ratios. Thus. forTCDDa. at least three TCDD/" CITCDD and TCDF/"C1-TCDF must be determined.3The HC1-TCDD/F concentration 'X3-1abellrd Z3.7.B-TCDD and Z3.7.8-TCDF are available from X.O.R. Isotopes, and Cambridge Continued 2&02 Federal Resistor / Vn! fill. Nn 9 / Mund.iv Jrirvi.v 14 V*'. / R-:1-s ;in:i F l i i : . - - in the standard should be fixed and selected ti!>.t!J <>rcpnij ,``v at th* most sensitive setting of the mass spectrometer. Response factors for PCDD end MxCDD may be determined by measuring the response of the tetrachloro-labelled compounds relative to that of the unlabelled 1.2J.4- or 2.3.7.B- TCDD. 1.2J.4.7-PCDD or 1.2.3.4.7.8-HxCDD. which are commercially available.* 6.3 Assemble the necessary GC/M S apparatus and establish operating parameters equivalent to those indicated in Section 11,1 of this method. Calibrate the GC/MS system according to Eichelbergrr. et al. {1075} by the use of decafluorotriohenyl phocphine'(DFTPP). By injecting calibration standards, establish the response factors for CDDt vs. nCl-TCDD. and for CDFs vs. ,:C1- TCDF. The detection limil provided in Table 1 should be verified by injecting .015 ng of *^C1-TCDD which should give a minimum signs1to noise ratio of 5 to 1 at mass 328. 7. Quality Control 7.1 Before processing any samples, the analyst should demonstrate through the analysis of a distilled water method blank, that all glassware and reagents are i .terference-free. Each time a set of samples is extracted, or there la a change in reagents, a method blank should be processed as a safeguard against laboratory contamination. 7JZ Standard quality assurance practices must be used with this method. Field replicates must be collected to measure the precision of the sampling technique. Laboratory replicates must be analyzed to establish the precision of the analysis- Fortified samples must be analyzed to establish the accuracy of the analysis. 8.Sample Collection. Preservation, and Handling 8.1 Grab and composite samples must be collected in glass containers. Conventional sampling practices should be followed, except that the bottle m.ist not be prewfished with sample before collection. Composite samples should be collected in glass containers in accordance with the requirements of the RCRA program. Sampling equipment must be free of tygon and other potential sources of contamination. &Z The samples must be iced or refrigerated from the time of collection until extraction. Chemical preservatives should not be used in the field unless more than 24 houraLwill elapse before delivery* to the laboratory. If an aqueous sample is taken and the sample wilt not be extracted within 48 hours of collection, the sample should be adjusted to a pH range of 6.0-6.0 with sodium hydroxide or sulfuric add. Isotopes, Inc.. Cambridge. NLA- Proper standardization requires the use of a sped Tic Idbelied isomar for each congener to be determined. However, the5hly libelled isomer* readily available ere ^O-ZJXB-TCDQ and d-U .7.8TCDF. Tlua method therefore urea these isomers a t aunqgataa for the CDDs and CDFs. Whaa other labelled CDDs and CDFs are available, their use will be required. *Hua procedure is adopted because standards ere not available for most of the CDDs and CDFs. and assumes that all the congeners will show the same response as the unlabelled cong o re used as a standard. Although this assumption may not be true in all cases, the error will be small. 8.3 All sarnplrs musi !>*pxtrR'MM wt'kin 9 A Elii1" the rr.icr -:,!u r-v v. 7'* :.' - 7 days and complevly analyzed witn:n 30 3Vmethylene chniriii*- m-hix-tne f." , days of collection. 15 ml of 20''- methylene cMiindr-in-hi'Xi*" ... B. Extraction and Cleanup Procedures ` and discard these effluents. Eiule the cui-r :i 9.1 Use an aliquot of 1-10 g sample of the with 15 ml of 50% methylene chlond**-in- chemical waste or toil to be analyzed. Soils should be dried using a stream of prepurified nitrogen and pulverized in o ball-mil! or similar device. Perform this operation in a clear area with proper hood space. Transfix the sample to a Lared 125 ml flint glass bottle {Teflon-lined screw cap} ard determine the weight of the sample. Add an appropriate quantity of ^Cl-labelled 2J.7.B-TCDO (adjust the quantity according to the required minimum detectable concentration), which is employed as an internal standard. 9.2 Extraction 9.2.1 Extract chemical waste samples by hexane and concentrate this effluent (55 C water bath, stream of prepurified nitrogen; t,, shout 0.3-0.5 ml. 9.9 Quantitative!) tiunsfrr th**"-s"1 / (using methylene chlonde to rinse the container) to a silanized R^dCti Via! |!\> ** Chemical Co.). Evaporate, using a s'.itfrr. oi prepurified nitrogen, almost to d:yaess. rinsr the walls of the vessel with approximately 0.5 ml me'hvl-'ne chloride, e'-dpe;.:** jv dryness, and tightly cap the via!. Store ir.ivial at 5* C until analysis, at whiLh time the sample is reconstituted by the addition id adding ID ml methanol. 40 ml petroleum tridecane. ether. 50 ml doubly distilled water, and then 9.10 Approximately 1 hour before GC-V- shaking the mixture for 2 minutes. Tars (HRGG-LRMS) an&lysiB. dilute the rtaidje in should be completely dissolved in any of the the micro-reaction vessel with an appropriate recommended neat solvents. Activated quantity of tridecane. Gently swiri the carbon samples must be extracted with tridecane on the lower portion of the ve3si\ benzene using method 3540 in SW-846 (Test to ensure dissolution of the CDDs and CDFs- ' Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste-- Analyze a sample bv CC/EC to provide Physical/Chemical Methods, available from insight into the tonpi?xi'.y of the problem, G.P.O. Stock #055-022-61001-2]. Quantitatively transfer the organic extract or dissolved sample to a dean 250 ml f.ir.i glass bottle (Teflon lined screw cap), add 50 ml doubly distilled water and shake for 2 minutes. Discard the aqueous layer and proceed with Step 9.3. 9.2.2 Extract soil samples by adding 40 ml of petroleum ether to the sample, and then shaking for 20 minutes. Quantitatively transfer the organic extract to a clean 250.ml flint glass bottle (Teflon-lined screw cap), add 50 ml doubly distilled water and shake for 2 minutes. Discard the aqueous layer and proceed with Step 9.3. 9.3 Wash the organic layer with 50 ml of 20% aqueous potassium hydroxide by shaking for 10 minutes and then remove and discard and to determine the manner in which the mass spectrometer should be used. irj**" an appropriate aliquot of the sample into the GC-MS instrument, using a syr-.j**. 9.11 If. upon preliminary GC-MS analysis, the sample appears to contain interfering substances which obscure the anE'y,*-: (* CDDs and CDKs. high performance :;qu:J chromatographic (HPLC) cleanup of the extract is accomplished, prior to further GC- MS anal) sis. 10. HPLC Cleanup ProcKdsie' 10.1 Place approximately 2 ml of hexane in a 50 ml flint glass sample bottle fitted with a Teflon lined cap. 10.2 At the appropriate retention position sample bottle to colier: th* d the aqueous layer. fraction. 9.4 Wash the organic layer with 50 ml of 10.3 Add 2 m! of 5~ 'u \1 S'rd: T. doubly distilled water by shaking for 2 carbonate to the Sample fraction co.-te.'.eii minutes, and discard the aqueous layer. and shake for one minute. 9.5 Cautiously add 50 ml concentrated 10.4 Quantitatively remove the hexcre sulfuric acid and shake far 10 minutes. Allow layer (top layer) and transte: ic a m-^m- the mixture to stand until layers Bepara'e reaction vessel. (approximately 10 minutes), and remove and 10.5 Cor.central? :~? f r a :t:.v. . - -- discard the acid layer. Repeat acid washing and retain for further uZr-.hsis. until np color is visible in the acid layer. U. GC/MS Analysis 9.8 Add 50 ml of doubly distilled water to 11.1 The following column conditions ..ra the organic extract and shake for 2 minutes. Remove and discard the aqueous layer and dry the organic layer by adding lDg of anhydrous sodium sulfate. 9.7 Concentrate the extract to incipient' dryness by heating in a 55' C water bath and simultaneously flowing a stream of prepurified nitrogen over the extract. Quantitatively transfer the residue to an alumina microcolumn fabricated as follows: 9.7.1 Cut off the top section of a 10 ml disposable Pyrex pipette at the 4.0 ml mark and insert s plug of silanized glass wool into the tip of the lower portion of the pipette. 9.7J2 Add 2.6g of Woelm basic alumina (previously activated at 800* C overnight and recommended: Glass capillary column conditions: SP-2250 coated on a 30 m lore \ 0.25 mm ID. glass column Supelco Nj ~3714. or equivalent) with helium Carrie* gns .?.> 30 cm/sec linear velocity, run sph'luas Column temppiaiure is 210' C. Ur.Je; :'-tesr conditions the retention time forTCDDs is about 9.5 minutes. Calibrate the system dot!;, with, a minimum, three injections of stand,)*j mixture. 11.2 Calculate response factors Tor standards relative to HC1-TCDD/F (spe Section 12). 11.3 Analyze samples with selected ior, monitoring of al leaal two ions from Table 3. then cooled to room temperature in a desiccator just prior to ttse). 1For cleanup are alas method -8320 or =8330. 9.7.3 Transfer sample extract with a small SW-848. Teat Methods for Evaluating Solid V\ as V. volume of methylene chloride. Physfcal/Chemical Methods (19(C). Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 2003 Proof of the presence of CDD or CDF exists if the following conditions are met: 11.3.1 The retention time of the peak in shi sample must mutch that in the standard, within the performance specifications of the analytical system. 11.3.2 The ratio of ions must agree within 10S with that of the standard. 11.3.3 The retention time of the peak r.-..;vr..um for the ions of interest must exactly match that of the peak. 11.4 Quantitate the CDD and CDF peaks from the response relative to the " CITCDD/F internal standards. Recovery of the internal standard should be greater than 50 percent. 11.5 If a response is obtained for the appropriate set of ions, but is outside the expected ratio, a co-eluting impurity may be suspected. In this case, another set of ions characteristic of the CDD/CDF molecules should be analyzed. For TCDD a good choice of ions is m/e 257 and m/e 259. For TCDF a good choice of ions is m/e 241 and 243. These ions are useful in characterizing the molecular structure to TCDD or TCDF. For analysis of TCDD good analytical technique would require using all four ions, m/e 257. 320. 322. and 32S. to verify detection and signal to noise ratio of 5 to 1. Suspected imparities such as DDE, DDD. or PCB residues can be confirmed by checking Tor then major fragments. These materials can be removed by the cleanup columns. Failure to meet criteria should be explained in the report, or the sample reanalyzed. 11.6 If broad background interference restricts the sensitivity of the GC/MS analysis, the analyst should employ cleanup procedures and reanalyze by GC/MS. See section 10.0. 11.7 In those circumstances where these procedures do not yield a definitive conclusion, the use of high resolution mass sppctftnetry is suggested. 12. Calcvictims 12.1 Determine the concentration of individual compounds according to the formula: Concentration. A * A, Gy A,, v R, where: A -p g of internal standard added to thesample ' G = gm of sample extracted A.= area of characteristic ion of the compound being quantified. A ,.-area of characteristic ion of the internal standard Rt - response factor 9 "The proper amount of standard to be used is ib-tfmmed from Ihi catihraiiun curve |S'< Section G.O|. "If standard* for PCUDs/Fs and HxCDCa/Ks are r-o* response factors for inns dr-ived from these conjmnera are calculated relative to **C1TCDD/F. The analvst may use response factors for 1.2.3.4* or 2.3.7.&-TCDD. 1.2.3 4.7-PcCDD. or 12 3.4.7.8 HxCDD for quantitation of TCDDs/Fs. fVCDrWFs and HxCDDs/Fs. respectively. Implicit in this requirement is the assumption that the same obtained from PCUUs/K u orluininit itu s.,.7ie numbers of chlorine alums Response factors are calculated using data obtained from the analysis of standards according to the formula: A,yCu R T ----------- AwXC, 1Defection Smn far taut) wmotas m 0003 k$/I Thm * cslcWaiM from me m>n*nijn> oateciaoi* GC moons* aqua* to fiv* t*n*s m* GC Aground no>te auummg a 1 irl eftoctnm Anal vokxn* of tn* 1 War same** attract, and GC aaacton a* S rracroMere Detectan lavo** *x>y to twin eiactron cacfura ano GC/MS datectxm For firma oetaos a* *4 FR 69526 (Decampar 3. 1879). T a b l e 2.-- DFTPP Key ions and ion Abundance Criteria 1 where: ,= concentration of the internal standard C, = concentration of the standard compound 122 Report results in micrograms per gram without correction for recovery data. When duplicate and spiked samples are analyzed, all data obtained should be reported. 12.3 Accuracy and Precision. No data are available at this time. Table 1.--G as Chromatography of TCDD Column fiatarv Oaiection km* ton Imt (mn.) (M'fcg)1 Maw tan abundan emana 51 30- 00% of man 180 T sa Law man 2% of mau 69 70 Law Stan 2% of maw 69 127 0^ 0% of m an 198. 187 Law man t% at maw 180. 190 Basa paw. 100% Wi m apuntan. 189 5- 9% at m an 190 275 10- 30% of maw ' 90. 365 Great man 1% of maw 190. 41 Praam but le u than maw 3. 442 Greater Own 40% of maw 190. 443 17- 23% Of maw 442. X W. Bcnatoarp*. LE. Harm, and W L Budda. 1875. Referenda compound to cafcbrat* <n abundan maastramant at gas ehromatograpny-maa* epaetrometry Analytical Charnatry <7 985 Gtasa ciliary.............. 0.5 0003 Table 3.-- U st o f Accurate Ma ss e s Monitoreo Using GC S elected-Ion Monitoring. Lo w R esolution, Ma ss S pectrom etry for S imultaneous Determination of Tetra-, Penta-. AND HEXACHLORINATED DlBENZO-p-DlOXtNS AND DlBENZOFURANS Class of ctilonnatsd O benrodioiin O' Oibenzofuran Aperw Number enoorfme luCrstnuents (a) Monitored rn.'I i for dibemodionns CuhL-.ChL, mate 1Morvto'ed m't ! theoretical i for i rano dibemofurans expected i C,,H.-,OCI, j I obnauantQsci&ncca*t Tetra. 4 Perns.. Hots... 5 9 1Motee-j*nr on peak. * CL-- i ll# d ttandard p ra l*. *ions when can montorad at TCDO analyses tor confirmaron puposa* 1319697 | >303.902 ; 321 604 I 30S.9G3 J327.865 - 311.894 ;-- * 256.933 j____ =258.930 :____................. ...........| * 353.858 1 337 B63 . 355.855 - 336 060 1 389.016 j 373 821 j 391.913 t 375.610 | 0.74 1 00 0.21 0.20 057 1.00 1.00 087 PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT* STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 12. The authority citation for Part 264 reads as follows: Authority: Secs. 1006.2002(a). 3004. and 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as amended (42 U.S.C. r.90S, 6912(a). 6924. and 6925). 13. In Subpart I of Part 264. the introductory text In paragraph (c) is revised and a new paragraph (d) is added to S264.175: 5 264.175 Containm ent. A free liquids need not have a containment system defined by paragraph (b) of this section, except as provided by paragraph (dj of this section or provided that: A4 A (d) Storage areas that store containers holding the wastes listed below that do not contain free liquids must have a containment system defined by paragraph (b] of this section: (1) FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. and F027. (2) [Reserved! 14. In Subpart J of Part 264. amend S 264.194 by redesignating paragraph [c] as paragraph (c)(1). and adding a new paragraph (c)(2): (c) Storage areas that store containers 5 264.194 Inspections. holding only wastes that do not contain 2004 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. Januarv 14. / Rnlrs an*] Rf'juhilinns (cim * (1) The volume, physical, and 18. In 5 ubpart M of Part 21.4 at1 : (2) For FPA I iazardnus Wastes Nos chemical characteristics of the wusi*-:,. f.illu w in g se cto r. $ 2!rl FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. and including their potential to migrate F027. the contingency plan must also through soil or to volatilize or escape include the procedures for responding to into the atmosphere; 264.2B3 Special requirements for hazardous waste FO20, F021. F022. F022. F026, and F027. a spill or leak of these wastes from (2} The attenuative properties uf tanks into the containment system. underlying and surrounding soils or These procedures shall include other materials: measures for immediate removal of the (3) The mobilizing properties of other waste from the system and replacement materials co-disposed with these or repair of the leaking tank. wastes; and 15. In Subpart J of Part 264. add the following | 284.200: (4j The effectiveness of additional treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. S 264JOO Specie! requirements for hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027. (a) In addition to the other requirements of Subpart ]. the following requirements apply to tanks storing or treating hazardous wastes FO20, F021, F022, F023, F026. and F027. (b) The Regional Administrator may determine that additional design, operating, and monitoring requirements arc necessary for surface impoundments managing hazardous wastes FO20, FOZ1, F022, F023. F026. and F027 in order to reduce the possibility of migration of these wastes to ground (1) Tanks must have systems designedwater, surface water, or air so as to (a) liazardous Wastes F02Q. F021. F022. F023. FO20 and. F027 mis* nr-t he pl.'icpfi in a land-tmafripn ur*' ! * the owner or operator operates tnfacility in accordance with a management plan for these wastes th;=: is approved by the Regional Administrator pursuant to the standards set out in this paragraph, and ir. dcr.uid with all other applicable requirements of this Part. The factors to b1considered are: (1) The volume, physics! and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere: and operated to detect and adequately contain spills or leaks. The design and operation of any containment system must reflect consideration of all relevant factors, including: protect human health and the environment. 17. In Subpart L of Part 264, add the following section S264.259: (2) The attenuative properties o f ___ ,, underlying and surrounding soils or other materials: (3) The mobilizing properties of other materials co-disposed with these (i) Capacity of the tank; $ 264.259 Special requirements for wastes: and (ii) Volumes and characteristics of wastes stored or treated in the tank: hazardous waste F020, F021, F022, F023, (4) The effectiveness of additional F026, and F027. treatment, design, or monitoring (iii) Method of collection of spills or (a) Hazardous Wastes FO20, F021, techniques. leaks: F022. F023, FO20, and F027 must not (b) The Regional Administrator may (iv) The design and construction be placed in waste piles that are not determine that additional design, materials of the tank and containment enclosed [as defined in 2S4.250(c)} operating, and mor.it.-ring req-jremen'? system: and unless the owner or operator operates are necessary foi land treatmen: (v) The need to prevent precipitation and run-on from entering into the system. the waste pile in accordance with a management plan for these wastes that is approved by the Regional facilities managing hazardous wastes FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. and F027 in order to reduce the possibility (2} As part of the contingency plan required by Subpart D of Part 264. the Gwner or operator must specify such procedures for responding to a spill or leak from the tank into the containment system as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment. These procedures shall include measures for immediate removal of the waste from the system and replacement or repair of the leaking tank. 16. In Subpart K of Part 264. add the following section 264.231: Administrator pursuant to the standards set out in this paragraph, and in accord with all other applicable requirements of this Part. The factors to be considered are: (1) The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through Boil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere: (2) The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials; (3) The mobilizing properties of other of migration of these wastes to ground water, surface water or air s^ a? protect human health and the environment. 19. In Subpart N of Part 264 add the following section 264.317: 5 264.317 Special requirements tor hazardous wastes FO20, F021, F022. F023. F026, and F027. (a] Hazardous Wastes FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. and F027 must not be placed in a landfills unless the owner or operator operates the landfill in { 264.231 Special requirements for materials co-disposed with these accord with a management plan for hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, wastes; and these wastes that is approved by the F026, and F027. (4J The effectiveness of additional Regional Administrator pursuant to the (a) Hazardous Wastes FO20. F021. treatment, design, or monitoring standards set out in this paragraph, and F022. F023. F026. and F027 must not techniques. in accord with all other applicable be place(Tin a surface impoundment (b) The Regional Administrator may requirements of this Part. The factors to unless the'owner or operator operates determine that additional design, be considered are: ' the surface impoundment in accordance operating, and monitoring requirements [1) The volume, physical, and with a management plan for these are necessary for piles managing chemical characteristics of the wastes, wastes that is approved by the Regional hazardous wastes FO20, F021, F022, including their potential to migrate Administrator pursuant to the standards F023, F026. and. F027 in order to through the soil or to volatilize or escape set out in this paragraph, and in accord reduce the possibility of migration of into the atmosphere; with all other applicable requirements of these wastes to ground water, surface (2) The attenuative properties of this Part. The factors to be considered water, or air so as to protect human underlying and surrounding soils or are: health and the environment. other materials: - Federal Register / V ol 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1965 / Rules and Regulations 2005 [3] The mobilizing properties of other PART 265--INTERIM STANDARDS standards in Subpart O of Part 264 when materials co-disposed with these FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF they bum these wastes. wastes: and HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, (21 The Assistant Administrator for {4) The effectiveness of additional STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL Solid Waste and Emergency Response treatment. design, or monitoring FACILITIES will issue a tentative decision as to requirements. !><) The Regional Administrator maj ilrlermine that additional design, operating, and monitoring requirements necessary for landfills managing hazardous wastes FO20. F021. F022. f'O-X FOC6. and F'02? in order to reriurp the poss.Uility of migrolion o* these wastes to ground water, surface water, u: ;<ii so as to protect human health and 'hi- environment. 20 In Subpart O of Part 264. amend $ 2M.343 by revising paragraph (a I and redesignating paragraph [a] as puitigiaph (i,/{ll. and adding a new p;.'. graph faliZ} to reed as follows. ; 264.343 P e rfo rm a n c e standards. *E \U ['i provided ir: paragraph bill 2). un incinerator burning hazardous Wrtftp must achieve a di-strai inn and 21. The authority citation for Part 265 reads as follows: whether the incinerator can meet the performance standards in Subpart O of Part 264. Notification of this tentative Authority: Secs. 1006. 2002(a), 3004. and decision will be provided by newspaper 3(05 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. us amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as amended (42 U.S.C. wins. 6912!aI. 6924. and 69251. 22. S65.1 is amended by adding advertisement and radio broadcast in the jurisdiction where the intinelfetor is located. The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response will accept comment on the tentative paragraph (d) decision for 60 days. The Assistant $ 265.1 Purpose, scop*, and applicability. *# Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response also may hold a public hearing upon request or at his (d) The follow ing hazardous wastes discretion. must not be managed at facilities subject to regulation under this Part. (1) EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026, or F027 unless: (i) The wastewater treatment sludge is generated in a surface impoundment as (3) After the close of the public comment period the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response will issue a ___ decision whether or not to certify the incinerator. ,, part of the plant's wastewater treatment 24. In Subpfart P of Part 265. add the system: following $ 265.383: rer-.-iq! cfficienrv OFF.; nf pr-pp . For each principal organic heza"doas o ',st;tuenf {PO! 1C' des-gnated (under $ in its pern.it for each waste lee(1. DRE is determined for each POHC* >, --. fola-wi-ig eqa,!!* ilKii ^ ;nr- "i. U ,r - iced rail, of one p-iat -pul u'giiMt : rii.iui .'f-nMitu*-- ' :K `i ir* "the A.-:** iftreuc: Ft fti.r.i; - t-d tV.,,rt r mass emission rate of the same POHC : " In exhaust err.-s`-:,Ps p*iur to I. U tht .isru-s; hi rr 2] An incinerator burning hazardous i.-,(.s FO20. F021. F022 F02X F02G. FCJ27 must achieve a urstnichun and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999^ for e.u.h pt.ncinal organic hazardous u-'isiiiuert (I'OriCl destur.a'i c under 264.142) in its permit. This ; >'lurruance must be dvnn [.-.( ,.!*. or, KIIICs that are more d.fMcult to nerjite than tf'h-i:-, rr--t.i- .md *tr vat hlorotidipnrw-c-.uM ns and d.iirrizi/tu ans Df\Fl is rlrtcm ined Fin e-.:h i'OHC finfi* ihe i i..u.:iun in (ii) The waste is stored in tanks or containers: (iii) The waste is stored or treated in waste piles that meet the requirements of { 264250(c) as well as all other applicable requirements of Subpart L nf this Part fiv) The waste is burned in incinerators that are certified pursuant to the standards and procedures in ? 265.352: or (v) The waste Is burned in facilities that thermally treat the waste in a devize other than an incinerator and that are certified pursuant to the standards and procedures in 265-3B3 23. In Subpart O of P.;rt 265. add the following S 265.352: 285.352 Interim Statu* Incinerator* Burning Particular Hazardous Wastes. (a) Owners or operators of incinerators subject to this Subpart may bum EPA Hazardous Wastes FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. or F027 if they receive a certification from the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response th;.t they can meet the performance s tantiaras of Subpart O of Part 264 when they bum then* wastes. (b) The Follow,:,g standards ami procedures wil! lie used in determining whether to certify* an incinerator (1) The owner or operator will submit 265.383 Interim Status Thermal Treatment Devices Burning Particular Hazardous Waste. (a) Owners or operators of thermal treatment devices subject to this Subpart may bum EPA Hazardous Wastes FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. orF027 if they receive a certification from the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that they can meet the performance standards of Subpart O of Part 264 when they bum these wastes. (b) The following standui-ds and procedures will be used in determining whether to certdv a :hermftl treatment unit; (1) The owner or operator will submit an application to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response containing the applicable information in 270.19 and 270.62 demonstrating that the thermal treatment unit can meet the performance standard in Subpart O of Part 264 when they burn these wastes. i2| The Assistant Administrator for Solid Uaste and Eme-gencv Response will issue a tentative decision as to whether the thermal treatment unit can meet the performance standards in Subpart O of Part 264. Notification of thij. tentative decision wiil De provided by newspaper advertisement and radio 2W.::43(ii)Il). In add*non. he owner i.r in application to the Assistant broadcast in the jurisdiction where the : curator ol the inc:ni-riflor ifmst notify Adm'n israter ror Solid Waste and thermal treatment device is located. The (he Regional Administrator of his intent Emergency Response containing Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste tu incinerate hazardous wastes FO20. FO'rt KCJ22. F02X F02fi. or F02? applicable information in 270.19 and and Emergency Response will accept 270.62 demonstrating that the comment on the tentative decision for 60 hi* ir.prnlor ran meet the firrfurniiinre il.iis Th** Assistant Administrator for 2006 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. Jinu.irv 14. 19H / R:iU;s and R *ir :.!-i ?i<:: Solid Waste and Emergency Response (j) A waste management plan Tnr EPA him ;t land treatment faul:,y is nr v.;M also may hold a public hearing upon Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20, F021, be designed, constructed, operand, ond request or at his discretion. F022. F023. F026. and F027 describing maintained lo meet the requiremenls of (3) After the close of the public how the surface impoundment is or will 264.283. This submission must add;>-s> t comment period, the Assistant : be designed, constructed, operated, and the following items as specified in Administrator for Solid Waste and maintained to meet the requirements or ~ 8 264.283' ; Emergency Response will issue e S 264.231. This submission must address (1) The volume, physical, and decision whether or not to certify the the following items as specified in chemical characteristics of the wastes, thermal treatment unit. 264.231: including Iheii potential to itr<> PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM (1) The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; 25. The authority citation for Part 270 reads as follows: (2) The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials; _ Authority: Secs. 1006. 2002(a). 3005, 3007. nd 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as amended (42 U.S.C. 6005. 0912(a), 6925. 6927. and 6974]. (3) The mobilizing properties.pf other materials co-disposed with these- wastes: and *'-> \ (4) The effectiveness of additional* 26. In Subpart B of Part 270, paragraph (b)(7) of $ 270.14 is revised to read as follows: treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. . *?>' 29. In Subpart B of Parr 2701 9 270.18 is - amended by adding-paragraph (j); *-*/ 9 270.14 Contents of Part B: General requirements. *a 9 270.10 Specific Part BIn-formation 1/ requirementa for waate piles. **V vV ' (7) A copy of the contingency plan required by Part 264. Subpart D. Note: Include, where applicable, as part of the contingency plan, specific requirements in 9S 264.227. 264.255, and 264.200. a 27. In Subpart B of Part 270, $270.16 is amended by adding paragraph (g): (j) A waste managemenCpian for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020. F021. F022. F023, F026. and F027 describing how a waste pile that is not enclosed (as defined in S 264.250(c)] is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of 5 264.259. This submission must address the following items as specified in 9270.16 Specific Part B information requirements for tanks. a a S 264.259: ' (1) The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes to (g) Where applicable, a description of the containment and detection systems to demonstrate compliance with 9 264.200(a) must include at least the following; (1) Drawings and a description of the basic design parameters, dimensions, and materials of construction of the containment system. be disposed in the waste pile, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; (2) The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials: (3) The mobilizing properties of other materials co-disposed with these Jhrough soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere: (2) The allentuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials; (3) The mobilizing properties of other materials co-disposed with these wastes; and (4) The effectiveness of additional treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. 31. In Subpart B of Part 270. 270.2* ' amended by adding paragraph (j): 270.21 Specific Part B Information__ requirements lor lan d fills. % * ()] A waste management plan for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20. F021. F022. F023. F026. and F027 describing how a landfill is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of 264.317. This submission must address the following items as specified in 2B4.317: (1) The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; (2) The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials; (3) The mobilizing properties of o'h-r materials co-disposed with these wastes: and (4) The effectiveness of addi'iona! treatment. d>-ign. or monitoring techniques. (2) Capacity of the containment wastes: and system relative to the design capacity of (4) The effectiveness of additional the tankfs) within the system. treatment, design, or monitoring PART 775--STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL (REMOVED] (3) Description of the system to detect leaks and spills, and how precipitation and run-on will be prevented from entering into the detection system. 28. In Subpart B of Part 270. 270.17 is amended by adding paragraph (j): techniques. 30. In Subpart B of Part 270. 270.20 is amended by adding paragraph (i): 270.20 Specific Part B Information requirements for land treatment facilities. ft * 32. The authority citation for l'.**: 7" reads as follows: - Authority: Sec 6 of the To\k Subs' ir'-*'* Control At.1('1SCA) Pub. L. 94--l;i9. S' v 2020 (15 U.S.C. 2605). 1 270.17 S p e c ific P art B Inform ation (i) A waste management plan for EPA 33. Part 775 is removed. requ irem ents fo r su rfa cs im poundm ent. * s Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20. F021. (PR Doc. 85-604 Piled 1-11-85: 8 45 ar-j F022. F023, F026, and F027 describing BILLING COOC KO-SO-M s a ld ila