Document Lg5xjZE6Q5GnBy3Q1EOZ1kzZb

Monday April 4, 1983 V e.F S ii- euiSy 7 7 -S" / U . O s * ti, Part III Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Rule SU B JE C T T 9 m O T C T [' O R D ^R. ip . Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4. 1968 / fto p o ad Bidro |j The production and manufacturing use1of tri-, tetra-, or pentachlarophenol and intermediate used to produce (heir derivative* ;* 9 (b) The manufacturfatij^rfif. tetra-, pente-, or hexachloiobenxSDea tinder alkaline condition*; .j p ? (c) the production of matedall on equipment previously used for the. production or manufacturing use of materials listed under (a) and (b) above; and (d) discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenols, or discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these chlorophenols." in the context of thta lilting, "manufacturing dm" meant the use of the named chemical aj a resettn l or Intermediate (for tnataoce. ai In the uk of 2.4,*tridiloropfcx>J (ZAtS.-TCP] a* i feedstock for the eycth--ii of 2A5.-T). or aa component is a formulating prooraa [aa. for tasteno*. in the formulatiac ofs mixture of 2.43,-, TCP and 1JAB.-TeCP. In which these component! retain their '*-- idsatitjr). hi the preaent context, the tcnn "mxnxfactatng uaaT doe* not Inrluda redduss from the ase of chlorophaooxy pesticide formulatiocx, o f . In rood pweenration.' The principal manufacturing uss of chlorophenols la tn the tynthesis of d dorophenaxy adds. eaten, and amlnea. They are also toed in the synthesis of pheoolic reeina, and of dye end pigment intermediates. However, only wastes fron chlorophuusty synthesis a n listed aa hazardous wastes, because the Agency baa no data on the coodltiooa of synthesis, generation of wastes. and the level of chlorinated dibenxo^p-dioxin or - dibenxofuran "S w im tiM ofwastes from the synthesis of phenolic resins, dyes, and pigments. The Agency solicits data oo the extent of CDD/CDF contamination of the Uttar waataa. W t also a n presently Initiating sampling of aoma of these wastes in lbs course of our ongoing Industry Studies program. *Ths 2.4.4.-TCP derivstiva Htxachlorophace Is now synthesised from a purified 2AA-7 CP in an ucid-catalyzed condensation reaction. Because the reaction occurs at rather low temperatures, and at add pH. no CUDor CDF formation is expected to occur. Earlier production technique* resulted In TGDD contamination. Waataa resulting from Hexachluropheoa production therefore are not___ included in this listing unless prepurified 2.4J , TCP was not used, or the process took place on equipment contaminated with CDDs or CDFs. This category of listed wastes includes discarded pesticides and formulations containing tri-. letra-, or pentachlaropheaol'BS ingredients. Soma of these materials, namely EPA Hazardous Wastes UZ12, 230. 231. 24X aoidtto ddoropheneny pesticides 1)232and 1J23J already are wastes under 40 CFX2SL33(Q when discarded in conunerda] grids, technical grade, or off- tpedficalion form, or whan present as the sola active Ingrediscti in a formulaboo. However, discarded formulaIIons tbaaa chtorophenols or chlarophanoxy compounds as ana of a number of Ingredients (for example, in a mixture of 2.4AT and 2,4,-D) are not presently considered to be hazardous waataa (unless tiwy exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste). The tmJli-iryredj^it formulations nevertheless are likely to be fust as toxic as sole active Ingredient mixtures, since the concentration of toxic Ingredients is the earns or higher. Today's action thus would remedy this gap In regulatory coverage by listing the multi ingredient formulations mntaining the discarded HL Basis far Listing dwsonstntsd that tbea i A. Toxicity o f contaminant* o f concertt defined strertw*/activity < defining ths acnlt and chrooie I___ 1. Toxicity o f chlorinated dioxin and effects of PCDDs end PCHF*. Throe -dibenzofurant. The contaminants of isomers that have halogens la at least concern in these wastes are CDDs and three of the four lateral ring CDFS. tri-, tetro-, and (numbers 2A7, or 8). and that have at pentachlorophenols, and tint least one ring hydrogen atom, a n the chlorophanoxy derivatives of these most toxic Isomers. All the CDDs and chtorophenols. CDDs and CDFs ore, for CDFs substituted in this "nnw have certain anim al species, among the most extremely high acute toxidtv. binJ potent toxic substances known. BTCDD strongly to e cytosolic protein receptor, and two HxCDD Isomen are among the antfare potraUnduaxa.af several liver most potent animal carcinogens tested. enzymesTlfisAgency recognizes that Since each of these substances are even within such congeneric groupings, carcinogenic in well-conducted tests in th e n ins differences in toxicity. There both rats and mice, they are also Is, for instance, a 370-fold difference in considered by the Agency ttTEe acute toxidty between the 1,2,3.7,8- and potential human carcinogens (see 44 FR the 1,2,4JrS-PeCDD Isomers; however; 39858^39878 f lu lr g l PTSlfrln laboratory even the lose toxic isomer has extremely studies, TCDD has also been shown to high acute toxicity [oral LDh tn the be teratogenic, fetotoxic, and guinea pig--1.1 mg/kg). embryotaxlc at extremely low doses 1 Only limited toxidty information is (ng/kg/day). Based on structure-activity available on certain of the CDD and relationships, TCDF also may have CDF isomers. However, many era reproductive effects at extremely low structurally similar to other CDD and doses. Many CDDs and CDFs are acuta CDF Isomers that are potent toxicants. toxicants os tasted In laboratory The Agency may permissibly infer that animals at the pg/kg/day dose rate, certain wrote constituents are toxic, and, even at these very low based upon structural similarity to concentrations, have many observable known toxicants. See EDF r. EPA. 896 F. physiologic affects. Although an EPA 2d 62,7*43 (D.C O r. 1978) (prohibition Scientific Advisory P*" H^wrminwri i of discharge to navigable water* of less ng/kgT>o3ywekht tn be Mfor all chlorinated PCBs Is permissible in ths practical purposes'* a no observed effect absence of specific toxicologic data due level In rodents (44 FR 72337'fDecomber to their structural similarity to the more 13, lflTB)), several other scientists have chlorinated PCBs], concluded that a NOEL has not been Consequently, because most of the conclusively demonstrated. Moreover, Isomers of the listed CDDs and CDFs the Scientific Advisory Panel concluded are toxic, albeit to different degrees, that a NOEL had not been demonstrated because identification of individual for primates. Inaddition!theU.S.Food Isomers in the waste would be an and Drug Administration has excessive regulatory burden, and established a guideline suggesting became the Agency believes that these limitation of human consumption of fish wastes would contain a certain containing TCDD concentrations greater percentage of die mare toxic component, th an 25-50 na/ka fpptl. Furthermore, in the Agency has determined that it is a several enforcement actions and in two conservative public health assumption site-specific risk assessment* conducted that all the isomers of TCDD should be by the Agency regarding Times Beach considered in MtimaHny tteTtavfrihr. We and Imperial in Missouri, environmental have therefore determined that all the concentrations in the ppt to ppbrange CDDs and CDFs Identified or proposed were determined ,to be levels oi concem. to be identified in Appendix v m should and were used to define clean-up levels. be considered as toxicants of concern in - The Agency emphasizes that, for these wastes. This decision Is analogous purposes of this regulation. It considers to the finding adopted by the Agency in all CDDs and CDFs as toxicants of the case of municipal waste resource concern in these wastes. Many recovery facilities.1* biochemical and toxicology studies have 2. Toxicity o f chiorophenola and their chlorophanoxy derivatives. The other i-n m p a n n Am fn w arm m tid ln f th* toxicants of concern in these wastes b ula for listing tbsea ooauurdxl chemical products also have serious adverse effects. EPA's to include osrixtodticrinxteddlpvin wd. dlbqjtsofonris SJtnxicxnts of conrwmT ' -, Carcinogen Assessment Group has . *Ths statement* aa toxidty. persistence. nod n i l wwwwi(1 fwitiHiiinriiiii outlined in mSa* Interim valustioo of tbs hu ltb risks presmhls s n more fu&y npU lnsd and associated with crissions oftetrachlorinated substantiated la tbs background docmmil fur this dioxins from municipal roste reseuros recovery fisting which Is available for revlsw la tbs publie facilities. U E EPA. Ofika of ths Administrate. docks! November IA 1SS1. S T to : / n / j Z S - o k k j- ' /3 z3 h jJ L c -h tm A - ........ (<-* f e w Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 85 / Monday. April 4, 1083 / Proposed Role* 14817 water, and their strong binding to organic soil constituents, CDDs and CDFs are not ordinarily expected to leach to ground w ater if propO^i' precautions are taken. H ow ever,.if the wastes are co-disposed with'solubilizing solvents, or disposed in situations w here * soil binding site are exhausted, ground water contamination could result. Although chlorophenols and chlorophenoxy com pounds are subject to environmental degradation, including biodegradation by adapted communities, environm ental pollution from these constituents has occurred where w astes from the production and nuinfuactunng use of chlorophenols ,wwa mismanaged. More than tw enty* fiVyfianJafier the.im proper disposal of ctforophenolic w astes at Love Canal, tri-, tetra-, and penlachlorophenola w ere Montifed in soil, w ater, and storm ew er sediments at concentrations ranging from 14 ppb (PCP in sump water) to 496 ppm (TCPs in storm sew er sediment). A further risk to human health may be posed by improper i^d n em tio n of these wastes, improper incineration of chlorophenols are prediced to form CDDs and CDFs a s products of incomplete com bustion,1*posing a farther risk of substantial harm. Indeed, as discussed later in this preamble, the Agency is studying w hether different criteria or m anagem ent standards [e.g.. higher destruction and rem oval efficiency for the Incinration of these wastes) are appropriate and practical. D. Listing as acutely hazardous wastes. It is clear from this discussion that , these wngtpn hn^f p^*anttnl tnm unB substjntiaLharm. if mismanaged. Th Agency is further convinced that these are acutely hazardous w astes under 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2), since they contain contaminants which, w hen tested in animals, are among the most toxic contaminants known, and thus are capable of causing, or significantly contributing to serious irreversible, or Incapacitating reversible, illness .u This standard is taken directly from Section 1004(5) of RCRA. and is reserved for wastes particularly likely to pass a substantial risk to human health and the u Shaub. W. M. xnd W .Tszag, R iy siu t and chemical properties of dioxiM in relation to their diapoMl. Proceeding 2nd. loiematioomi Symposium on Dioxins, Arlington. VA. October 1061. " By means of i lie-spedfie exclusion petition, generator may be able to show that a waste does not contain CDDs and/or CDFs at levels sufficient to sustain regulatory concern as acutely hazardous waste. Such levels, however, as well as the presence of chlorophenols or chlorophenoxy compounds, may still render such wastes hazardous. environment (see preamble to Part 261, Ingredient compound derived from 45 FR 33106, May 1& 1960). these chlorophenol. Some of these Additional reasons for listing these materiel already ere hazardous waste wastes as acutely hazardous are that the wastes hay^ bean |r^ptirtpH in a under 40 CFR 281.33(f) when discarded or intended for discard in commercial series 6f~damage Incidents, among them grade, technical grade, or off- the inadents of LoveTSmal and Times specification form, or when the toxicant Beach, The Agency also has been fa present In formulations as the sole compelled to exert regulatory control active ingredient. They were originally over many of these wastes under the listed aa toxic (rathor than acutely Toxic Substances Control Act in the hazardous) because the Agency did not face of the unreasonable risk posed by t that time consider the presence of ongoing and contemplated waste CDDs and CDFs. However, as shown management practices (see further above,, these formulations will contain discussion in Part VL below). chlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurani, The practical consequences of such a because the chloraphenol or . listing are two-fold. First, these wastes chlorophenoxy derivatives will will be subject to the 1 kg/mqnlb mall themselves be contaminated with CDDs quantity generatqr limitation contained and CDFa. For this reason, we are now in 40 CFR 201.5(e)." listing them as actutely hazardous under The Agency deems 1 kg to be 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). equivalent for all practical purposes, to total control of the management of these wastes since they are generated in amounts far greater than 1 kg. The Agfency solicits comments on.the appropriateness of this limitation, however. Second, the residues in empty containers that contain these listed wastes are subject to control under Subtitle C of RCRA, unless the container has been triple-rinsed using a solvent capable of cleaning the container, or the To avoid listingthe same waste under two different (and inconsistent) provisions, we ere proposing to remove EPA Hazardous .Wastes 1)212, U238, U231, U232, U233, and U242 from 40 CFR 261.33(f). As a consequence, there should be no confusion that these wastes will be subject to a small quantity generator exclusion of 1 kg/mo. V. Regulatory Status of lh a se Materials When Recycled by Being Used or container has been otherwise cleaned Reused. by a method that has bean shown to On May IB, I860, EPA promulgated a achieve equivalent removal In addition, definition of solid waste which, among as explained more fully below, we are . other things, states which materials are proposing that these wastes be managed solid wastes when recycled. In only at treatment, storage, and disposal promulgating this rule, EPA established facilitiei^that haVe~bgeinully permitted broad jurisdiction over recycled under*RCRAfexcept as dismissed in materials and recycling operations. EPA Section VII.). In the Agency's judgment, la today proposing In a separata notice these wastes should be managed to revise this rule to state that certain pursuant to the most stringent types of activities involving secondary appropriate standards that are material use and reuse do not constitute contained in the RCRA hazardous waste solid waste management; in particular, management regulations. the proposal states that secondary; IV. Removal of Certain Commercial materials recycled by bcins used or Chemical Products Listed in 40 CFR reused as ingredients in new products, 281.33(f) As discussed in the previous section, the Agency is proposing to list as acutely hazardous those unuspd discardedTortritilaUdhs containingjri-. tetra-Tor pentaj;nlrympnenolfliin diBcardea formulations containing as or by being used or reused directly aa products, ordinarily are .not solid wastes. The proposal provides that materials so used or reused may be listed individually in | 281.2(b)(3) aa solid wastes if they meet two * conditions: (1) They are ordinarily disposed of [on a nationwide basisl, or " The Agency la proposing today to amond this provision to apply to aQ acotaly hazardous w astes, not Just to tba acutely baxardous wastes listed In 40 CFR 2SlJ9(oj. At the Urns 1 281.3 was written, dial were no acutely baxardous wastes other than thoas In | 281.33(e). Now that w s a n proposing to list wastes In | 281.31 as acotaly hazardous, wv a rt proposing to conform the nsfenmoa to acutely hazardous waste in 1 281J . For ths sam e reason, we are proposing to make ths sama type of conforming change to | 281.7(b)--the provision stating when containers that have held acotaly hazardous wastes are "empty." c o h ta ffiT m a ^ S n S ti^ S S j^ ^ ^ iS jE 101 ordinarily foundin raw rualeriaU or proudets usedfarthe sam*purpose which cofistihmnt!Lara.not used,during the recydltig process; and(2) the materials could pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment when so used or reused. Both these conditions are met here. These wastes are typically disposed of or incinerated, rather than recycled. S. . ' Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules 14519 permitted under Section 3005(c) of prohibits Interim status facilities from RCRA. However, when this rule managing these wastes. becomes effective, it will be Illegal to We have proposed three exceptions to dispose of these w attes r ilj^ litie i that this prohibition. The first applies to have not been fuUy p e n ^ p surface impoundments In which Therefore, we believe thiuTSCA 60-day wastewater treatment sludges are notification requirement iallhneceesary; generated. The Agency has the authority in addition, notification under Section In pmhihll interim status surface 3010(b) will still be required and thus, Impoundments nom receiving these the Agency will still be Informed of who wastes. If we propose this action, is handling these types of wastes. howeveiVthe facilities now generating We also believe that It will be less confusing for the regulated community, and more cost effective, both with respect to compliance and regulatory enforcement, for waste disposal to be regulated under RCRA alone, rather than under both statutes. Moreover, the technical expertise needed to issue * permits for these wastes is chiefly within the Agency's office administering RCRA. We consequently believe that the public Interest warrants rescission of the TSCA pile once this RCRA regulation becomes effective. the listed wastewater treatment sludges would probably hive to dose down until they obtain permits for their impoundments, or build alternative treatment facilities that can efficiently treat these wastes. The Agency Is not proposing this course of action, and notes that Section 3004 of RCRA (as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 190O)~spedfically allows the Administrator, in setting standards for hazardous waste management facilities, to distinguish between new and exiiting facilities. The legislative history Indicates that VU. Proposed Management of These. Congress was concerned with th costs Wastes of modifying existing wastewater A. Management at RCRA Interim Status Facilities treatment impoundments installed to meet Clean Water Act requirements [although the Agency has the authority As noted, the TSCA rule presently to require such modification where does not allow these wastes to be appropriate). See S. Rep. No. 90-172, disposed or treated at interim status 96th Cong. 1st SeM at 3. We are . facilities without prior approval, because management of such waste at drawing this distinction in today's proposal. unsemtinized Interim status facilities Allowing these wastewater treatment ordinarily presents an unreasonable risk sludges at interim status surface (45 FR 32502). To avoid a decrease in Impoundments in which they are regulatory coverage, end In light of the generafedlKod^be environmentally waste contaminants* tmttrfty. acceptablrfofthe period until a permit persistence, and potential to is Issued. These sludges are expected to bioaccumulate, we are proposing to contain lower concentrations of CDDs, amemTthe RCRA regulations, except as CDFs, and chlorbphenols than the other noted below, for landfills, waste piles, waste we are listing. The CDDs and surface impoundments, land treatment CDFs present also will be adsorbed to facilities, and incinerators, to require the organic matter present: in addition, that these wastes be managed only at we believe that there should be little fully permitted facilities. The reasons for chance that solubilizing solvantsTiuch the unreasonable risk finding still hold. as benzene, toluene, xylene, or Interim status incinerators need not halogenated benzenes, will be present In perform at 99.99% destruction and significant concentrations (since these removal efficiencies, orm eet the other solvents have very limited water performance standardk'C&itained in solubility). This situation threfore Subpart O of Part 204. interim status - should not present a significant-risk of land fills, waste piles, surface leaching, KisK of wlnfl dispersal, one of impoundments, and land treatment thtrprincipal exposure pathways for facilities need not meet the monitoring CDD and CDF-containlng wastes which requirements in Subpart F or many of are stored In open piles or disposed In the design and operating standards of landfills, Is not present for these Subparts K, L. M, and N of Part 264 until wastewater treatment sludges when they are permitted. In addition, we they are in an Impoundment . believe that any facility that manages We are not proposing to allow other these wastes should be evaluated interim status surface Impoundments to individually by EPA before accepting manage these sludges, however, because them in order to ensure that the facility other impoundments could contain is designed and operated properly. The CDD- or CDF-solubillzlng residues from proposed regulation consequently processes not related to chlorophenol or chlorophenoxy manufacture. In addition, manufacturing operations will not be curtailed If these Impoundments have to obtain permits before receiving these wastes. For all of these reasons, therefore, we are proposing to allow the listed wastewater treatment sludges to be managed at the Interim status surface Impoundments In which they are generated. However, we expect, as e first priority, to evaluate the Part B permit applications of those Interim status surface Impoundments that manage these wastes. In order to minimize any poteqfiarHgir. In addition, If monitoring data, or a review of site management make it apparent that the H prevented from ^ mlgrating-the owner or operator of the faciH will-be required to remove the waste from the surface impoundment. The second exception is for interim status tank and container facilities, which will be allowed to accept these wastes. These facilities, although not providing maximum protection, do provide control of these wastes to prevent them from posing a substantial environmental hazard or an unreasonable risk since tanks o r.: containers at interim status facilities must meet most of the requirements (eg., storage in non-leaking units, periodic inspections) required for fully permitted tank and container faculties. Therefore, these facilities should provide adequate management of these wastes in the short term. However, we do expect to give highest priority to examining the Part B permit applications of those interim status tank and container itorage facilities that store these wastes, in order to minimize any potential risk. The final exception is for enclosed waste pils. An "enclosed waste pile" is defined in this proposed rule as a pile that meets the requirements of 1264.250(c)--namely, that the pile is inside a structure that provides" protectionfrom run-on, precipitation, and wind dispersal; does not generate - leachate, and does not contain Tree liquldfc Under existing regulations, waste piles meeting these requirements are exempt from the otherwise- ap p llc a le p i ^ g provisions of Subpart L ofP art 264 relating to containment (Seq 46 FR 55112, November 6,1981.) We are proposing (hat enclosed waste piles be allowed to accept these wastes withoutfirst obtaining a permit because enclosure of this type will guard in the short-term against the means of exposure of concern--run-off, wind dispersal, and leaching. In addition,  ft Federal Register / Vol. 46 No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1963 / Proposed Rule 14521 approval from the Regional Administrator. It was felt that the Agency could provide Interim statu* facilities the same opportunities to handle these wastes as alnK^rovlded to fully permitted fa d lltle s ^ h e Agency can be assured that suct^linagem enl can be accomplished safely. The vehicle to be used to assure Individualized consideration of prospective waste management would be a waste management plan that would address the factors outlined In the previous section as well es other design and operating conditions contained in the Part 264 regulations, as deemed appropriate by the Regional or State officials. The procedures we considered for approving a waste management plan would be the same as, or similar to, those for approving a closure plan. They would allow for public participation on the plan submitted by the facility, and on a tentative decision (and a rationale therefor) of the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator could bold a publichearing if he believed it would aid In elucidating, the Issues. However, the Agency believes that most interim status facilities probably could not adequately manage these wastes without significant changes. In addition, the amount and detail of information to be provided in the management plan could be almost equivalent to the information needed to obtain a permit For example, as part of the waste management plan for incineration, the owner or operator of the incinerator would need to conduct a trial bum to ensure that destruction and removal efficiencies could be met. EPA thinks it is unlikely that interim status facilities would go to the expense of preparing and receiving approval on a plan, only to have to go through a later permit proceeding when their Part B application is processed. However, the Agency solicits comments on the desirability of allowing disposal and treatment of these wastes at interim status facilities having an approved management plan for these wastes. 2. Additional Standards for Container and Tank Storage Facilities. The Agency believes that container storage facilities storing these wastes should meet the most stringent requirements under Part 264. Present regulations (Subpart I) do hot require secondary containment for non-liquid wastes [e.g, tarry materials) i f the storage area slopes, or the container Is elevated. However, the Agency believes that secondary containment might appropriately be required for container storage areas that store all non-liquid CDD and CDF-contamlnated wastes, management standards for CDD/CDF- due to the toxicity of these wastes, their contaminated wastes. For some wastes, potential to ooze end to spill, end the high temperature incineration might be long time periods these wastes may be the preferred method of treatment, stored before a disposal or Incinerator whereas for other wastes land disposal treatment facility can be found that li might be a better alternative. For the willing to accept these wastes. (For latter, disposal at sites having particular example, the wastes at the Vertac site hydrogeological and topographic or have been stored for many years, surface water characteristics might be despite the repeated attempts by the needed. The Agency Is presently company to find a disposal site.) This reviewing these problems, and may, for requirement may ba necessary to ensure example, propose incineration standards that any spillage or release of these wastes is contained end not released into the environment The Vertac damage incident, where improper storage of these wastes was responsible for considerable harm, serves as an example of these wastes' potential for harm if stored improperly. The Agency therefore Is considering provision that would require secondary containment at container storage facilities that store' non-liquid CDD- and CDF-contaminated wastes. The Agency Is also considering a provision that would require secondary containment at tank storage facilities that store CDD- and CDF-contaminated wastes, due to the wastes* toxicity and the long periods of time they might be that could require levels of destruction nnd removal efficiency (ORE'S) for these wastes that are greater than the 99.99% DRE presently required under RCRA. For some wastes, land disposal controls ensuring the prevention of dust formation could be imposed, and for some wastes the Agency could prescribe the application of special technologies, such s i photodechlorination, or molten salt or critical water oxidation, which are known to cause the destruction of chlorinated aromatics such as CDDs. The Agency solicits comment with respect to the regulatory alternatives discussed above, as well as any other approaches which might realistically be considered. J stored. The damage incident at Neosho, Missouri, when a concrete tank holding chlorophenol production still bottoms (a waste covered by this proposal) and VHLAnalytical Method for Teton-, Fenta-, and Hexachloro-Dibenzo-p* Dioxins and -Difaenzofurahs r -\ - , wastewater cracked, and caused ' In order to assist generators in the Considerable contamination, illustrates determination of the contamination of the potential for harm that secondary wastes with the above compounds, [eg* containment could address. The Agency for delisting purposes under 11280.20 solicits comment on the suitability of and 26022 of the RCRA regulations), the these two provisions. Agency liproposing a method of 3. Optional Standards Consideredfor analysis for.tetra-, penta-, and Permitted Incinerators. Under current hexachlorodibenzo^7-dioxins and regulations, a facility which has shown that It can achieve 99.99% DRE for POHCs which are more resistant to thermal degradation than are CDDs or CDFs (such as carbon tetrachloride or pentachlorophenol), may be permitted to incinderate CDD or CDF-containing wastes without conducting an additional trial bum or modifying Its permit (40 CFR 264.342 and 264.343). Because of their hazardousness, the Agency is considering proposing that a facility burning these wastes notify the Regional Administrator of that fact We are considering this requirement because It Is felt that Regional authorities might wish to prioritize compliance monitoring for facilities Incinerating these wastes. -dibenzofurans (see Appendix A). The method proposed in this regulation was largely developed by the workers at Wright State University, end has been used for the analysis of TCDDs in a variety of wastes.?* If adopted, this method will replace the method for analysis of TCDD presently listed In the solid waste test manual ("Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/ Chemical Methods", EPA publication number SW-848). The present method is inappropriate because it is not sufficiently sensitive, and does not sufficiently eliminate Interfering substances. It also does not specify the procedure to be followed for the The Agency solicits comments on the desirability of requiring notification to the Regional Administrator on the part of a facility that Is burning CDD or CDF " " Am lyUcd protocol for detennlnatlon of TCDDs ln phaooUc d ira ic a l astea and sol tunplea obtained b o a th* proxlmlty of Chemical dumps". and "Analytica! protocol for delstm inalloa wastes. . 4. Development o f Special Management Standards. The Agency is considering the development of special of ch!orinated dibtoxo-p-dioxins and chlorineted dlbenxofurans la liv tr water'*, Brehjn Labontory, Wrighl State Unlverslty, Dayton. OH 4MU, Januaiy T. 1061 Tbesa protocola u s avaUable in tb* Dockat for thls Ustlof. Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. B5 / Monday. April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rule 14523 EPA Hazardous Waite Not. F023. Although the F1FRA regulations (40 CFR 162) do require that active Ingredients be identified by their chemical name or by a usual common name, end an EPA publication ("Acceptedtommon names and chemical names fdclhe Ingredient statement on pesticide lfibeU", EPA 540/ 9-7-017) Is available to aid in their chemical identification, these aids may not convey sufficient Information to the unsophisticated user. Non-pestlcide. products may also be hard to Identify. Therefore, the Agency Is considering various mechanisms to solve this potential problem (/.e,, labeling requirements for manufacturers, publishing a list of all products which contain these compounds, etc.). The Agency solicits comment on this potential problem. 5. Wastes which m ay contain CDDs and CDFs but which are not covered by the present regulation. The Agency has some data Indicating that wastes, other than those covered by this proposal, may contain CDDs and CDFs. This may be the case, for instance for residuals such as fly ash from low temperature combustion of certain industrial wastes (especially of wastes containing chlorophenols, or chlorobenzenes}; residuals from dichlorophenol manufacture; and sludges from wood preserving using pentachlorophenols. In the case of the first two wastes, although the Agency, on the grounds of knowledge of reaction chemistry and process technology, believes this may be the case, it lacks sufficient data to support this supposition. For this reason, studies are being conducted in order to gather more data. These wastes may be listed at a future date if further evidence demonstrates that they Indeed are hazardous. With regard to waste from wood preserving, we are presently investigating whether additional wastes from this process should be listed as hazardous, and whether CDDs and CDFs should be constituents of concern in the process wastes already listed (EPA Hazardous Waste K001, Wastewater treatment sludges). Pending completion of those studies we may take further regulatory action. X. Economic, Environmental, and Regulatory Impacts A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must determine whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. The effect of the present amendment is judged not to be major, since it in part replaces regulation under a different statute (Section 1(d) of the impact on a substantial number of small Toxic Substances Control Act], and entities. Imposes in additional regulatory burden Only one of the hazardous wastes only on three manufacturers of chlorophenols, and five manufacturers of chlorophenols and their chlorophonoxy derivatives. In addition, some number of manufacturers who use equipment that may be contaminated with CDDs or CDFs may also have additional regulatory burden. However, we presume that this part of the regulation is unlikely to affect many additional manufacturers other than the eight referred to above. In addition, this regulation imposes s regulatory burden on persons or entities discarding some unused formulations containing tri*, tetra-, or pentacUaraphenol or unused formulations containing compounds derived from these phenols. The disposal of many of these formulations, however, la already regulated under 1 261.33 of RCRA. Additionally, because of their Inherent value, we do not believe that the regnlated community m il usually discard substantial quantities of these materials, further proposed to be listed in 1 261.31 is expected to be generated by small entities. The Agency anticipates that pesticide serial applicators will constituts the main segment of small business entities affected by this regulation.* However, these persona are probabfy alraady regulated under RCRA since a large number of pesticides (both acutsly hazardous and toxic) are currently covered by existing regulations. Therefore, we would not expect any aerial applicato to be newly regulated as s result of this rule. In addition, the Agency does not believe that small entities will dispose of significant quantities of the commercial chemical products proposed for regolatine. Thus, today's amendmciti la unlikely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, This regulation therefore does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. minimizing any impact C PaperReduction A ct o f 1880 In addition, wo believa that there will be ho adverse impact on tire ability of U.S.-bated enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. Therefore, since the Agency does not expect that the proposed action will result in either an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse Impact on U.S. based enterprises, this proposed regulation Is not considered to be a The reporting or recordkeeping (information) provisions fat this rale will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management ami Budget (OMB) .under Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, U.S.C. 3501 et seg. Any final rule will explain bow Ita reporting or recordkeeping provisions respond to any OMB or public commenta. major action. Because this proposed Y T f P , iIo t ,V I b | P m m J amendment is not a major regulation, no Regulatory Impact Analysis oaa been conducted. 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, end any EPA responses to th o u comments are The public docket for 40 CFR P v t 775 Is located in Room E-107 et the address lilted for the US. Environmental . Protection Agency in the address section of this preamble. The entire rulemaking docket for the rule being proposed today la included In ti record lor 40 CFR Part 775. EPA will identify the complete available for public Inspection in Room rulemaking record for 40 CFR part 775 S-269C at EPA. on or before the date of repe&L EPA will B. Regulatory Flexibility A ct consider any time between the publication of this notice and th date Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility the Agency identifies the final record. Act, 5 U.S.C. 1 601 et Beg., whenever an agency is required to publish a general X II List o fSubjects notice of rulemaking for any proposed or 40 CFR Part 281 final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that Hazardous materials. Waste treatment and disposal. Recycling. describes the impact of the rule on small entitles [i.e.t small businesses, small *F*tm en Bay tiao ( a w n it a t of these wastes--discarded to n d frfrmilaHnns- hn wnrw organizations, and small governmental . fanaan i n exem ptiron regulation provided the Jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, If the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic waste pesticida* a n from their own usa and a n disposed of on their own farm b a manner coatetaal with the dispnee! feetmetfone on the pesticida tofaeLTtesafon, we do eet expect h r a e n to he severely Foderai Register / Vol. 48. No. 65 / Monday. April 4. 1363 / Proposed Rule ' 14528 A ppendix 111--C hem ical A nalysis Tosi M ethods tt i Tasu 1.--Analytical Characteristics of Organic Chemicals Conpw d UtfWivnl ivchfliQuH NovOC oc/us oc EmctMto/BN... Evcta&fe/fM... 7. Add the following entries in numerical order to Appendix VU of Part 281: Appendix VII--Basis for listing H azardous Wastes EPA MMM ItaSdtU OWSuMStot ittiCIIiMd EPA ta a v d a a waala No. H n a m a o d n d a a t ilp v t W ilM F03D------- __ to t . pan*-, and IWMcmoredfcwto#. (SotonK to t . panto-, to h M d k n d - bu cto m ti and ti-, tat-, and pant cNaroptenoto and that ctoofophanoap Bawatw teto aetan, and anana u d . F 0 Z 1 tota-, pant, and hexao*xodtwzD-#> (Staant to t , pant, and haxadaore* b an zo tn ra; and t K la t , and pant cNonjpiwncto and tw f o N o re d a m y dam an acida, a d an . and anana to* R S I ________ IW , pant, and Aw srH nreiSw im -p. datone: to t . pant, and haxadWxwSbwu otiaana,- and tL . to t , and pam cN e o^ an oa arto rw r dSorephanoxy dam ar acida, atoara, and amina sata. RIZ 3 ___ ____ ta t , pane, arto haaadiiotodbatg& pdanrira; tao , pana, and banzsArera; and M-, to t , and p m eMorapnaraSa arto M cNorophenaey d a to S a add salar and amino aaN 8. A dd the following constituents in alp h ab etical o rd er to A ppendix VIII of Part 261: Appendix VW---Hazardous Constituents hexscblorodibenzo-p-dloxlns hexachlorodibenzofurans pentachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxlns pen lachlorodibenzofurans tetra chlarodlbenzo-p-dioxins telrachlorodibenzafuians 9. A ppendix DC Is added to Part 281 to 1.1 This method coven the determination read as follows: of chlorinated dibcnxo-p-dloxini and A ppendix IX--M ethod of A nalysis for chlorinated dlbenxofurana In chemical wastes Including still bottoms, filter aids,' Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and * sludges, spent carbon, and reactor residue dibenzofuranslia * and in sod M ethod 8200 1. Scope and Application. lThia method ia appropriate for tha analysts of tetr-. pent, and haxachiorlnated dibenzpdioxin* and -dibensoftuan ^ . 'Analytical prolucot fardttonninition of TCDDa in phenolic chemical aaaatea and aotl aamplaa obuinad from tha proximity of chemical Aimpa. T.O, Tinman and M. Taylor, bahm Laboratory. Wrifhl Slata Ucivarmity, Dayton. OH 4M11 'Analytical protocol far datannlnalkw of ddorinstod dfbenxo-p-dloxins and chlorinated dibenxofurana In rival water. T.O. Tlemaa and U. Taylor. Brahm Laboratory. Wright State Unlvenlty. Dayton, OH 4SU&. `In goneraL tha techniques that ahould ba used to handle theaa materials ara those which are Foliowad for radioactive or tafecUou* laboratory material Aaalalance In'evaluating laboratory practical may ba obtained from Industrial hygienists and persons specializing in safe laboralory practice. Typical 1.2 The sensitivity nf this method Is. dependent upon the U vtl of interferences. 1 J This method Is recommended for use only by analysts experienced with residue analysis and skilled in mase spectral analytical technique. 1.4 Because of the extrema toxicity of these compounds, the analyst must talcs necessary precautions to prevent exposure to himself, or to others, of matsrials known or beleved to contain CDDs or CDF Infectious wests (n d n m to n ere probably not satisfactory devices tor disposal of materials highly amtimlhatad with C3X)s or CXFa A laboratory planning to use these compounds should prepare a disposal plan to be reviewed and approved by EPA'i Dioxin Task Force [Cooled Conrad H aven WH-StfiA, US. EPA. 401M Street, S.W Washington, DC. 20400}- 2. Summary of the Method. XI This wtethnto ij an analytical extract!on cleanup procedure, end capillary column gas ehromalographty-low resolution moss spectrometry method aslng capillary column CC/MS conditions end internet standard technique which allow for the 'measurement of PCDDe and PCDFs in the extract x z If fntsrfereaoes are encountered, the method provides selected general purpose cleanup procedures to aid the analyst In their elimination. X Interference 3.1 Solvent reagents, glassware, and other sampla processing hardware may yield discrete artifacts and/or elevated baselines causing misinterpretation of gss chromatogram AS of these materials must be demonstated to be five hem Interferences under the conditions of tbs analysis by running method blink Specific selection of reagents and purification of solvents by distillation In all-glass systems may be required. 3X Interferences co-extraded from the samples will vary considerably bom source to source, depending upon tha diversity of the industry being sampled. FCDD Is often associated with othm interfering chlorinated compounds such as PCB's which may be at concentrations several orders of magnitude higher then that of PCDD. Whfia general cleanup techniques are provided as part of this method, unique samples may require additional cleanup approaches to achieve the sensitivity stated in Tabla X X3 The other taomars of tetrachlorodlbenzo-p-dloxin may interfere with the measurement ofXSJA-TCDD. Capillary column gas chromatography Is required to resolve thoso isomers that yield vtrtually Identical mass fragmentation pattern 4. Apparatus and Material 4.1 Sampling equipment for discrete or Composite aampHng- 4.1.1 Grab sampla bottle--amber glass. 1Uter or 1-quart volume. French or Boston Round design Is recommended. Tbs w>t*tnwr must be washed and solvent rinsed before use to minimise Interference 4.1.2 Bottle caps--threedad to screw on to the sample bottle Caps must ba lined with Teflon. Solvent washed fofl, used with the shiny aide towards tha sampla, may ba substituted for tha Teflon If sample is not corrosive. 4.1.3 Compositing equipment--automatic or manual compositing system. No tygon or rubber tubing may ba asad, and the system mult Incorporate glass sample containers for the collection of a minimim of 250 mL Sample containers must ba kept refrigerated after M inp1lt|. i l Water bath - heated, with concentric ring cover, capable of temperature opntrol ( 2* Q . Tha bath should be used in a hood 4 J Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer data system 4S.1 Gas chromatograph: An analytical system with a temperature-programmable gas chromatograph and all required accessories Including syringe analytical olumn, bH gase 'it Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 83 / Monday, April 4, 1963 / `ri . = BS Elule the mlcrocolumn with 10 ml of 3% methylene chloride-ln-hexane followed by 15 ml of 20% methylene chloride-in-hexene and discard these effluents. Bute the column with 15 ml of 50% methylenrdtioride-inhexane and concentrate IhlSeflluenl (55* C* water bath, stream of prcptified nilogren) to ahout (L3-0.5 ml. B.B. Quantitatively transfer the residue (using methylene chloride to rinse the container) to a silanixed Retell-Vial (Pierce Chemical Co.). Evaporate, using a stream of prepurified nitrogen, almost to dryness, rinse the walls of the vessel with approximately 0.5 ml methylene chloride, evaporate Just to dryness, and tightly cap the vial. Store the vial at 5*C until analysis, at which time the sample is reconstituted by the addition of tridecane. 9.10 Approximately 1 hour before GC-MS (HRGC-URMS) analysis, dilute the residue In the micro-reaction vessel with an appropriate quantity of tridecane. Gently swirl the tridecane on the lower portion of the vessel to ensure dissolution of the CDDs and CDFa* Analyze a sample by GC/EC to provide insight into the complexity of the problem, and to determine the manner in which the mass spectrometer should be used. Infect*an appropriate aliquot of the sample Into the GC-MS instrument, using a syringe. 9.11 I t upon preliminary GC-MS analysis, the sample appears to contain interfering substances which obscure the analyses for CDDs and CDFs, high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC] cleanup of the extract Is accomplished, prior to further GCMS analysis. 10. HPLC Cleanup Procedure. 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 (he appropriate retention time, position sample bottle to collect the required fraction. 10.3 Add 2 ml of 5% (w/v) sodium carbonate to the sample fraction collected and shake for one minute. 10.4 Quantitatively remove the hexane layer (lop layer) and transfer to a micro reaction vessel. 10.5 Concentrate the fraction to dryness and retain for further analysis. 11. GC/MS Analysis 11.1 The following column conditions are recommended; Glass capillary column conditions: SP-2250 coated on a 30 m long x 0.25 mm l.D. glass column [Supelco No. 23714, or equivalent) with helium carrier gas at 30 cm/sec linear velocity, run splillest. Column temprate Is 210*C. Under these conditions the retention time for TCDDs it about 9.5 minutes. Calibrate the system daily with, a minimum, three Injections of standard mixtures. 11.2 Calculate response factors for standards relative to *Xil-TCDD/F (see Section 12). 11J Analyze samples with selected ion nmnitnrtng of at least two tons from Table 3. Proof of (he presence of CDD or CDF exists if the following conditions are met: 11.3.1 The retention time of the peak in the sample must match that In the standard, within the performance specifications of the analytical system. 11^2 The ratio of Ions must agree within 10% with that of the standard. 11.3.3 The retention time of the peak Where: Cm* coocentrstka af 1 C. concentration aft_ 12J 1 Report results la i__ gram without coftacUon far i When duplicate and eplkad t m^ maximum for the tons of interest must exactly match that of the peak, analyzed, all data obtained ritotddba 4` reported. _ 11. Quantitate the CDD and CDF peaks 12J Accuracy and Predsioa. No data are , from the response relative to the T3-TCDD/ available at this Ume. F internal standards. Recovery of the Internal standard.should be greater than 50 percent. 11J If a response Is obtained for tbe Table 1--G at Chromatography of TCDD. appropriate set of tons, but Is ootilde the expected ratio, a co-eluting Impurity may be suspected. In this case, another eel of ions Cotoan tom |n*L) M ( g p ' characteristic of tbe CDD/CDF molecules should be analyzed. For TCDD a good choice an npm of ions to m/e 257 and m/a 259. For TCDF a good choice of tons to m /e 241 and 243. These tons are useful in characterizing the molecular structure of TCDD or TCDF. For analysis of TCDD good analytical technique would require using all four tons, m/e 257, is 0.009 uun in s a W a ite d from t e n ton w n S U CUM s OC m pon w being acjusMo Sw tom e toe>0OCC baertaavoLaWt efl mnoisaa msssatrfTnSinnofl sa I mre ol toe t w i s i p i c n d , and a QC IrJacSQn M S Sam. O eb rtto i toetos appi to boto s fse n n capare and OC/M S am e*an. Far t o t e s w 4 4 / * M 2 (P a c a n te * . 1EOT). 320,322,328, to verify detection and signal to noise ratio of 5 to 1. Suspected Impurities such as DDE, DDD, or PCB residues can be Table 2.--OFTFP Key Ions and ion Abundance Criteria - confirmed by checking for their 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. 11.0 If broad background interference restricts ths sensitivity of the GC/MS analysis, the analyst should employ cleanup procedures and reanalyze by GC/MS. 11.7. In those circumstances where these procedures do not yield a definitive conclusion, the use of high resolution mass pectromatiy to suggested. 12. Calculations 12.1 Determine the concentration of Individual compounds according to the . formula'. Ax A. Concentration, ug/pm - OxAfcXRf Where:' A ug of Internal standard added to the sample.' G=gro of sample extracted A ,area of characteristic ion of the compound being quantified A ,,area of characteristic Ion of the Internal standard response factor Response factore are calculated using data obtained from the analysis of standards according to the formula: A.XC R l- A*xC, Table 3.--List of Accurate Masses Momtored Usmo GC Selected-Ion Monitor ing, Low Resolution, Mass Spectrom etry For Simultaneous Determination op Tetra-, Penta-, and Hexachlorinated DtBENZO^Dtodna and Dfeenzofurans Omu eri Crtortm tid or rib o n o fin n N w fte d cMorina subtolto a W M od- * 1 MonL tored M / 1tored m/ s to s to d b ero O bero A re m C mK Ototoa G dOCL A ftoteIN M toecrati- anao erpecled on Batos a* dancs Taira________ Pam s_______ H a u ------------ 4 s io e s r 303.SC3 92IAS4 *327.483 sesos *r5S890 -- 5 '35386# *337063 assess 33SM 0 a n a ta 973.121 M ia o 37SJ1I 0-74 1.00 20 .57 1.00 ICO Ml 'The proper amount of standard to be used Is determined from the calibration curve (Sue Section 6.0). toni 'lora Neh can be monomd in TCEO antoyaes to ccrtanaaon (wpowa. Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 65 / Monday. April 4, 1963 / Proposed Rules ` r I (iij The w aste is stored in tanks or containers. fiitJ The w aste is stored or treated in waste piles that m eet therequlrem ents of S 264.250(c] as w ell a a ll other applicable requirements of Subpart L of this P a rt 'T PART 775 [REMOVED] 17. The authority citation for Part 77S reads as follows: Authority. Sec. 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Pub. L 94-469.90 Slat, j 2020 [15 U.S.C. 2805]. 1 18. Title 40 is am ended by removing I Part 775. I jttl Doe.R3-7D30Filed#-1-S3;ftU>/n| MUJMOCOOCIMO-SO-H 14520 -4 * i * i 4 f *>i 1ll - 1