[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11189]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 11, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 261, et al.
Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4881-8]
40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302
RIN 2050-AD79
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Organobromine Production Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend the regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by listing as hazardous waste
solids and filter cartridges from the production of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol. The Agency is also proposing to add 2,4,6-
tribromophenol to the list of commercial chemical products that are
hazardous wastes when discarded. As a necessary part of this hazardous
waste listing EPA is proposing to add 2,4,6-tribromophenol to the RCRA
list of hazardous constituents.
This proposed regulation, if promulgated, will subject the listed
2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes to regulation as hazardous wastes under
Subtitle C of RCRA. In addition, 2,4,6-tribromophenol and the listed
wastes will automatically become hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). EPA is proposing for purposes of immediate release reporting
under CERCLA section 103 a reportable quantity (RQ) of 100 pounds for
2,4,6-tribromophenol and the listed wastes.
Also, EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous nine waste streams
from the production of bromochloromethane, ethyl bromide,
tribromophenol, octabromodiphenyl oxide, decabromodiphenyl oxide, and
to defer action on one waste stream from the production of
tetrabromobisphenol-A.
DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed listing
determination until July 11, 1994. Comments postmarked after this date
will be marked ``late'' and may not be considered. Any person may
request a public hearing on this proposal by filing a request with Mr.
David Bussard, whose address appears below, by May 26, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Ed Rissmann at EPA, OSWER,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The official record of this
action is identified by Docket number F-94-OBLP-FFFFF and is located at
the following address: EPA Docket Clerk, room 2616 (5305), U.S. EPA,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket is open from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The
public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling
(202) 260-9327. The public may copy 100 pages from the docket at no
charge; additional copies are $0.15 per page.
To request a public hearing on this proposed listing determination,
file a request with Mr. David Bussard (5304), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800)
424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412-9810, in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area. The TDD Hotline number is (800) 553-7672, or (703)
486-3323, locally. For technical information on the proposed listing
determination, contact Ed Rissmann at (202) 260-4785.
For technical information on the CERCLA aspects of this rule,
contact: Ms. Gerain H. Perry, Response Standards and Criteria Branch,
Emergency Response Division (5202G), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 603-8760.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
II. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Organobromine Chemicals Industry Overview
B. Description of Processes Used, Wastes Generated, and Waste
Management Practices Employed
1. Processes Used and Wastes Generated
2. Waste Management Practices
C. Description of Health and Risk Assessments
1. Toxicological Information-Use of Structural Activity
Relationships
2. Plausible Mismanagement Scenario
3. Risk Analysis
D. Basis for Listing Determination Decisions
1. Waste Specific Risk Analyses
a. Wastes from the Production of Bromochloromethane/
Dibromomethane
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
b. Wastes from the Production of Ethyl Bromide
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
c. Wastes from the Production of Tetrabromobisphenol A
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
d. Wastes from the Production of Octabromodiphenyl Oxide
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
e. Wastes from the Production of Decabromodiphenyl Oxide
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
f. Wastes from the Production of Tribromophenol
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
2. Conclusions
III. Waste Minimization Opportunities in the Industry
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Compliance Costs
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. State Program Implementation
A. Applicability of Rules in States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VII. CERCLA Designation and RQ Adjustment
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
IX. Compliance and Implementation
A. Section 3010 Notification
B. Compliance Dates for Facilities
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
These regulations are proposed under the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). These statutes are commonly referred to as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and are codified at Volume 42 of
the United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 6901 to 6992k (42 U.S.C.
6901-6992k).
Section 3001(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(a), requires EPA to
promulgate criteria for identifying characteristics of hazardous wastes
and for listing hazardous wastes. Section 3001(b) of RCRA requires EPA
to promulgate regulations, based on these criteria, identifying and
listing hazardous wastes which shall be subject to the requirements of
the Act.
Hazardous waste is defined at section 1004(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6903(5). There are two types of hazardous waste. First, hazardous
wastes are those solid wastes which may cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality, serious irreversible illness,
or incapacitating reversible illness. In addition, hazardous wastes are
those solid wastes which may pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.
EPA's regulations establishing criteria for listing hazardous
wastes are codified at volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Sec. 261.11 (40 CFR 261.11). Section 261.11 states three criteria
for identifying characteristics and for listing wastes as hazardous.
First, wastes may be classified as ``characteristic'' wastes if
they have the properties described at 40 CFR 261.20 which would cause
them to be classified as having the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity.
Second, wastes may be classified as acute hazardous wastes if they
are fatal to humans at low doses, lethal in animal studies at
particular doses designated in the regulation, or otherwise capable of
causing or significantly contributing to an increase in serious
illness.
Third, wastes may be listed as hazardous if they contain hazardous
constituents identified in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 and the
Agency concludes, after considering eleven factors enumerated in
Sec. 261.11(a)(3), that the waste is capable of posing a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when
improperly managed. A substance is listed in appendix VIII if it has
been shown in scientific studies to have toxic effects on life forms.
Wastes listed as hazardous are subject to federal requirements
under RCRA for persons who generate, transport, treat, store or dispose
of such waste. Facilities that must meet the hazard waste management
requirements, including the need to obtain permits to operate, are
commonly referred to as Subtitle C facilities. Subtitle C is Congress'
original statutory designation for that part of RCRA that directs EPA
to issue regulations for hazardous wastes as may be necessary to
protect human health or the environment. Thus, facilities like
incinerators or landfills that are required to comply with RCRA
requirements for hazardous waste are referred to as Subtitle C
incinerators or landfills.
Subtitle C is codified as Subchapter III of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste
Disposal) of Volume 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. 6921 thru
6939e. EPA standards and procedural regulations implementing subtitle C
are found generally at 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.
Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes may be disposed of at
facilities which are overseen by state and local governments. These are
the so-called subtitle D facilities. Subtitle D is Congress' original
statutory designation for that part of RCRA which deals with federal
assistance to state and regional planning efforts for disposal of solid
waste.
Subtitle D is codified as Subchapter IV of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste
Disposal) of Volume 42 of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. 6941 thru
6949a). EPA regulations affecting subtitle D facilities are found
generally at 40 CFR parts 240 thru 247, and 255 thru 258.
Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921 (e)(2) requires EPA to
determine whether to list, as hazardous, wastes generated by various
chemical production processes, including the production of
organobromines. In response to this mandate, the Agency undertook a
two-year study of the industry and, eventually, listed several wastes
from the production of ethylene dibromide (EDB) and methyl bromide.
The final rule listing wastes from the production of EDB was
published in the Federal Register on February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5327).
These wastes are listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
section 261.32 (40 CFR 261.32) and are designated by EPA hazardous
waste numbers K117, K118, and K136. The final rule listing wastes from
methyl bromide production was published on October 6, 1989 (54 FR
41402). These wastes are listed at 40 CFR 261.32 and are designated by
hazardous waste codes K131 and K132. Methyl bromide and ethylene
dibromide are also on the Appendix VIII list of hazardous constituents.
In June of 1991, EPA entered into a proposed consent decree in a
lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund, et al. (EDF v. Reilly,
Civ. No. 89-0598 (D.D.C.)), in which the Agency agreed to publish a
proposed determination as to whether or not to list as hazardous wastes
from the production of five other organobromine chemicals by April 30,
1994 and to promulgate a final decision on whether to list on or before
April 30, 1995. The Agency reserves the right to evaluate wastes from
the production of other organobromine compounds in the future, if and
when such an evaluation is deemed necessary.
To provide a sound technical basis for this listing determination,
EPA conducted another study of the organobromine chemicals industry in
1991 and 1992. Six firms were identified as currently manufacturing
organobromine chemicals at eight facilities in the United States. Under
the authority of RCRA Section 3007 (42 U.S.C. 6927), EPA sent
questionnaires to these firms and four of them were selected for
engineering site visits. These four facilities account for over 99
percent of total production. Samples of process residuals were
collected during the site visits to familiarize the Agency with the
types of materials generated by the industry. Later in the study,
record samples were collected at facilities of the two largest domestic
producers. The next section summarizes today's proposal and describes
the basis for EPA's decision to list one waste from this industry. The
Listing Background Document for this listing determination contains a
detailed description of the Agency's basis for proposing to list one
waste, and to not list ten other waste streams. The public version of
this document, which does not contain Confidential Business Information
can be copied at the RCRA public docket. See ADDRESSES section.
The third criteria described above for listing hazardous wastes in
40 CFR 261.11, is applicable to this proposal on organobromine wastes.
That is, wastes may be listed if they contain hazardous constituents
identified in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 and the Agency concludes
the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.
With respect to the other two criteria, the wastes under
consideration here are not acutely hazardous and ``characteristic''
wastes are not listed separately, since their classification depends
upon whether they qualify as wastes based on various tests described in
the regulations. EPA notes that any of the organobromine wastes could
be classified as ``characteristic'' wastes if they ``fail'' the
applicable tests.
Consistent with its regulations, EPA determined whether there were
present any Appendix VIII constituents and whether there was
information on any other constituents of the waste that could lead to
health or environmental concerns. The health effects data, along with
other factors (generally related to exposure) required to be considered
under 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), were then evaluated to decide whether the
wastes should be listed as hazardous wastes. These factors include the
plausible types of mismanagement scenarios to which the wastes could be
subjected and the potential of the constituent or any toxic degradation
product to migrate from waste into the environment under the improper
management scenarios (40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) (iii) and (vii)).
After consideration of data on health effects and exposure to the
wastestreams, EPA decided that certain wastes from 2,4,6-tribromophenol
production warrant listing. None of the constituents have previously
been listed in Appendix VIII, however. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
list 2,4,6-tribromophenol as an Appendix VIII constituent.
II. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Organobromine Chemicals Industry Overview
The organobromine chemical-producing industry in the U.S. is
geographically limited by the location of underground bromide-bearing
brine deposits. The only major deposits of this type in the United
States are located in Michigan and Arkansas. Organobromine chemicals
are no longer produced on a large scale in Michigan. EPA identified two
firms in southern Arkansas that produce the organobromine chemicals
listed in the EDF consent decree. These two firms account for 95% of
all organobromine chemical production in the U.S.
The source of all bromine produced currently in the U.S. is the
brine deposit in the Smackover Formation in Union, Lafayette, and
Columbia Counties, Arkansas. Total demand for bromine has fallen 25%
since 1979 and domestic bromine production fell by four thousand metric
tons between 1991 and 1992, so there is little incentive for the
construction of new bromine extraction plants. In addition, all of the
mining rights for bromine-bearing brines in these counties are
controlled by two corporations. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines,
these deposits are likely to satisfy domestic demand for sixty years.
For these reasons, EPA believes that it is very improbable that any new
producers using substantially different technologies will enter the
organobromine chemicals industry during the next several decades.
At the time of the first industry study in 1984, ethylene dibromide
(EDB) was the most important product of the organobromines industry.
EDB was used together with tetraethyl lead in additives designed to
increase the octane rating of gasoline. Other industry products
included methyl bromide, used as a soil fumigant, and brominated
fluorocarbons, which are sold mainly as fire-extinguishing agents.
During the decade that has elapsed since the original industry
study, the product mix has changed, due primarily to the advent of
several environmental regulatory programs. Vehicles requiring unleaded
gasoline were introduced to the U.S. market in 1971, and the phase-out
of leaded gasoline is now almost complete. Other nations have
instituted similar programs, though on different timetables, which has
reduced demand for EDB. The use of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant
has been restricted because of the toxicity of this material. Two of
the important brominated fluorocarbons, Halon 1211 and Halon 1301, are
being phased out of production under the terms of the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which the United States
is a signatory.
The majority of organobromine chemicals manufactured currently are
sold as flame retardants. Most of these are solid compounds that are
incorporated into polymer mixes. The polymers then are used to
manufacture a variety of household and industrial products, including
electronic circuit boards, television and computer cases, and packaging
and insulating foam. Smaller volume organobromine chemicals are
produced by four smaller firms. The principal uses for these products
are as reagent chemicals and pharmaceutical intermediates. These low
volume chemicals are produced on a batch basis with annual production
often being a few batches per year.
B. Description of Processes Used, Wastes Generated, and Waste
Management Practices Employed
1. Processes Used and Wastes Generated
As discussed above, EPA conducted engineering site visits at four
organobromine-producing firms, based on the information received from
RCRA Section 3007 questionnaires. Two of these four firms have direct
access to sources of elemental bromine (i.e., the underground brine
deposits) and use it to produce substantial volumes of organobromine
flame retardants. All other firms in the industry purchase elemental
bromine and use it to produce smaller volumes of special-purpose
pharmaceutical and chemical intermediates. Frequently, these items are
produced under contract for the pharmaceutical firms.
The processes at the two major sites also differ from those at the
smaller producers with respect to waste management practices. The
smaller producers manage all of their solid wastes as hazardous and
ship them off site to incinerators or landfills operating in accordance
with the standards promulgated under authority of RCRA Subtitle C.
Generally, their production contracts call for the wastes to be sent to
the firms ordering these chemicals. The pharmaceutical firms then
incinerate these wastes from the organochemical production process.
Because bromine is an element and cannot be destroyed by chemical
transformations, the production processes at the major facilities are
designed to make the most effective use of all bromine extracted from
the brine. As a result, there are many bromine/bromide recovery
processes built into the operation. A generalized description of the
wastes and management practices at the major sites follows.
Bromide-bearing brine from the Smackover Formation is pumped to the
surface and routed to the bromine plant, where it is acidified, and
chlorinated to convert the bromide to bromine. The reaction generates a
sodium chloride by-product which remains in the brine. The bromine then
is volatilized with steam and condensed, dried, and used on site as a
feedstock. Most organobromine chemicals are produced by simple one- or
two-step reactions of bromine with an organic feedstock. Many of these
reactions liberate hydrogen bromide gas, which is normally scrubbed in
sodium hydroxide solution, forming a sodium bromide stream that often
is recycled to the bromine plant. Alternatively, the gas is scrubbed
with a lime suspension to produce calcium bromide, a saleable by-
product.
Concentrated sulfuric acid is used as a drying agent for elemental
bromine. The spent acid is sold back to the sulfuric acid producer, who
uses it to produce virgin sulfuric acid.
At major production sites, process wastewaters containing
recoverable amounts of bromine are recycled to the bromine plant for
bromine recovery. The volume of these wastewater streams exceeds that
of all other waste streams combined. Additionally, over 200,000 metric
tons per year of unrecycled process wastewaters are generated at the
two major sites from production of the five organobromine chemicals
listed in the consent decree. An additional 450,000 tons of wastewaters
are generated from tribromophenol manufacture. Less than 800 tons of
process wastes solids are generated. These include spent filters, floor
sweepings and chemical product that does not meet commercial
specifications for quality--so-called ``off-spec'' product. By
comparison, the amount of waste generated by the minor producers is
cumulatively less than 100 tons and is divided among several dozen
processes, most of which are operated only a few days per year. Due to
the very low volumes and periodic generation of these wastes by the
minor producers, the analysis for this listing determination focused
only on the major production plants. The minor producers do not
manufacture any of the products listed in the EDF consent decree. Table
I summarizes the wastes and their constituents of potential concern
generated from production of organobromine products studied.
Table I.--Summary of Organobromine Production Wastes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of
Product Waste stream potential concern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dibromomethane/bromochl Filters................ Methylene chloride.\2\
oromethane.
Wastewaters............ Bromochloromethane
Dibromomethane.
Ethyl bromide.......... Filters................ Ethyl bromide.
Wastewaters............ Ethanol.
Tetrabromobisphenol-A.. Off Spec Product....... Tetrabromobisphenol-A
Tribromophenol.
Wastewaters\1\.........
Octabromodiphenyl oxide Wastewaters............ Octabromodiphenyl
oxide Toluene.\2\
Off Spec Product & Brominated
Filters. dibenzofurans.
Decabromodiphenyl oxide Off Spec Product & Decabromodiphenyl
Filters. oxide.
Wastewaters............
Tribromophenol......... Wastewaters............ Tribromophenol.
Filters & Filter cake &
Off Spec Product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Methyl bromide and tetrabromobisphenol A are generated by the same
process. The process wastewaters are the listed waste K131.
\2\Appendix VIII constituents.
2. Waste Management Practices
The largest volume wastes generated by the organobromines industry
are wastewaters disposed by injection into underground deep wells
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection
Control (UIC) program (40 CFR parts 144-148). Some of the combined
waste streams being deep well-injected are classified as hazardous
wastes under 40 CFR part 261. As a result, the industry must comply
with applicable regulations under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
program in 40 CFR part 268, which require that hazardous wastes may not
be land-disposed without treatment to specified levels or by specified
methods. Disposal by underground injection is included in the
definition of ``land disposal'' in 40 CFR 268.2. Specific restrictions
on the underground injection of hazardous wastes are codified in 40 CFR
part 148.
One of the two major production plants submitted a petition under
40 CFR 148.20 for an exemption from these LDR requirements for the
disposal of wastes in wells located at its plant. They provided site-
specific information to demonstrate that there would be no migration of
the injected wastes to an underground source of drinking water for as
long as the wastes remain hazardous (40 CFR 148.20). Their
demonstration showed that the geological and geochemical conditions at
the site and the physicochemical nature of the wastestreams were such
that the hazardous constituents in the fluids will not migrate within
10,000 years vertically or laterally. The petition was approved by the
Agency and the exemption was granted. EPA expects the facility to
continue this form of disposal at the same level in the future
regardless of this listing determination because of economic
considerations. As a result, EPA believes that wastes being disposed by
underground injection at this plant will not pose a risk to human
health and the environment.
The situation with respect to the second major facility is
different. This facility consists of several plants located a few miles
apart. Each plant has its own set of injection wells. One plant, which
according to the Agency's information generates listed hazardous
wastewater, has two wells into which listed hazardous waste is
currently injected. Another, which according to the Agency's
information does not produce a listed wastewater, has at least three
wells which do not accept hazardous waste.
None of the wells at this facility have an approved no-migration
petition. Therefore, for currently listed wastewaters, the facility
will have to consider waste treatment prior to disposal. An option
under consideration by the plant is the construction of a wastewater
treatment plant to treat the wastewaters prior to either release to
surface waters or deep well injection. The facility is not likely to
want to abandon the use of deep well injection for economic reasons.
Shipment of wastewaters off site would be economically prohibitive
given the large wastewaters volumes involved. For unlisted wastewaters,
the most plausible management scenario would be continued deep well
injection.
The Agency believes that it would be unlikely that the facility
would attempt to store wastewater in lagoons. The area has a moist
climate, so evaporation is not a viable option. The plant is currently
under several consent agreements to remove contamination resulting from
the previous use of unlined lagoons for temporary wastewater storage.
Therefore, the Agency selected the plausible mismanagement scenario
for modeling purposes for unlisted wastewaters to be the current
practice of underground injection for this plant's wastewaters. EPA has
no information or reason to believe that, if not listed, the
wastewaters would be managed in a different manner.
In addition to underground injection, certain other waste
management practices commonly used in the organobromine chemicals
industry are regulated by specific RCRA regulations. Both major plants
use Bromine Recovery Units (BRUs) to recover bromine values from
organic liquid and vapor waste streams. In these units, the organics
are burned and the combustion products are removed by a wet scrubber.
The BRUs are halogen acid furnaces (HAFs), which meet the regulatory
definition of industrial furnace in 40 CFR 260.10.
The combustion of hazardous waste in industrial furnaces is
regulated under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H which regulate air emissions
from these units and require monitoring and analyses. These regulations
impose emissions standards and air quality limits for the BRUs, which
are designed to control and reduce the level of risk posed by this
management practice (e.g., 40 CFR 266.104(e) establishes controls for
dioxin- and furan-containing wastes). Both major plants burn listed
spent solvents and still bottoms in these units; therefore, they are
already subject to the performance standards of part 266, subpart H.
EPA believes that residuals managed in this manner and in compliance
with applicable regulations do not pose any additional risk to human
health and the environment because the facilities are currently in
compliance with their permits to operate these units. EPA has not found
any compelling evidence indicating that the major plants would manage
these wastes in any other way. These recovery units are integrated into
the major plants and abandoning their use would require considerable
plant modifications to be made with no economic benefit to the
facilities.
The solid residuals generated in organobromine chemicals production
are currently being shipped off site to commercial Subtitle D landfills
and to Subtitle C disposal facilities, even though some of these
residuals are not regulated as hazardous wastes. Other wastes (e.g.,
spent adsorbents, filter cakes, and floor sweepings) are being
incinerated. At the smaller firms production contracts specify that
wastes be shipped to incinerators operated by the pharmaceutical
industry in order to minimize future potential liability. The most
plausible mismanagement scenario for solids is placement in unlined
Subtitle D landfills. The plants currently are not required to send
unregulated wastes to Subtitle C facilities. Because of the lower cost
and wider availability of Subtitle D facilities, the Agency feels that
this is the most reasonable mismanagement scenario.
C. Description of Health and Risk Assessments
The Agency realizes that it has incomplete toxicological data on
several constituents identified in individual waste streams.
Nevertheless, sufficient information does exist to reach the reasoned
decisions shown in Tables 2a & b. The rationale for these decisions
follows.
Table 2a.--Basis for Listing Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Wastestream Analysis Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dibromomethane..... Filters........... De minimis stream (less than 1 kkg/yr) One No list.
producer.
Wastewaters....... Deep well injected at site with approved-no No list.
migration petition (only one producer).
Ethyl bromide...... Filters........... De minimis stream (less than 1.5 kkg/yr)... No list.
Wastewaters....... Only constituent identified is ethanol at No list.
low concentration.
Tetrabromobisphenol Wastewaters....... Stream is already listed as K131 for methyl Already listed waste.
A. bromide. Also contains 15,000 ppm
tribromophenol.
Octabromodiphenyl Filter cake....... Toluene and brominated dibenzofurans No list.
oxide. present at levels below concern. Assuming
worst case for leachate, risk estimated to
be below 10-6 for octabromodiphenyl oxide.
Wastewaters....... Major constituent of concern, brominated No list
dibenzofurans, shows minimal risk;
solubility of octabromodiphenyl oxide is
very low; modelling of worst case for
wastewaters showed risk below 10-6 for
octabromodiphenyl oxide.
Decabromodiphenyl Filter cake....... The major constituent in waste No list.
oxide. (decabromodiphenyl oxide) could not be
quantified. Assuming worst case for
leachate, risk below 10-6 level because of
very low solubility for this chemical.
Wastewaters....... The major constituent in waste No list.
(decabromodiphenyl oxide) could not be
quantified. Assuming worst case for
leachate, risk below 10-6 level because of
very low solubility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b.--Basis for Listing Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Wastestream Analysis Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrabromobisphenol Off-specification Inadequate toxicology data for major Defer action.
A. product. constituent of concern,
tetrabromobisphenol A; not amenable to
surrogate analysis. Waste also expected to
contain tribromophenol, potentially of
concern, but unquantified in waste. None
found in leachate from landfill where
waste was deposited.
Tribromophenol..... Wastewaters....... Inadequate toxicology data on major No list.
constituents in waste, tribromophenol and
dibromophenol. Used surrogate analysis for
tribromophenol.
Risk analysis shows only low risks; ..........................
tribromophenol not detected in groundwater
at site. (Also, level of tribromophenol in
this waste is 2000 times less than the
listed hazardous waste, K131.).
Filter cake....... Used surrogate analysis for tribromophenol. List as hazardous waste.
Leachate analysis estimates risk of 10-3
to 10-5 if waste disposed in unlined
Subtitle D landfills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Toxicological Information--Use of Structural Activity Relationships
While many chlorinated organic compounds are used widely and have
been studied in great detail, their brominated analogs are more
specialized and have not been investigated in the same detail. EPA has
found that no reliable health effects data directly showing significant
subchronic toxicity are available for a few of the compounds identified
in the record samples from this industry. For the constituents of
concern, validated health effects data, directly showing subchronic
toxicity, are not available for four compounds: ethyl bromide,
tetrabromobisphenol-A, tribromophenol, and the brominated
dibenzofurans. Because of the lack of data on these compounds, the
Agency explored the use of structure activity relationships to develop
toxicological values for these compounds. Structure activity
relationships involve the use of health effects information for a
compound with a very similar chemical structure and properties to that
of the chemical of concern. The Agency determined that this technique
could be used for 2,4,6-tribromophenol and for brominated dibenzofurans
because the chemical behavior and mechanism of action for these
compounds is expected to be similar to their chlorinated analogues.
For ethyl bromide and tetrabromobisphenol-A, this technique could
not be used because suitable surrogate compounds, for which data exist,
could not be found. No toxicological data exist for other halogenated
derivatives of bisphenol A, and ethyl bromide differs from its
chlorinated congeners with respect to its ability to undergo hydrolysis
and other important reactions. The basis for the listing determinations
for the wastes with these two compounds is discussed later in this
preamble.
At the present time, inadequate toxicity data have prevented EPA
from establishing a verified or unverified human health reference value
for 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP). The structures of TBP and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol (TCP) are sufficiently similar to be considered
halogenated congeners of phenol, and their toxicities are explainable
in terms of identified molecular mechanisms. The relative quantitative
activities of halogenated phenol congeners such as TBP and TCP are
derived from the ease of formation and reaction of these compounds and
their metabolites. Both halogenated phenols contain three symmetrically
placed bromine or chlorine substituents which are difficult to remove
by chemical substitution. The presence of difficult-to-remove
substituents at the ortho and para positions inhibits oxidative
decomposition of these moieties via formation of cyclic ketone
intermediates. EPA has used this information to develop a quantitative
structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis for TBP. The critical
endpoint of concern for TCP and TBP is carcinogenicity. The Agency has
determined that, based on QSAR analysis, the long-term toxicity of TBP
and TCP are essentially the same. For today's proposal, the Agency has
estimated the cancer slope factor for TBP to be the same as TCP, or 1.1
x 10-2 (mg/kg per day)-1. In addition, data on TBP analyzed
by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics indicated a ``low to
moderate'' concern for oncogenicity, mutagenicity, liver and kidney
toxicity, developmental, and reproductive toxicity. The Agency's QSAR
analysis reports for TBP are available in the docket of today's
proposal. See ADDRESSES section.
With regard to dibenzofurans, quantitative data comparing the
potency of brominated dioxins and furans to their chlorinated
counterparts are also relatively sparse. Consensus among most of the
studies supports the view that brominated analogs are less potent than
the chlorinated dioxins and furans, although several studies suggest
that the groups are equipotent when considered on a molar basis. EPA
estimated a potency factor of 0.3 for 2,3,7,8-tetrabromodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TBDD) relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).
This report is available in the docket. See ADDRESSES section. However,
application of the toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) methodology to all
of the BDFs is not currently possible because of the lack of research
data. EPA conducted an analysis assuming 30-100% toxicity for the
brominated furans as compared to the chlorinated ones and used the 100
percent value for making risk-based decisions. EPA believes this is a
conservative approach that will ensure protection of human health and
the environment. The Agency requests comment on this approach.
For all other compounds, the Agency is basing its determination of
whether to list on constituents for which adequate health effects data
exist. (For a complete listing of the constituents identified in the
samples of wastes from the production of chemicals listed in the EDF
consent decree and their concentrations, see the Background Document
for this proposed listing determination, available in the RCRA public
docket.)
In summary, published health-based data exist for all but four of
the waste constituents of concern. Inadequate data exist for
tetrabromobisphenol-A, ethyl bromide, the brominated dibenzofurans and
tribromophenol. Structure activity-derived health-based information is
available and was used for the brominated dibenzofurans and
tribromophenol.
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSARs) have been
used in other ways in other EPA programs. For example, EPA uses QSARs
in evaluating premanufacturing notice data submitted by industry under
TSCA. The Agency may require additional testing of the chemical being
reviewed based on a QSAR analysis.
However, this is the first time the Agency is basing a listing
determination for a wastestream on QSAR analysis. The prospect of using
QSARs to identify wastes for regulation holds significant promise for
the Agency. It is one way to evaluate some potentially hazardous
constituents without requiring expensive and time-consuming toxicity
testing. However, the Agency recognizes that the approach could result
in additional regulatory effects on some waste generators, local
governments, or other federal agencies. In addition, the use of QSARs
in listing determinations could have broad policy implications for EPA.
Therefore, the Agency solicits comment on the following:
1. Under what conditions is the use of QSAR valid in making
hazardous waste listing determinations?
2. Is there another way to characterize the risk potential of
wastestreams for which there is a lack of toxicity data on the sole or
the primary constituent in the wastestream? (Note that limited
resources may restrict the ability of the Agency to conduct testing of
the compounds involved).
3. What type of data would help to either support or refute the
predictions made by QSAR?
2. Plausible Mismanagement Scenario
The Agency developed baseline risk estimates by selecting plausible
mismanagement practices based on information collected in the RCRA
Section 3007 survey for current management operations. For wastewaters,
the Agency selected the plausible mismanagement practice to be the
current practice of deep well injection. The Agency has no information
or reason to believe that, if not listed, the wastewaters are likely to
be managed in a different manner, except if pretreatment of wastewaters
is required prior to injection. For sludges and waste solids, the
Agency selected the plausible mismanagement to be an unlined landfill.
Currently, a portion of the waste goes to a lined Subtitle D landfill.
In addition, the Agency has information that a portion of these wastes,
while not regulated as hazardous, are managed as hazardous with
disposal in Subtitle C landfills. However, the Agency lacks adequate
information showing that, if not listed as hazardous, the wastes would
continue to be disposed in lined landfills and result in significantly
lower estimates of potential risk. The Agency requests comment on this
approach to modelling plausible mismanagement practices.
3. Risk Analysis
Risk characterization approach. The risk characterization approach
follows the recent EPA Guidance on Risk Characterization (Habicht,
1992) and Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA Risk Assessment Council,
1991). The guidance specifies that EPA risk assessments will be
expected to address or provide descriptions of: (1) Individual risk to
include the central tendency and high-end portions of the risk
distribution, (2) important subgroups of the population such as highly
exposed or highly susceptible groups or individuals, if known, and (3)
population risk. In addition to the presentation of results, the
guidance also specifies that the results portray a reasonable picture
of the actual or projected exposures with an open discussion of
uncertainties.
Individual risk. Individual risk descriptors are intended to convey
information about the risk borne by individuals within a specified
population and subpopulations. These risk descriptors are used to
answer questions concerning the affected population, the risk levels of
various groups within the population, and the average risk for
individuals within a population of interest. The approach used in this
analysis for characterizing baseline individual risk included: (1)
Identifying and describing the population of concern for an exposure
route; (2) determining the sensitivity of the model parameters used in
the risk estimation; (3) estimating central tendency and high-end
values for the most sensitive parameters in the risk estimation
procedures; and (4) calculating risk for an exposure pathway that
provides a characterization of the central tendency and high-end risk
descriptor.
Population risk. Descriptors of population risk are intended to
convey information about the risk borne by the population or population
segment being studied. These risk descriptors are used to answer
questions concerning the number of cases of a particular health effect
that probabilistically could occur within the population during a given
time period, the number of persons or percent of the population above a
certain risk level or health benchmark (e.g., RfD or RfC), and risk for
a particular population segment.
Risk assessment. The analysis of risks was developed using both the
input of derived or measured toxicological information and the
modelling of waste mismanagement scenarios. Specifically, for disposal
of solids in unlined landfills, the concentration of the constituents
of concern in the landfill leachate first was determined using the
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) on selected record
samples, or when TCLP data were lacking, by assuming a leachate
concentration based on the aqueous solubility of the constituent. It
then was assumed that the leachate would be diluted by a factor of 100
(as described in the Toxicity Characteristic Rule 55 FR 11798, March
29, 1990) before reaching the nearest drinking water well. The
resulting diluted concentrations can be then compared with the health-
based values. In the case of this analysis, a one-in-a-million
(10-6) risk level or hazard quotient of 1 was used.
For wastewaters, the situation was more complicated. One facility
has been granted a no-migration variance from the land disposal
restrictions. The second facility, which consists of several separate
plants, has not obtained such a variance. The plants at the second
facility currently dispose of process wastewaters by deep well
injection. Modelling for specific wastewater streams was based on the
possibilities of leakage of injected wastewaters from the injection
zone upward to a drinking water aquifer through the abandoned oil and
gas wells in the area. Details of this modelling are given in the Risk
Modelling Background Document and summarized in the individual
wastewater risk assessment to be discussed in the following sections.
D. Basis for Listing Determinations Decisions
1. Waste Specific Risk Analyses
Risk analyses were performed on eleven individual waste streams.
The models selected for individual mismanagement scenarios are
described in the individual sections which follow.
a. Wastes From Production of Bromochloromethane/Dibromomethane--i.
Solids. Dibromomethane is a low-volume product with limited commercial
applications; therefore, it is unlikely that other firms will enter the
marketplace. The only solid wastes generated from the production of
dibromomethane are spent filters used to remove rust and other
particulate matter from the product. About two drums of the material
are generated per year. As a result, the Agency feels the quantity is
de minimis. The filters are changed yearly and the spent filter
material is sent to a Subtitle C incinerator. The waste is generated in
small quantities and is mixed with other halogenated solids prior to
incineration at the Subtitle C facility. As a result, the Agency
believes that although the waste generated from the production of
dibromomethane contains toxic constituents, it does not pose a threat
to human health and the environment because of the small quantities
generated and current management practices. The Agency is proposing a
no-list decision.
ii. Wastewaters. Dibromomethane and bromochloromethane are
manufactured as co-products at only one facility in the U.S., which has
an approved no-migration petition for its deep well injection unit. The
approved petition means that the waste will not migrate from the
formation into which it is being injected and will therefore not pose
risk sufficient to warrant listing.
b. Wastes From the Production of Ethyl Bromide--i. Solids. Ethyl
bromide is manufactured in low volumes at only one facility. The only
solid waste stream consists of spent filter materials used to remove
impurities from the product. This waste contains about 90,000 parts per
million ethyl bromide and is generated in quantities of 6 drums per
year which is sent to Subtitle C facilities for treatment and disposal.
High dilution with other wastes placed in the landfill would reduce
leachate concentration levels to below those for reasonable concern.
The Agency feels that although the waste does contain toxic
constituents, based on the production history of this chemical, it is
unlikely that other firms will enter the market and that, because of
the minimal waste quantities generated and the current waste management
practice, there is no need for a specific listing of the filters.
ii. Wastewaters. The wastewater stream is condensate water
containing only small amounts of ethanol as a contaminant. This
wastestream contains no other contaminants of concern and is managed by
deepwell injection. Prior to injection, the ethanol-containing stream
is mixed with wastewaters from other processes and the resulting mixed
stream thus is diluted by a factor of over 1,000. As a result, the
Agency believes that the ethanol content of the combined stream poses
little to no risk to human health or the environment, and proposes not
to list this wastestream.
c. Wastes From the Production of Tetrabromobisphenol-A--i. Solids.
The solid wastes generated from the tetrabromobisphenol A process
consist of spilled product and floor sweepings from the production
area. This material currently is managed in Subtitle C facilities.
About 150 tons of this waste are generated annually. Bisphenol-A is
manufactured by condensation of phenol and acetone. As a result,
commercial grade bisphenol-A may contain variable low levels of phenol
and, therefore, the brominated material is expected to contain some
brominated phenols. Some of these will co-precipitate with the product
during the process and be incorporated into the solid product.
At present, the Agency has insufficient information to characterize
the amount of the brominated phenols (including tetrabromobisphenol-A)
in the product or their leachability from the product matrix. EPA
requests any information on the amount of brominated phenols in the
product and their leachability from the product matrix. At this time,
the Agency also does not have information on the toxicity of
tetrabromobisphenol A, and requests any information commenters may have
on its toxicology, including the existence of any toxicological
analogues for tetrabromobisphenol A.
Record sampling of an on-site landfill at one plant where these
solids were formerly disposed for a number of years showed the absence
of any brominated materials in the landfill leachate. Given the lack of
adequate information to perform a risk analysis at this time, the
Agency is concerned about being conclusive about the potential hazard
of this waste stream and its potential to migrate to ground water if
managed in an unlined landfill. The Agency proposes to defer for this
waste stream a listing determination and requests submission of both
characterization and toxicological data, if available. EPA will
evaluate carefully all public comments and information received in
response to this notice. Particular attention will be paid to any data
submitted which tend to either support or refute a finding of risk to
human health and the environment from wastes from the production of
tetrabromobisphenol A. Based on comments received, including any data,
EPA may choose, rather than deferring, to promulgate a final
determination to either list or not list tetrabromobisphenol A waste as
a hazardous waste under RCRA.
ii. Wastewaters. Wastewaters from the manufacture of
tetrabromobisphenol A are already listed and carry the hazardous waste
code of K131. Methyl bromide and tetrabromobisphenol A are produced in
the same process. Process wastewater originates from the distillation
step where methyl bromide is recovered. The Agency feels that no
further action is needed for the waste stream.
d. Wastes From the Production of Octabromodiphenyl Oxide.--i.
Solids. Solid wastes such as filter cakes typically are disposed of in
landfills. This has been the practice of the major organobromine
chemicals manufacturers for many years. Currently, these wastes are
being shipped to Subtitle C hazardous waste facilities. However, it
would be possible for the generators to change their disposal practices
and direct these materials to Subtitle D landfills. The quantities of
these wastes generated are not de minimis as was the case for
dibromomethane solid wastes. Toluene is present in filter cakes from
the production of octabromodiphenyl oxide. To evaluate the potential
risks associated with filter cake containing toluene, EPA applied the
Agency's Organic Leachate Model (51 FR 27062, April 29, 1986) to
estimate the maximum amounts of toluene that would be expected to leach
from the filter cake in an open landfill environment. The Agency also
sampled the on-site landfill at one production site where some of this
waste was disposed. The sampling of the landfill leachate did not
detect any toluene present. The toluene concentrations in the filter
cake were used as input to the Agency's Composite Model for Landfills
(56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991) to estimate high-end (95th percentile)
concentrations of toluene in a hypothetical receptor well. The
hypothetical well concentrations derived from this analysis are about
one order of magnitude below the Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) for
toluene promulgated by regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The formulae used and a more detailed discussion of the application of
these models to the waste samples can be found in the Background
Document, available in the RCRA public docket. See ADDRESSES section.
Because the modelled leachate levels are below acceptable drinking
water levels, EPA does not believe that toluene-containing filter cake
wastes generated in the production of octabromodiphenyl oxide pose a
threat to human health and the environment; thus, the Agency proposes
not to list this wastestream. The waste solids also contained about 4.4
ppb of brominated dibenzofurans (most of which were the hepta isomer),
which the Agency believes are among the least toxic of the brominated
dibenzofurans. The toxicities of these materials were evaluated in
terms of equivalence to that for tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin (TCDD). The
Agency has concluded that the risk posed by this constituent is below
the 10-6 level.
Also, the health-based for a one-in-a-million risk level for
octabromodiphenyl oxide using standard intake and exposure assumptions
is 0.1 mg/L. No leachate data are available for this waste. However,
the Agency assumed an upper-bound leachate concentration of 0.2 mg/L
based on the solubility of octabromodiphenyl oxide. Assuming a dilution
factor of 100 is achievable during migration to the nearest drinking
water well, the concentration in potable water would be below that of
concern. As a result, EPA is proposing not to list this waste stream
based on low estimated exposure to toxic constituents.
ii. Wastewaters. While the Agency has no quantifiable concentration
data on octabromodiphenyl oxide found in the wastewaters, adequate data
exist on brominated dibenzofurans found in the generated wastes.
Brominated dibenzofurans were detected in some of the record
samples from octa- and decabromodiphenyl oxide processes. Studies
conducted for EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and by
research groups in Germany and the Netherlands show that brominated
furans can be formed during the manufacture of brominated diphenyl
ethers, as well as during their fabrication into polymers. The evidence
currently available to the Agency indicates that brominated dioxins and
furans may range from 30-100% as toxic as their chlorinated
counterparts. Using this approach, a record sample of wastewater from
the octabromodiphenyl oxide unit showed a maximum toxicity equivalent
of 3.7 x 10-7 mg/L of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
equivalent. Assuming a 100-fold dilution of the waste prior to reaching
a drinking water well, the level would be below the MCL for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD, which is 3 x 10-8 mg/L. The Agency selected the highest
toxicity value in making this analysis.
Based on this evaluation, the Agency is proposing not to list this
waste stream for brominated dibenzofurans, because EPA believes that
estimated exposure levels to toxic constituents are sufficiently low so
as to not pose a threat to human health and the environment.
The Agency was unable to quantify levels of octabromodiphenyl oxide
present in wastewaters. However, the solubility of the chemical is only
0.2 mg/L. The flow of wastewaters from this process represents less
than one percent of the total amount of process wastewater injected.
The health-based level for a one-in-a-million risk level for
octabromodiphenyl is 0.1 mg/L. Due to the high level of dilution
occurring prior to injection, the resulting concentration of the toxic
chemical expected to reach drinking water aquifers is well below levels
of concern.
e. Wastes From the Production of Decabromodiphenyl Oxide--i.
Solids. The production of decabromodiphenyl oxide generates solid
wastes consisting of collected spilled product. Only limited analytical
results were obtained from the record sampling of this waste and no
TCLP leachate data were obtained for this compound. However, the Agency
assumed an upper-bound leachate concentration of 0.2 mg/L based on the
aqueous solubility of the constituent. The health-based level for a
one-in-a-million risk level for this compound is 0.35 mg/L, (assuming
exposure of drinking 2.0 L/day for a 70 year exposure period) so the
concentration in the leachate is already below the level of concern
before any further dilution. Therefore, the Agency is proposing not to
list this wastestream.
ii. Wastewaters. The manufacture of decabromodiphenyl oxide also
generates a wastewater stream. The Agency was unable to quantify the
amount of the product in the wastewater stream. Based on the process
chemistry, however, a small amount of product would appear in the
stream. The solubility of decabromodiphenyl oxide is less than 0.2 mg/
L. This chemical has a health-based level of 0.35 mg/L so the leachate
concentration is already below the level of concern even before the
subsequent significant dilution occurs. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to not list this wastestream.
f. Wastes From the Production of Tribromophenol--i. Solids. Solids
from the production of tribromophenol (TBP) consist of spilled
materials, off-specification product and spent filter cartridges which
were used to remove entrained TBP particulates from the gaseous
hydrogen bromide coproduct. The one plant manufacturing this chemical
mixes the three wastes together prior to shipment off site for land
disposal. Most of this waste is sent to a Subtitle C hazardous waste
facility. However, some is being sent to a Subtitle D landfill.
Inadequate toxicity data for tribromophenol (TBP) have prevented
the Agency from establishing a human health reference value for
tribromophenol (TBP). Therefore, as previously discussed, the Agency
performed a structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis in order to
provide a provisional human health reference value for this compound.
Based on the structure activity relationship, the health-based
level for a one-in-a-million risk level for TBP should be the same as
that for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (i.e., 0.003 mg/L assuming exposure of
drinking 2.0 liters per day for a 70-year exposure period). The health-
based level of 0.003 mg/L can be considered a bounding estimate which
could overestimate the exposure in an actual population. TCLP leaching
data presented in the Industry Study Background Document show
concentrations of 760 and 16 mg/L of TBP in leachate extracts from the
off-specification product and the filter cartridges, respectively.
Since the leachate levels exceed the health-based levels for this
wastestream, the Agency conducted an analysis of the potential risk
from unlined landfill disposal. For this analysis, the Agency selected
what are perhaps conservative dilution factors and exposure
assumptions. Using a dilution and attenuation factor of 100 from the
Toxicity Characteristic rule (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) to simulate
the subsurface dilution of the leachate concentration between an
unlined landfill and a hypothetical receptor well, the estimated TBP
concentrations in groundwater are 7.6 and 0.16 mg/L, respectively.
Assuming that people drinking from this hypothetical well are exposed
to the contaminant by drinking 1.4 L/day of contaminated water every
day over a 30-year interval, the health-based limit of a one-in-a-
million increased lifetime risk of cancer is 0.01 mg/L. Thus, the
levels of estimated individual risk from exposure to TBP in groundwater
are 7 x 10-4 and 2 x 10-5, respectively.
For this proposed rule, the Agency did not conduct a more
sophisticated risk analysis. A more sophisticated risk assessment may
suggest different estimated risks than the analysis described above.
For example, the dilution factor of 100 was derived assuming that the
chemical does not adsorb or degrade in the subsurface environment. The
Agency is aware that the fate and transport of TBP in the environment
is dependent on the environment in which the waste is disposed. If
disposal is to a neutral or slightly acidic environment, the octanol-
water coefficient (a constant often related to the soil-water
adsorption coefficient) for TBP is relatively high, exceeding 16,000.
This value suggests that TBP in landfill leachate may bind to
subsurface soils and may migrate at low concentrations over a very long
period of time in some environments. On the other hand, disposal under
alkaline conditions, which are present in areas where organobromines
are produced, would likely result in less sorption to subsurface soils.
This suggests that TBP could become more mobile under these conditions.
In addition, the dilution factor of 100 in the analysis used
corresponds to the dilution factor expected at a drinking water well
500 feet downgradient from the disposal location. The Agency does not
know the distance between landfills or disposal areas that could
receive TBP wastes and the nearby downgradient drinking water wells or
intercept surface waters. Depending on the distance to the nearest well
or environmental receptor, the actual human health and environmental
risks could be substantially greater than or less than those estimated
in the analysis employed in this proposal.
A more sophisticated analysis would also consider other potential
exposure pathways in addition to consumption of contaminated
groundwater. For example, since TBP under some soil pH's is likely to
bind strongly to particulates such as soil, the Agency is concerned
that disposal of these wastes could result in soil contamination around
the disposal site and human health and environmental risks. The
concentration of 2,4,6 TBP in the floor sweepings was very high (up to
400,000 ppm) in the two samples the Agency measured. Since the wastes
are in dry, powdery form, they could be dispersed around the disposal
facility. Depending on the disposal rate and the likelihood of
exposure, exposure to particulates at the disposal site could pose
human health and environmental risks at levels of concern.
The Agency requests comment on the risk analysis used in this
proposal and plausible mismanagement practices of TBP wastes. EPA
requests comment on the issues raised above and on all aspects of the
risk analysis employed. In particular, the Agency requests comment on
the use of the DAF of 100 for this specific analysis.
Disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most plausible
mismanagement scenario, given the lower cost for disposal at such
sites. The model previously discussed assumes that the Subtitle D
facility is unlined. Because the concentrations of TBP at a receptor
well could exceed health-based levels, the Agency is proposing to list
the solids from the production of tribromophenol as hazardous wastes.
The Agency is seeking comment on the risk levels used in this risk
assessment. In the Superfund program, EPA makes clean up decisions
using concentration levels that represent excess upper bound lifetime
cancer risk to an individual of between 10-4 to 10-6.
However, the 10-6 risk level is the point of departure for
determining remediation goals.
Based on the analysis used, EPA is proposing to add tribromophenol
to the list of 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VIII toxic hazardous
constituents based on its structural activity relationship with 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol and the potential exposure as described above. The
Agency also is proposing to add tribromophenol to the list of
commercial chemical products (40 CFR 261.33) that are hazardous wastes
if discarded or spilled. The wastes specifically proposed for listing
are:
K140--Waste solids and filter cartridges from the production of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol.
U408--2,4,6-Tribromophenol.
EPA will evaluate carefully all public comments and information
received in response to this notice, particularly data which tend to
support or refute a finding of risk to human health and the environment
from TBP wastes. Based on the comments received, the Agency may
finalize or re-evaluate today's proposed listing.
ii. Wastewaters. Data available to the Agency suggests that
tribromophenol is produced only at the part of the one major facility
in which the wastewaters are injected into non-hazardous deep wells. As
off-site management of these wastewaters is probably economically
prohibitive, the Agency assumed for the plausible mismanagement
scenario that the plant would continue the use of underground
injection. In order to estimate risk, EPA had to estimate the length of
time injection would continue. The Agency assumed that the plant would
inject these wastewaters for up to 60 years, at which point the
production of tribromophenol could end because the supply of raw
material could run out. Because of the large volume of wastewater
generated by this process, the Agency used more sophisticated modelling
than for the lower volume wastes. Modelling of the risk due to the
management of the wastewaters from TBP production in underground
injection was based on the use of three linked submodels. The overall
model included:
(1) A submodel which simulates the subsurface lateral migration of
TBP from the injection wells to nearby abandoned oil wells penetrating
the injection horizons.
(2) A second submodel which simulates the vertical migration of TBP
from the injection horizon upward to the drinking water aquifer; and
(3) Finally, a submodel which predicts the lateral spreading of the
chemical from the abandoned oil well in the drinking water aquifer and
exposure to vertically averaged concentrations present in drinking
water wells within the aquifer.
It was assumed that the abandoned wells are filled with compacted
sand. Results of the simulated runs are presented in the background
document in terms of concentrations as a function of time for various
exposure distances. The initial concentration of tribromophenol in the
injected wastewater was measured in record sampling to be 7 mg/L and
the health-based level (based on a 10-6 risk level) was assumed to
be 0.01 mg/L (using the same high end exposure assumptions described
above for tribromophenol solids). The modeling results showed that the
health-based level (based on a 10-6 risk) would be exceeded in the
upper aquifer after 60 years (the amount of time the injection is
expected to continue) at very short distances (less than 10 feet) from
a leaking, abandoned, and plugged (i.e., filled with sand) oil well.
The results also indicated that the plume of contamination would
migrate through the aquifer, away from the plugged oil well, and slowly
dissipate over time. Therefore, this plume of contamination could
result in exposure to TBP over the health-based level beyond a short
distance from the abandoned oil well, if a drinking water well is
drilled downgradient from that abandoned oil well. However, this
exposure would probably be limited because of the relatively small size
of the area in the migrating contaminated plume where TBP is above 0.01
mg/L.
The Agency has also sampled drinking water wells at the plant site
and at a private facility 1.3 miles distant. No tribromophenol was
found at a detection level of 0.001 mg/L. The plant has been producing
TBP since 1976. The absence of TBP in groundwater at present, however,
does not completely preclude its presence at a future date. Considering
that TBP was not detected in the aquifer and that the model predicted
only limited exposure to TBP above the health-based number, the Agency
is proposing not to list this wastestream because of relatively low
risk to human health.
However, the Agency recognizes that the modeling results described
above are dependent on numerous assumptions, including the injection
timeframe (i.e., 60 years) and the number and characteristics of the
abandoned oil wells. Modifying certain of these assumptions could
significantly change the results of this analysis. For example, if the
Agency assumes that the abandoned oil well is unfilled, underground
injection of this wastewater could result in a contamination plume
(with TBP levels above the health-based level) of up to 4000 feet from
the well over 60 years and even further away as the plume continues to
migrate after 60 years. Also, depending on the exact location of the
drinking water well relative to the plume centerline, a person drinking
from that well could be exposed to a high concentration of TBP (up to
around 5 mg/L) for many years as the contaminated plume moves by.
Therefore, the Agency solicits comment on the assumptions used in
this modeling, particularly whether or not some of them should be
changed to more accurately predict the risk resulting from the
undergound injection of these wastewaters. The Agency specifically
requests comment on the following assumptions that are particularly
important in this analysis:
(1) Should the timeframe for injection of the tribromophenol
wastewaters be extended beyond 60 years?
(2) The model assumed that only one abandoned well would be open
to flow. Should the Agency consider the potential for more abandoned
wells coming in contact with the spreading plume?
(3) Should the Agency assume the abandoned well(s) are plugged
or unplugged?
Several other assumptions (used in the modelling employed by the
Agency), individually or in combination, could lead to an
overestimation of actual risk and the Agency is requesting comment on
them. They are:
(1) The Agency assumed that a break occurs in an abandoned well
shaft inside the Sparta aquifer. What are the chances that no breaks
have occurred or will occur in the aquifer in any of the many
abandoned wells in the area?
(2) The drinking water well was assumed to be drilled in the
proximity of an abandoned oil well. Is this a valid assumption?
(3) The model assumed an average concentration of tribromophenol
in the Sparta aquifer. If the well tapping the drinking water is
nearer to the top of the aquifer, as it most likely would be, would
this make a significant difference in the risk level calculated?
(4) The Agency assumed that injection of wastewaters and pumping
from Sparta at the site occurs during the same time frame. Should
the Agency consider the pumping from Sparta will continue to occur
after injection of wastewater ceases, which could affect the
modelling calculation?
Finally, the Agency requests comment on whether or not these
tribromophenol wastewaters should be listed as hazardous waste based on
modifications to EPA's analysis or on any additional data indicating
groundwater contamination from the underground injection of these
wastes.
Although today's proposed listing determination models potential
contamination to a drinking water source, it is not a finding under
Section 144.12 of the UIC regulations. Those regulations prohibit
endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) as
defined under the UIC program. A well which fails to meet this
requirement must be denied a permit or placed under an enforcement
action. The threshold for a determination of compliance with Section
144.12 is different from the threshold for listing a waste as hazardous
under RCRA. The test for compliance under the UIC program is whether
the well may cause the movement of any contaminant into a USDW in a
manner that may cause a violation of a primary drinking water
regulation, or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.
2. Conclusions
The Agency is proposing to list as hazardous waste solids and spent
filters from the production of 2,4,6-tribromophenol (K140) and the off-
specification and discarded product (U408) based on their projected
toxicities from structural activity studies, and potential exposure to
these chemicals. EPA's decision to propose these additional hazardous
waste listings represents a determination by the Agency that the wastes
identified meet the criteria for listing as hazardous wastes presented
in 40 CFR 261.11. Specifically, based on available evidence, the Agency
concludes that 2,4,6-tribromophenol is similar in toxicity to its
chlorinated analogue. EPA is proposing that these wastes from
organobromines production be listed as hazardous and subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR parts 124, 262-266, 268, 270, and 271 since they
are capable of posing a threat to human health and the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise
handled.
Based on the data collected by the Agency during the recent
organobromines industry study and the unique conditions of the industry
regarding limitations to future expansion, EPA believes there is
justification for a no-list determination for wastes generated from the
production of most of the other organobromine chemicals identified in
the consent decree (i.e., bromochloromethane, ethyl bromide,
octabromodiphenyl oxide and decabromodiphenyl oxide) and for the
wastewaters from tribromophenol production. After considering the
collected information and data from toxicological, chemical,
hydrogeological, and engineering viewpoints, EPA has concluded that the
disposal of any wastes from these processes that are not currently
listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D do not pose a substantial present
or future risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, at this
time, EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous wastes any additional
wastes generated from the production of these chemicals. The Agency
reserves the right to revisit these listing determinations if
additional relevant data become available. In addition, the Agency is
deferring action on the solids waste stream from the production of
tetrabromobisphenol-A.
III. Waste Minimization Opportunities in the Industry
During the industry study, the Agency identified two potential
opportunities for waste minimization. The first involves the recovery
of tribromophenol in the tetrabromobisphenol-A and tribromophenol
process. Commercial bisphenol A is made by condensation of phenol and
acetone and, hence, the feedstock contains some unreacted phenol.
Record sampling of one wastewater stream that leaves the process hot
revealed that it contained up to 15,000 mg/L of tribromophenol. A
second unrelated wastewater stream from the production of
tribromophenol also contains about 70 ppm. This chemical has a
solubility of 70 parts per million at 25 deg.C. From the volumes of
wastewater generated, the Agency believes that enough material
potentially could be recovered to increase annual production of
tribromophenol by up to 70%. Cooling and filtering of this wastewater
prior to deep well disposal might recover phenolics, limit the quantity
of brominated chemicals being disposed, and reduce the plant's overall
requirements for purchased phenol. Brominated phenol recovery also
could make recycling some process wastewater viable, particularly in
the tribromophenol process where the wastewater containing chiefly this
material is disposed of by deep well injection.
The second area where savings could be achieved is in product
packaging. Materials spilled in the packaging areas are drummed and
shipped to Subtitle C facilities. Presently, the two major
manufacturers of organobromine chemicals generate over 300 tons per
year of various spilled solid products. Recovery of this material could
result in significant savings and benefit the environment. The Agency
invites comment on both waste minimization options.
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Compliance Costs
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
Executive Order No. 12866 requires that a regulatory agency
determine whether a new regulation will have ``significant regulatory
action'' and, if so, that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted. This
analysis is a quantification of the potential benefits, costs, and
economic impacts of a rule. A significant regulatory action is defined
as a regulation that has an annual cost to the economy of $100 million
or more that adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; creates a serious inconsistency with actions taken or
planned by another agency; materially alters the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations or recipients thereof; or raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
The Agency estimated the costs of today's proposed rule to
determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by Executive
Order 12866. Today's proposed rule is estimated to have an annualized
incremental cost of less than $100,000. Based on this compliance cost
estimate, today's proposed rule is not considered to be a significant
regulatory action. This section of the preamble discusses the results
of the analyses of the proposed rule.
Approach
To estimate the costs, economic impacts, and benefits of today's
proposed rule, the Agency compared post-regulatory costs, benefits, and
economic impacts with those resulting under baseline conditions.
Benefits are addressed in the risk assessment section of this preamble.
The baseline management practices for this waste is disposal in a
Subtitle D landfill.
Results
Due to the extremely small universe of facilities potentially
affected by this rule, the number of facilities actually affected is
insignificant. The requirements promulgated by this proposed rule are
estimated to cost industry less than $100,000 per year assuming
disposal in a Subtitle C landfill.
The economic impact analysis estimates that none of the affected
facilities would be significantly affected by the proposed rule.
Compliance with this proposed rule is estimated to increase operating
expenses at affected facilities by significantly less than one percent.
None of the affected facilities is expected to close as a result of the
rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., whenever an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) that describes the effect of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). This analysis is unnecessary, however, if the rule is
estimated not to have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to EPA's guidelines for conducting an RFA, if over 20
percent of the population of small entities is likely to experience
financial distress based on the costs of the rule, then the Agency
considers that the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and must perform an RFA. EPA evaluated the
economic effect of the proposed rule, as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and determined that no facilities would be
significantly affected. The Administrator certifies that part 268 and
part 148 will not have significant economic effects on a substantial
number of small entities. As a result of this finding, the Agency has
not prepared a formal RFA.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection
requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements in this
proposal were promulgated in previous land disposal restriction
rulemakings and have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. Since there are no new information collection requirements
being proposed today, an Information Collection Request has not been
prepared. However, facilities will have to comply with existing
Subtitle C recordkeeping and reporting requirements for newly listed
wastestreams if today's proposals are finalized.
VI. State Program Implementation
A. Applicability of Rules in States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce RCRA programs within the State. (See 40 CFR part
271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) Following
authorization EPA retains enforcement authority under Sections 3008,
7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final RCRA authorization administered its authorized
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA could
not issue permits for any facilities in the State which the State was
authorized to permit. When new, more-stringent Federal requirements
were promulgated or enacted, the State was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames. New Federal requirements did
not take effect in an authorized State until the State adopted the
requirements as State law.
In contrast, under Section 3006(g) of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take effect in
authorized States at the same time that they take effect in
unauthorized States. EPA is directed to implement these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of
permits, until the State modifies its program to reflect the Federal
standards, and applies for and is granted authorization. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.
Today's proposal for listing EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K140 and U408
is being proposed pursuant to Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a provision
added by HSWA. When the final rules are promulgated, EPA will consider
its HSWA obligation to make a determination regarding listing
organobromine wastes to be fulfilled. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to add these requirements to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j),
which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect in all States, regardless of
their authorization status. States may apply for final authorization
for the HSWA provisions identified in 40 CFR 271.1(j) Table 1, as
discussed in the following section of the preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted previously, today's rule is being proposed pursuant to
provisions added by HSWA. The addition of K140 to the list of hazardous
wastes from specific sources and the addition of U408 to the list of
commercial chemical products that are hazardous when discarded is
proposed pursuant to Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a provision added by
the HSWA.
As noted above, EPA will implement the HSWA portions of today's
rule (i.e., the addition of K140 to the list of hazardous wastes from
specific sources and the addition of U408 to the list of commercial
chemical products that are hazardous when discarded) in authorized
States until they modify their programs to adopt these rules and such
modifications are approved by EPA. Because this rule will be
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a program modification
may apply to receive either interim or final RCRA authorization under
Section 3006 (b) and (g) on the basis that State regulations are
substantially equivalent or fully equivalent to EPA's regulations. The
procedures and schedule for State programs modifications for either
interim or final authorization are described in 40 CFR 271.21. It
should be noted that all HSWA interim authorizations will expire on
January 1, 2003 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)), 52 FR 60129, December 18, 1992.
It should be noted that 40 CFR 271.21(e) requires that States
having final RCRA authorization must modify their programs to reflect
Federal program changes and subsequently must submit the modifications
to EPA for approval. The deadline by which States must modify their
programs to adopt today's proposed rule will be determined by the date
of promulgation of the final rule in accordance with 40 CFR
271.21(e)(2). Once EPA approves the modification, the State
requirements become RCRA Subtitle C requirements.
States with authorized RCRA programs already may have regulations
similar to those proposed in today's rule. Such State regulations have
not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed today
to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, these
State regulations will not be deemed as RCRA requirements until the
State program modification is submitted to EPA and approved. Of course,
States with existing regulations may continue to administer and enforce
those regulations as a matter of State law. In addition, in
implementing the Federal program, EPA will work with the States under
cooperative agreements to minimize duplication of efforts; in many
cases, EPA will be able to defer to the States in their efforts to
implement their programs, rather than take separate actions under
Federal authority.
States that submit their official applications for final
authorization less than 12 months after the effective date of EPA's
regulations are not required to include regulations equivalent to the
EPA regulations in their application. However, States must modify their
programs by the deadlines set forth in 40 CFR 271.21(e). States that
submit official applications for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards must include standards equivalent
to these standards in their application. The requirements States must
meet when submitting final authorization applications are set forth in
40 CFR 271.3.
VII. CERCLA Designation and RQ Adjustment
All hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33, as
well as any solid waste that meets one or more of the characteristics
of a RCRA hazardous waste (as defined at 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24),
are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA),
pursuant to CERCLA Section 101(14) 42 U.S.C. 9601 (14)(c). CERCLA
hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along
with their reportable quantities (RQs). Therefore, in addition to the
K140 listing being proposed today for 40 CFR 261.32 and the U408
listing being proposed for 40 CFR 261.33, entries for K140 and U408
also are being proposed for Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4.
Reporting Requirements. Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the person in
charge of a vessel or facility from which a hazardous substance has
been released in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must
immediately notify the National Response Center of the release (see 40
CFR part 302).1 In addition to this reporting requirement under
CERCLA, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11004, requires owners or operators
of certain facilities to report the release of a CERCLA hazardous
substance to State and local authorities. EPCRA Section 304
notification must be given immediately after the release of an RQ or
more to the community emergency coordinator of the local emergency
planning committee for each area likely to be affected by the release,
and to the State emergency planning commission of any State likely to
be affected by the release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The toll free telephone number of the National Response
Center is 800-424-8802; in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, the
number is 202-267-2675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment of RQs. Under Section 102(b) of CERCLA, all hazardous
wastes newly designated under CERCLA will have a statutory RQ of one
pound unless and until adjusted by regulation. The Agency's methodology
for adjusting RQs of individual hazardous substances begins with an
evaluation of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties of each hazardous substance.2 The intrinsic properties
examined--called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic toxicity, mammalian
toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity,
chronic toxicity, and potential carcinogenicity. Generally, for each
intrinsic property, the Agency ranks hazardous substances on a scale,
associating a specific range of values on each scale with an RQ of 1,
10, 100, 1000, or 5000 pounds. The data for each hazardous substance
are evaluated using various primary criteria; each hazardous substance
may receive several tentative RQ values based on its particular
intrinsic properties. The lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the
``primary criteria RQ'' for that substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\For more detailed information on this methodology, see the
preamble to an RQ adjustment final rule published on August 14, 1989
(54 FR 33426). A different methodology is used to assign adjusted
RQs to radionuclides (see 54 FR 22524, May 24, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are further
evaluated for their susceptibility to certain degradative processes,
which are used as secondary adjustment criteria. These natural
degradative processes are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis
(BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment,
degrades relatively rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of
the BHP processes, its RQ (as determined by the primary RQ adjustment
criteria) is generally raised one level.3 This adjustment is made
because the relative potential for harm to public health or welfare or
the environment posed by the release of such a substance is reduced by
these degradative processes. Conversely, if a hazardous substance
degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, the original
substance is assigned an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous
substance, which may be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the
original substance. The downward adjustment is appropriate because the
hazard posed by the release of the original substance is increased as a
result of BHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\No RQ level increase based on BHP occurs if the primary
criteria RQ is already at its highest possible level (100 pounds for
potential carcinogens and 5000 pounds for all other types of
hazardous substances except radionuclides). BHP is not applied to
radionuclides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methodology summarized above is applied to adjust the RQs of
individual hazardous substances. An additional process applies to RCRA
listed wastes, which contain individual hazardous substances as
constituents. As the Agency has stated (54 FR 33440, August 14, 1989),
to assign an RQ to a RCRA waste, the Agency determines the RQ for each
constituent of the waste and then assigns the lowest of these
constituent RQs to the waste itself.
Proposed Adjusted RQs for U408 and K140. Waste U408 is 2,4,6-
tribromophenol, an individual hazardous substance. It has been
evaluated for four of the six primary RQ adjustment criteria--aquatic
toxicity, mammalian toxicity, ignitability, and reactivity--and the
secondary adjustment criteria (BHP). Based on this evaluation, the
Agency today is proposing an adjusted RQ of 100 pounds for 2,4,6-
tribromophenol.
The Agency's evaluations of 2,4,6-tribromophenol for the other two
primary RQ adjustment criteria (chronic toxicity and potential
carcinogenicity) are not yet complete. If, when completed, these
evaluations result in an RQ lower than the 100-pound RQ proposed today,
the Agency will repropose the RQ for 2,4,6-tribromophenol at the lower
level.
The other waste, K140, is a waste stream with only one hazardous
constituent--2,4,6-tribromophenol. Therefore, in accordance with the RQ
adjustment methodology described above, an adjusted RQ of 100 pounds is
being proposed today for K140. Because the RQ for K140 is based on the
RQ for 2,4,6-tribromophenol, any reproposal of the 2,4,6-tribromophenol
RQ required by further evaluation will be accompanied by a
corresponding reproposal of the RQ for K140.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612),
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 (RFA)
that describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions).
No RFA is required, however, if the head of the Agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Since EPA has determined the hazardous wastes proposed for listing
here are not generated by small entities (as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act), and the Agency believes that small entities will not
generate them in significant quantities, this regulation, therefore,
does not require a RFA. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
IX. Compliance and Implementation
A. Section 3010 Notification
Generally, when new hazardous wastes are listed, all persons who
generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose the newly listed
wastes(s) are required to notify either EPA, or a State authorized by
EPA to operate the hazardous waste program, of their activities
pursuant to Section 3010 of RCRA. However, under the Solid Waste
Disposal Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-482), EPA was given the option
of waiving the notification requirement for persons who handle wastes
that are covered by today's proposed listing and already have notified
EPA that they manage other hazardous wastes and have received an EPA
identification number. This waiver is being proposed because of the
likelihood that persons managing today's proposed wastes already are
managing one or more hazardous wastes that generally are associated
with the generation of proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K140 and U408
and, therefore, have previously notified EPA and received an EPA
identification number. In the event that any person who generates,
transports, treats, stores, or disposes these wastes and has not
previously notified and received an identification number, that person
must obtain an identification number pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12 before
that person can generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of these
wastes.
B. Compliance Dates for Facilities
Today's proposed listings will be promulgated pursuant to HSWA.
HSWA requirements are applicable in authorized States at the same time
as in unauthorized States. Therefore, EPA will regulate the wastes
being proposed today until States are authorized to regulate these
wastes. Once these regulations are promulgated in a final rule by EPA,
the Agency will apply these Federal regulations to these wastes and to
their management in both authorized and unauthorized States.
Newly-regulated facilities (i.e., facilities at which the only
hazardous wastes that are managed are today's proposed wastes in units
subject to permit requirements when these listings are finalized) must
qualify for interim status within six months of publication of the rule
in order to continue managing these wastes in such units. To retain
interim status, a newly-regulated land disposal facility must submit a
part B permit application within eighteen months after publication of
the rule and certify that the facility is in compliance with all
applicable ground-water monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements (see RCRA Section 3005(e)(3)).
Interim status facilities that manage today's proposed wastes after
these listings are promulgated, must file an amended Part A permit
application within six months of publication of the final rule if they
are to continue managing these wastes in units that require a permit.
The facilities must file the necessary amendments by the effective date
of the rule, or they will not retain interim status with respect to
today's proposed wastes.
Currently permitted facilities that manage today's proposed wastes
after their listings are finalized by EPA must request permit
modifications if they are to continue management of these wastes in
units that require a permit. Since EPA initially will be responsible
for processing these permit modifications, the new Federal procedures
for permit modifications will be followed (see 53 FR 37934, September
28, 1988). These new procedures contain a specific provision for newly
listed or identified wastes (see 40 CFR 270.42(g)). This provision
generally requires that a permitted facility that is ``in existence''
for the newly listed or identified waste on the effective date of the
waste listing must submit a Class 1 modification by that date.
Essentially, this modification notifies the Agency and the public that
the facility is handling the waste and identifies the units involved.
By submitting this notice, the facility temporarily is allowed to
continue management of the newly-listed wastes until the Agency can
make a final change to the permit. Next, within 180 days of the
effective date the permittee must submit a more detailed permit
modification request (i.e., a Class 2 or 3 modification). This
information will be used by the Agency to develop a final permit
change. For more information on permit modifications see the September
28, 1988 preamble discussion referenced above.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous wastes, Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act, Extremely hazardous substances, Hazardous chemicals,
Hazardous materials, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous wastes, Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control, Water supply.
Dated: April 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
Part 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Sec. 261.32 the table is amended by adding in numerical order
the waste stream entry ``K140'' under the subgroup heading ``Organic
chemicals:'' to read as follows:
Sec. 261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific sources.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry and EPA hazardous Hazard
waste No. Hazardous waste code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
K140......................... Waste solids and filter (T)
cartridges from the
production of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol.
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 261.33(f) the table is amended by adding in numerical
order the entry ``U408'' to read as follows:
Sec. 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification
species, container residues, and spill residues thereof.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical
Hazardous waste No. abstracts Substance
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
U408.............................. 118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Appendix VII to part 261 is amended by adding the following
waste stream in alphanumeric order to read as follows:
Appendix VII.--Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous constituents for
EPA hazardous waste No. which listed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
K140.................................... 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Appendix VIII to part 261 is amended by adding the following
hazardous constituent in alphabetical order:
Appendix VIII to Part 261.--Hazardous Constituents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical
Common name Chemical abstracts abstracts Hazardous
name No. waste No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** * * * * *
2,4,6-Tribromophenol. Tribromophenol, 2,4,6 118-79-6 U408
** * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROGRAMS
6. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.
7. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to
table 1 in chronological order by date of publication to read as
follows.
Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
[Insert date of publication Listing of Organobromine [Insert Federal Register [Insert date 180 days
of final rule in Federal Production Wastes. reference to final rule]. after date of publication
Register]. of final rule in the
Federal Register.]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
6. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and
1361.
7. Section 302.4 is proposed to be amended by adding entries for
``K140'' and ``U408'' to table 302.4 to read as follows. The
appropriate footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished without change.
Sec. 302.4 Designation of hazardous substances.
* * * * *
Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities
[Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Final RQ
Regulatory ------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous substance CASRN synonyms RCRA waste
RQ Code No. Category Pounds (Kg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
K140Waste solids and filter cartridges from the production ........... 1* 4 K140 B 100 (45.4)
of 2, 4, 6-tribromophenol.
* * * * * * *
U4082, 4, 6,-Tribromophenol................................ 118796 ........... 1* 4 U408 B 100 (45.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.
*****
4--Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA section 3001.
1*--Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.
# #--The Agency may adjust the statutory RQ for this hazardous substance in a future rulemaking; until then the statutory RQ applies.
8. Appendix A to Sec. 302.4 is amended by adding an entry in
numerical order to read as follows:
Appendix A to Sec. 302.4.--Sequential CAS Registry Number List of CERCLA
Hazardous Substances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASRN Hazardous substance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
118796.................................. 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-11189 Filed 5-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P