[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