.-.536-'a r
Tuesday
Part If
Protect ion Agency
40 CFft Parts 260, et af.
Wood1 Surface Projection; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Testing
and Monitoring Activities; Standards for
Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage, and Disposal
,- Proposed Rule
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
25706
« Federal -^Re^ster /Vol. 58, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 27, 1993 /Proposed; Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261,264,265,270
and 302
[FHL-4596-6]
RIN2050-AD60
Wood Surface Protection;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Testing and Monitoring
Activities; Standards for Owner* and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
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 proposing to list as hazardous certain
•wastes from the use of chlorophenolic
formulations in the wood surface
protection industry. The Agency is
proposing to list these wastes if the
user's in-process formulation contains a
concentration greater than 100 ppb
pontachlorophenate. This action
proposes various-testing, analysis,
recordkeeping requirements and
management standards for wood surface
protection plants. Related to the testing
requirement, the Agency proposes to ,
amend SW-B46 ("Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ •
Chemical Methods") to include Method
4010 (Immunoassay Test for the
Presence of Pentachlorophenate). This
action also proposes to modify the.
Comprehensive Environmental. ,
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) list of hazardous
.substances to reflect the newly proposed
listing. This action proposes to add six
hazardous constituents to appendix Vm
of 40 CFR part 261 and to amend
appendix VII of 40 CFR part 261 by
adding F033 and the hazardous
constituents found in the wastes on
which the listing determination is
based. Finally, this action also requests
comment on the option not to list as
hazardous wastes from the surface
protection processes which would fall
within the scope of this proposed
listing. The "no-list" option is being
considered by the Agency because
future generation of these wastes is
expected to rapidly diminish and
because the results from risk analysis
show that risk from the dominant
exposure pathways is relatively modest
assuming the widespread use of
chlorophenolics does not resume. The
intended effect of this proposed listing
will be to insure that wastes generated,
from surface protection processes
covered under this listing will be
properly managed.
DATES: EPA will accept public
, comments on this proposed rule until
June 28,1993. Comments postmarked
after this date will be marked "late" and
may not be considered. Requests for
extensions will not be granted due to
judicial deadlines for the promulgation
of a final rule. Any person may request
a public hearing on this proposal by '
filing a request with Mr. David Bussard,
whose address appears below, by May
11,1993.
ADDRESSES: The official record of this
rule-making is identified by Docket
Number F-93-F33P-FFFFF and is
located at the following address: EPA
RCRA Docket Clerk, room 2427 (OS-
332), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M 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. Copies of materials
relevant to the CERCLA portions of this
rulemaking also are located in room
2427 at the above address.
To request a public hearing on this
proposal file a request with Mr. David
Bussard (OW-330), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800) 424-
9346 (toll-free) or (703) 920-9810, in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. The
TDD Hotline number is (800) 553-7672
(toll-free) or (703) 486-3323, locally. For
technical information on the proposed
listing, contact Mr. David J. Carver at
(202) 260-6775, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-333), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
For technical information on the
CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact:
Ms. Gerain H. Perry, Response . .
Standards and Criteria Branch,
Emergency Response Division (5202-G),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460, (703) 603-8732.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To assist
the public ill its review of critical ,
documents, the Agency has provided
copies of all relevant background
documents to the following affected
National trade, groups: American Forest
& Paper Association, and the National
Furniture Manufacturers Association.
These documents are also available for
public review in the docket for this
rulemaking. The contents of this
preamble are listed in the following
outline:
I. Legal Authority
II. Background . •,
A. History of the Regulation
B. Summary of Additional Information
' Collection <
HI. Description of the Industry and Surface
Protection Processes
A. Defining Surface Protection
B. Process Description
IV. Summary of the Proposed Regulation
A. Overview of Proposed Hazardous Waste
Listing .
B. Proposed Hazardous Waste Management
Standards >
C. Historical Soil Contamination
V. Options Considered by the Agency
A. Not Listing Wood Surface Protection •
Wastes as Hazardous
B. Rationale for Proposing to List Wood
Surface Protection Wastes as Hazardous
VI. Description of Wastes Generated
A. Types of Wastes Included in this
Proposal ,'•--•
B. Quantities of Waste Generated
C. Waste Management Practices
D. Pollution Prevention and Recycling
Practices
VII. Analysis Supporting this Proposal
A. Recorded Incidents of Environmental
Contamination!
B. Waste 'Characterization and Constituents
of Concern
C. Health and Ecological Effects
\, Toxicity of Constituents
*a. Human Health Criteria and Effects
b. Constituents Proposed for Addition to
' Appendix VIII'
' c. Potential Human-Exposure Pathways
d. Ecological Effects
2. Resource Damage Incidents
a. Contaminated Media
b. Discussion
3. Assessment of Risk from Usage of
Chlorophenolic Formulations
a. Source Characterization
\. Process drippage
2. Storage yard wash-off
3'. Process area and storage yard soils
b'. Exposure Pathway Analysis
1. Ground water ingestion
2. Direct soil ingestion
3. Fish and shellfish ingestion
c. Characterization of Risk from Usage of
' Chlorophenolic Formulations
1. Individual Risk from usage of
chlorophenolic formulations
2. Population risk from usage of
chlorophenolic formulations
VIII. Applicability of the Land Disposal
Restrictions
IX. State Authority .
A. Applicability of Final Rule in
Authorized States
B. Effect on State: Authorizations
1. HSWA Provisions
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5ft Ho* 79-./ Tuesday^ April 27, IS93 / Exposed Midas
Z5707
2. Modification Deadlines , .
X. Proptis^.Ajnei^dsa^it p£;SWTg4ff (Xest
Phy^^l/Gfaemfcal'WMliodrf
XI. CERGEADesignatiojaaiidReportaBre-
'
Ruler
AvExecstiva OEdsi 12291'
B. Cost of Proposed EQa3-No-Ltet Option
CCbstafPtoposadFOaoystOptioi
. D. BtoenUofPrepotetfFOSSUsfing,
E. Cost EfffisctlvBnBSis- Analysis . "
XBE I&galatory Rsqttiwments' - ,
B. Paperwork RaduriJoa. Act
I. Legal AuUborily
promulgated under tha authority. of
sectipns»2W2jaj; aad 300*0$, and (&}(! )
ofths Solid WastfrDtsposHLAct, as
amended, 42 UvSte.6&I2(H)v 6921^3
and £«)(!>„ and: 6922 feomraonljr reffepred
toasREE/t); andsaetfen I02(a^of the
ComprebenshreEnvteonmefntal
Response, CompaBsattonv and Liability
9602(a)t
n. Background ' -
. " • ' .!•• ' .'' - ' '.-^ ..
A, History of the Regulation
Sectiblt 3001(e^ of REKft as amended
by the HHzardous- and Solid Wastfe .
AmendtnanteCHSWAHTequires EP~& to
determine- wfastlier to list as hazardous
wastes- containing dilorinateddioxins
and chlorinated dibonzofurans. As part
of this manclafs,, the. Agency in 1988
initiated an mvestigation ofdioxih.- •
containing wastes, froia wood surface-
protection and wood prasecving
processes..
On December 30*, 15f88,.EFA proposed
four hazardous wasta Bstingp pertaining.
to wastes from WotKTpreservihg.and
surface protection,, as well as-a.set of
standards for,the management of these
wastes (53 PR 53282)'. TBe Agency.
finalized three generic hazardous waste-
• listings for wastes- from wood, praserving
processes and proaiulgated^standardftin
;4aCFR pacts. 264/26^ SubpartW forth*
management o£tites«) wastes-op drip.
pads-onDecambar- 6, 1S80 (5&FR
50450), CTha Agency subsequently
modified tbxise Bstings. on, December 24,
1992 (57 FR 614SZ),) la tha December 6,
1990 final rule, the Agency deferred
listing; waste* from tha surface
protection mdustrybeeauaeol* need'
foradditiontfdataonthese'waateato
as
In accordanea,with,a propxjsed . :
consent decrea signed by tha EPA and
the Environiaentai- Dafeosa FuHd(BDF)v
EPA has,agraedtaspriomtilgfttaia final
listing dfetBiiQijiatioa foirGhlorpp^ieneliG;
wastes generated by tha wood surface-
protection industry by thaond of
December, 1993,
expressed! by a drastic SEoreanaLysis,
B.
Collectibrt'
Since 1990, the Agency has-acquired-
a substantial.ameuBt of new information
on the surface protection industry and
its wasiaganeration. This new .._'.-,.'-.
information wa& obtained, in. part from
questmnnaire responses which, tlie
Agency ree«ivedi&om. 134 plants under
the authority oERCRA section 3007. Tha
mfonnau'on obtained includes a history
of past use of thachlorophenolicsurfaeff
protectants and information on the,
duration of their use,,as. well aa .
production information^ process-
information, and wastagenaration: and
, management information.
hi addition to the information
collected through, thaauestionnauces.v
the Agency visited and intamewed
personnel at various-plant sites- . . ' •
throughout tfce.Nation, The majority of
the plants selectedfar onrsite interview*
».««. J !'JL* *^i^.*i_-i._ i^ *".*.!_; ^ >'-l-_l*.' .' '' . .'. . " ''
put equipment prior toe switehing-Qwerto,
a substitute prcduet. Video and stiE "
chloropnanoHcformulationff to protect
the surface ef.hunber. All pcocessi.typefr
and varyjjj&prodiietioa sizes were
observadi-Thesfr visits assisted tlia
sampling jbcatkmsv:a6 well a& in
obtauiihg-iafonnatioH about process
layouts, terrainrand proximity to-
groundMfatar wells. In. addition, tiia -
Agency studied, waste-managemejat and
pollution prevention practices.
Subsequent site visits included
familiarization sampling w&ietr was
used to esMmata present waste: content
prior to. raeord-sampling;whicht followed-
duringrsubBequent sitfl
wastes-gBnwratedbylhBSBWimll
industry if Jt'cbeserspecifiGsites^
instead of: using a random sslaetionL
process. The Agency used vsrious
parametersteseleetltbB'five chosen site*
for record amalysisi A more datailsid
discussion a» to site saleetioii can b»
found ittthabaekgrounddoGumentfor
thisrulemaiEing.Ifewever.thaiAgitncy
balieved that theifellowing; variaaMes.
quantity^f3|;cnitefflt danageinenfe •
practices, (^cuiTent or pasfeuisar: status
(along with tim«pflriodiSHrcalsBtusBdc
site work. Information was also
collected.ilronipiianfcp8CsaanaL.The:- ..
Agency also c»ltected information: fram
EPA: RagiciaalQfficesi Sfete aTid local:.
agencies^iirtdotiier-fBdBraiagencies-,
including, the'U^ Forest SoEvica;, the
Department of Commereev the Infernal
Revenue Serviee-r and the U.S. Customs
Service. AIL mfibrmation; related to this
proposal far which a Confidential
BtasinesaIafonnatioB:(CBIi claim has;
not beeQiniade isavailabla for public
review in flwf docket forthis .
rulemaking, For more'information: about
the Agency's:€BI protectionv please refer .
to 40s GFR part 2, subpart fe.Tiw AgHnqt
requests comment OR; the informatign
gathepedb) support this'proposal,
inclading.:lnfc»nwtinn gathered from
potential human health pathways,
ecological effects^ aad performed new •
risk modeling, to simulateTtha flow of
wasfcK drip page. to. ground water and! to;
nearby stre^ams-., Both waste- and
environmental media samples were
taken to obtain tro& sail concentrations .
for the purpose) of ranniing, the risk ,
models. Alfto, additional damage '
incidents, vners- identified to provide .
additional datar far this, Usting.
detenrninattonvTha- details of the
Agency'ariskasaesgiaenti and health '
effects^andyslsarff discussed in section
m. Deseriirfibn of the Industry and
Surface Frofectibn Processew
potent
A.
T&» weenis surface protection industry
coB^8»pi?i.inaril5F of sawmills ffiatcut
rough ftimlfer and* timber. United5 States
manufaetui«r&produeeda total of 43.13
billion-- board' f&et of lumber in 198a Of
the total production-, tSef-top'iO:Iumber
producers- manufactured' 13171 biffion
board feet* ubout 28 percent of the total
U.S. output'. Small sawmill operations
account for tfeff remaining volume (72%)
of the; lumber iproduced: to tha U.S.
The types; of wood that are cut are
divided intis two- main- classes,
softwoods and hardwoods. Softwoods
are those obtaiitsdifronrsucheoniferouff
trees as pinssi sprucasv hemloeks, and' ' - . >
firs? hardworodsvcoiaefronr deciduous
trees, and includftsueR trees as oaks, ; ,
ashes, maples; baswvoovi, popliars^ gums,
'
in.
Softwoodsi{»e^H8«i mars extensi
building constnretffen and1 hard'
-------
25708 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 79 / tiiesday, April 27, 1993 / Proposed Rules
are used for furniture, interior finish,
and for products where special wood
structure is desired. .
The surface protection industry
• protects wood against sapstaining that
may occur during temporary lumber
storage. Sapstaining of freshly cut
lumber will occur in humid conditions,
typically when the water content inside
the wood is greater than 19% water.
Sapstain does not attack the structural
components of the wood, however, the
affected surface becomes colored with *
dark blue or black stains. This
discoloration is often objectionable to
the buyer and may decrease the value of
the wood. Following one-day of storage,
the stain can usually be planed away;
however, stains that remain on lumber
for a longer period usually cannot be
planed away without excessive wood
loss. To avoid staining, many plants
coat lumber with chemicals to prevent
the occurrence of stain. This practice is
accomplished on-site at se.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 797 Tuesday,, April 27, 1993 / Proposed Rules
257O9
within the bundles (referred to as
"entrained" liquid). When forklifts
remove the lumber, large quantities of
protectant can drip from the wood if the
lumber is tipped;
Unlike the dipping operation, the
spray operation is a continuous
operation. Individual pieces of lumber
are fed end-to-end by chain, roller, or
conveyor belt system through a spray
box, which is often equipped with
flexible brashes or curtains at both ends
to isolate the formulation spray and
minimize drippage.
Green-chain systems represent
another type of continuous operation.
The green-chain is so-named because
chains drag fresh cut (or "green")
lumber through a tank of protectant
formulation and back out again for
sorting and grading. After the wood is
cut, it is transferred to the green chain.
A dip vat containing "anti-stain
formulation is typically located at the
head of the green chain and the wood
falls into this vat froi$. the cutting , "
operations. Som^ystems utilize wheels
or rollers just above, the formulation '
surface to force the wood pieces
' completely into the solution. As the .
wood is drawn from the vat and along
the green chain, excess formulation is
released from the wood pieces? Green-,
chain operations are typically the least
controllable operation with respect to
drippage. .
IV. Summary of the Proposed
Regulation
A. Overview of Proposed Hazardous
Waste Listing
The Agency is proposing to add one
group of wastes from the wood surface
protection industry to the list of
hazardous wastes .from non-specific
sources (40 CFR 261.31). This listing, if
made final, would carry the F033 waste
code and includes: the following specific
wastestreams: .-...•<
F033: Process residuals, wastewaters that
come in contact with protectant,
discarded spent formulation, and
protectant drippage from wood surface
protection processes at plants that use. .
surface protection chemicals haying an •
in-process formulation concentration of
pentachlorophenate [expressed as ,
pentachlorophenol during analysis]
exceeding 0.1 ppm. (T)
As noted in the language of the listing
description, the Agency proposes to list
as hazardous only those .wastes from
wood surface protection processes using
protectant formulations that have a . •
pentachlorophenate; concentration ; '
greaterjhaii 0.1 ppfn. Under this • :
concentration trigger, the F033 listing -
may cover owners or operators who
have switched to an alternate, non- •
cjilorophenolic formulation (so-called
"transitional users") and who did not
clean out their equipment prior to
switch-over. The Agency considers the
wastes generated by such transitional
users to be included within the scope of
this proposed listing if their.
formulations exceed the proposed
concentration. It is possible, however,.
.that wastes generated by a transitional
user may not meet the listing .
description if product switch-over either
occurred long enough ago so that all the
chlorophenolics have been consumed in
the process or if the tank was cleaned.
out thoroughly prior to sWitch-over.
To minimize future risks to human
health and the environment from the
release of wastes, EPA has set a -
maximum level of pentachlorophenate
in a formulation of 0.1 ppm (100 ppb)
as the level above which the proposed .
listing applies. An owner/qperator using
formulations containing
pentachlorophenate at or below 6.1 ppm
does not generate wastes that meset the ,
proposed F033 listing. As described ' • •
later, the Agency's risk assessment
suggests that the use of surface
protection formulations containing
chlorophenolics at concentrations
greater than 0.1 ppm may pose; risks to
human health-and the environment.
Formulations with penta-chloro-
phenate concentrations at or below the ,
0.1 ppm threshold established in the
proposed listing description would •' •
result in-levels of pentachlorophenate .
that reach ground water that are below
health-based levels of concern. The 0.1
level was calculated using a Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.001 ppm
and a risk analysis using the Agency's '.
Multi-mod model. Multi-mad simulates
the risk to groundwater from .specific;
sources, and for this proposal, it
incorporated variables which are
' specific to sawmill, conditions. The •
Agency's analysis approximated the
dilution, of pentachlorophenate from the
time the waste contacts the ground to
when it reaches a ground water well.
The Agency's'selection of .the O.I-ppm
formulation concentration level
generates risk levels to human health
from groundwater contamination. - . -
ranging from a high end individual risk
range of 5xlQ~7 to 7xlQ~6 to a central
tendency individual risk of 2x10 ~8. The
Agency considers these risks to lie •
within the acceptable risk range. The
Agency did not arrive at the 0.1 ppm
level by applying a dilution attenuation
factor (DAF) of 100 (as the Agency has
. done in other circumstances) to 'the
MCL. Indeed, the Agency is not taking .
a position, in this proposal, about the
use of DAFs in calculating acceptable
risk levels for any constituents, A
detailed discussion of the Agency's
modeling assumptions and actual
^ parameters used to generate risk ...
approximations can be found in the
docket for this proposed rule.
This calculated level of O.I ppm for
the pentachlorophenate formulation
content is also consistent with levels
used in the Agency's RCRA hazardous
waste dellsting program (see 40 CFR
260.22). fa making delisting
determinations, the Agency compares
leachable levels of the constituents of
concern associated with a particular
waste with health'based levels for those
constituents. The model used (the
Composite Model for Landfills, or CML)
in making delisting determinations
generates Dilution Attenuation Factors
(DAFs) in a range from 10 to 100. Where
a particular waste's volume is not"
known, a conservative DAF of 10 is "
used. The GML-generated DAF is then
used to determine constituent levels for
delisting, A typical level for which '
wastes may be delisted for leachable
pentachlorophenol constituents is
between lxlO~? to 0.1 ppm. A typical •
level for pentachlorophenate ; '
constituents would be the same, because
the leachable pentachlorophenate - .
would be expressed in analysis as
pentachlorophenol. Thus, the, \
pentachlorophenate concentration level
of 0.1 for in-process formulations in the
proposed listing is consistent with the
delisting level. • . •
• The Agency notes that industry has
been voluntarily switching to alternate
non-chlorophenolic substitutes. By
listing wastes generated from .-..-•,
formulations whose pentachlorophenate
concentration is .above 0,1 ppm,- the ••
Agency, hopes to contribute to these ',
voluntary measures and to create an '
impetus for switching away from the
use of chlorophenolic compounds. In >•
order to achieve a pentachlorophenate
level at or beneath 0.1 ppm, a plant that
at one point used a chlorophenolic
formulation must typically clean its
equipment. The Agency has determined
that sandblasting the formulation tank is
one effective method for cleaning
equipment to reduce penta-chloro-
phenate levels. The Agency has also
found that formulation tank ,
sandblasting followed by coating the
tank with epoxy coating will reduce
both pentachlorophenate levels and
dioxin levels. This is because dioxin \
tends to bind to the walls of equipment.
and the coating provides a physical
barrier to cross-contamination. Because .
of the added environmental benefits of : •
reducing levels of dioxin in the .. .'.|
, formulation (and this reducing possible
dioxin contamination in process area . . ;
-------
25710
Ftcteyat Begprter / VoE. 5gr No^ 7S 7 Tuesday, ;ApnI 27, 1993: /
soils due to drippsgeX- the Agency
rocommewd^bnt'fsnof Mqafefiig^t&at!
form uJatica tanks fee- cleMied by ...
sandblasting followed by epoxycoetiugv
findings, including • discussion
oqurpmenf cleaning- field testing
conducted* during- the development of
this proposal can be foond in the docket
associated with feisTirfonraking!
The-Agencyisalsoproposing-to
require that thosB-surjaca protection
plants that do-not generate -tax F033
nozordous, waste, because t&oirin-
procerssfanrnrlatiaji is equal taw less
than. 0.1 ppm pentschlorophenate to test
their formulaticais using a method found
in SW-8-3& fTost Method* for Evaluating:
Solid Wastev PbysicaJ/Chemicai
Methods}, Several appropriate- methods
can- be found in SW-S46, including •
methods 8040 and B27C. This-iKrtic&
also proposes taadd Method 4010
(Immunoassay Teat for Determining the
Presencs-ofPentachlorophenate)to5W—
846. Ths testing- analysis mujtba
perfonnadiby a .laboratory qualified to
icensed professional engineer ax s
respcswifclQ:cciHTp«ny official sijp* a
certificatron stating- the sampling:
location, th&tebomtosry used with
address, the datstliaandysiavraa.
p atf omtfdtr &z tjfpe: of analysis usect and
th' a anolyfie results;.
ThaAggmyno(BSthat the proposed:
testing requirement does not affect the
roqutrenwBt ot 40 CFR 2SZtXX fea* eveiy
waste. Main t
g:*s4p«Ht
howov«r. osfa^disk, apcagumptJbn- that '
the plan* has comph«d -with 4OCFR
262.1*.1 ' ''
imposed anfftf£rmetivetest£ng
roquiztoMsxiia connection witlt the
listing'oio&er hazardcuxwastflsvthe
Agency fafslittat the- testing
requirement ptopo«edt«day-iS:bDtk
reasonaHe- and appropnata. Unlike
olherli^ed hazardous wastesi.FOi3^ as.
proposedrinGl«de»£n:its;regulatary
listing descripticaaspedficnumericat
concentration; component. Without , .
testing and analysK; requirements it
wouldb«'difficultrbraB. Agency •>
inspec»orto.detorjQina;vrhoihertbe> •
surface: protects! t fonwalatkHi at a given
plant is. at 01 beneath tie proposed, . ,
'
the in-proceRsfomMilation deSueir, in
"part, the scope aFt&e proposed Bsting, '
, Agency requests comment on the=
appropriateness of imposing this testing
requirement,
Tha importance of the proposed
concentration trigger m the proposed
listing description cannot be •
> overemphasized. Only processes using
formulations; with a concentration of
pentachlorophanatet exceeding the
standard in the proposed listing would
generate FQ33 wasteaand, thusv be
• subfectta the requirements proposed <
today-It is important to note that all
wood surface protection plant owner
and/or operators that have used
chlorophenolicsm the past who wish to
. transition zroiH th& use- or '
chloropheno-lietonon-chlorophenolic
formulations hj£ffdert0 avoid handling
their wastes as F033 hazardous wastes
will be required' to test their in-process
formulations. Plants whose formulations,
testatorbelowa.l ppm . '..
pentachtpr^henate would, not generate
F033 wastes. Under today's proposal,
howeverr these plants must raaintam
records of this analysis and comply with
other one-time provisions of proposed
subpart.T($ZS4^61fa) and §26*.562>.
Ifapiant»Jectstonoe.handleitsp .
wastes as FO33hazsrdous wastes and
believes that itsfn-proeess formulation
is at or beneath the proposed
pentaehlorophiBaatff concentration tevel,.
the plant owner^bperatormast sampfe •
and anaryzethein-process'product
. formulation) used to pretectthw surface
-of lumber, Saefcsampling'nnistbw
. corMlUctedimmediateEy'followiHg
operation fandcoBsistent with safe
plant operations^, and mast be
coBductedbythecwner/oparator
utilizing the guidance found in cfeapSer '
9 (sampling pJan) and chapter 1O
(sampling roetiiods) ofEPA's Test.
Methodxftr Evaluating Solid Wastev
,
pontac&k>ropl«nata in formuirtioiis ',
Iov«licannotba dotenninedbjr ....
observation a£oa&.& teirapoirtant tonote
that concenteiliDn tasting is; not
required, for Kwtstevrathcr, the
concesrtfetion o£peHt«hlorophenBte in-
the utilization o£a _ J»:.^i -'f..'.. ' *..'
and downvthrough aoil. These'
-------
Federal -Register:/ VoL SB, No? 79 /*Tu6sdayy April 27. 1993 {Proposed Rttiesi
2S711
constituents are capable:of reaching •
sensitive environmental systems in
harmful concentrations. Information
that supports these claims is described
in detail in section VI(C) of this
preamble and additional supporting
information can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking. ; :
Insupport of the F033 listing
proposed today, EPA is proposing to
amend appendices VII and Vltl of part
261, Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste
and Hazardous Constituents, • .; .
respectively. These appendices are
amended to add the hazardous
constituents that form the basis for
listing proposed hazardous Waste No.'
F033 (appendix VIDE), as well as other-
hazardous constituents contained in the
proposed F033 waste streams (appendix
vm). ••-:-•,
The Agency is proposing to require
wood surface protectors whose wastes
fall within the scope of.this listing to
comply with certain specific
management standards proposed today
as subpart T of parts 264 and 265. In
addition, surface protectors must
operate and maintain their plants in
accordance with all otherwise ,
applicable RCRA requirements to
minimize the extent to which the wastes
contaminate the environment. The
Agency believes that existing methods
for managing hazardous waste under "
EPA's regulations are available to many
. surface protection plants and can;,'".'.;
adequately protect human health, and
the environment from the risks posed by
the waste streams which* the Agency is
proposing'to list as hazardous.
Examples of such regulatory programs
are the hazardous waste tank regulations
in 40 GFR parts 264/265, subpart land
the standards for drip pads hi 40 CFR
parts 264/265, subpart W. The Agency
is proposing to require plants that
generate F033 wastes to manage their
F033 wastes in units that satisfy either
subpart J or subpart W requirements.'.
Under today's proposed hazardous
waste listing, the Agency would
consider surface protection plants who.
have formulations with
pentachlorophenate concentrations
greater than 0.1 ppm to be potential
generators of F033 hazardous waste
under the RCRA program. There is no
RCRA requirement that generators,
solely due to their status as generators,
obtain permits for operation-'under
subpart W or J; However, 'generators are
required, at times, to obtain permits if
they store generated wastes on-site for
time periods, which exceed their RCRA
storage allowances based on the amount
of waste generated. For example, if a
plant generated greater than 100 but' less
than 1000 kg of waste in any one
calendar montli and comph'ed with
certain conditions, it would be allowed
to store hazardous wastes on-site for up
to 180 days without obtaining a RGRA
permit. See 40 CFR 262.34(d), (f). If a
plant generates more than 1000 kg of
: hazardous waste in any one calendar
month (considered a large quantity
generator), then the plant would be
allowed to store hazardous wastes on-
site for up to 90 days without a permit.
See 40 CFR 262.34(a).
Because both wood preserving and
surface protection processes treat. -
lumber with chlorophenoh'c
formulations, a short description pf the
differences between the two industries
and their waste generation is necessary.
The Agency considers a "wood •
preserving process" to be any process
intended to preserve wood from
structural attack. A wood surface .
protection process is a process merely
intended to prevent surface" ,
discoloration: The distinction, therefore,
is not based on the type of process used,
i.e., pressure treatment or non-pressure
dip treatment, but on the intent of the
treatment itself. Therefore, "dipping"
operations are not excluded from wood
preserving if the intent of the operation
is to preserve wood, As the Agency
stated in its initial proposed wood '
preserving hazardous waste listing, that
wood preservatives are used to delay
deterioration and decay of wood caused _
by organisms such as insects, fungi, and "
marine borers. Surface discoloration
(sapstaining) during short term storage
can be adequately controlled by a
superficial application of preservative, '
but for long lasting effectiveness, /
penetration of preservative to a uniform
depth is required* This deep penetration
is usually accomplished by forcing
preservative into the wood under-
pressure, so that "pressure treated" is
often used as a synonym for
- "preserved". (53 FR 53282, December
30,1988). ,
, Typically, sodium penta-chloro-
phenate is used for sapstain control on
lumber following cutting. Sapstain
control is considered surface protection,
not wood preserving. However, if a
plant is treating wood with sodium
pentachlorophenate with the intent of
preserving the wood, it would be
considered a wood preserving
operation, and the wastes generated
would be chlorophenoiic wastes from a
wood preserving plant (noted as a
• facility in the wood preserving
regulations) designated as F032. The
Agency believes that it would be very
runlikely that a wood preserving facility /
would use sodium pentachlorophenate'
' to preserve wood; since the preserving
; solution is aqueous and would wash off!
the treated wood: andLrender,the -'•.. •-..
treatment ineffedtive, since it is the
intent of wood preserving to obtain a
long term protection of the wood.
As noted recently in the Final
Modifications to Wood Preserving
Regulations (57 FR 61492, December 24,
1992), incidental drippage at active -
wood preserving plants is not
considered illegal disposal of a
hazardous waste if it is removed^from
the storage yard tind managed
appropriately within .24 hours (or 72 f
hours) of occurrence, depending on
whether the plant was in operation. ••
when the drippage occurred. Wood .
preserving incidental drippage occurs
dua; to"kickbafck" of preservative
following treatment of wood under
pressure. This is not the case with J
surface protection. There is no
"kickback" occuiTing in this industry
because prdtectaj.it is applied to the
surface without'pressure. However,
, protiectant drippageidoes occur from .
newly treated wood at surface ,...
'protection plants. Additional drippage,
may occur from surface-protected wood
in storage, due either to liquid entrained
in the wood bundles or precipitation;
coming in contact with the wood.
Plants using stiirfa.ee protection ,
formulations With concentrations of V
pentachlbrophenafe greater than 0.1
ppm are subject to the proposed subpart,
T requirements; All drippage from /
treated wood, including any drippage
that may occur as a .result of any liquid
entrainment within a packed bundle,
must cease before it is transferred to the
storage yard. Forpurposes of containing ' :
the drippage in the process area, an
owner/operator :inust employ either a
tank system, suclii;as a sump, or a drip
pad beneath the process area. If a plant.
has a sump system for removal of.
drippage in the process area, that system
is subject to the tank standards in 40
CFR parts 264/265, subpart J. Likewise,
if an owner/operator installs a drip pad
for collection of process drippage, the
drip pad standards in Subpart W are
applicable. .
For those plants which generate Fi)33,
wastes, the Agency is proposing to
require owner/operators of those surface
protection plants to develop and
implement a contingency .plan for
immediate response to protectant '
drippage in storage yards. The Agency
does not expect plants within the scope
of the proposed listing to experience
drippage in thef Storage yard because the '
proposed subpart T requires that
drippage cease prior to removing Wood
. from the: process area. However, the •
Agency recognizes :the possibility that
some ujcidental drippage may, ' :
nonetheless, occur aner wood is :
-------
25712
Federal R«gi*«r
;79
romoved to
1992 final rale. Brtha? rate, the Agency
clarirlerfwnatit rneaiitby theterm', ,
"immediate response" (57 FR 61494);
With respect to tfie word- "fmrnedfalte,"
EPA intendVrfiaf owner/operators
rospondF to storageyard" drippage that
occurs while a-plant is faropBration- .
within one consecntiver working- dayi A
facility isrconsfdered to bffiit operatiott
any day on wnicn it is tteatrng.wopd. -
Forplants that are not iff operation
during 4 storage-yard drropage-mrenti
the Agency expects the-plant to dean up
the drippage within 72 hours- of .
occurrence. ,K fe mrporrant to note that
the timing- of response to drippagers'
based on when the- drippage actually, 1 *
occurs, rather than wneir the-dTippage fcr
detectedin tie storage yard1. Tne-
approach proposed today, Irke the-'
approach promulgated' for wood'
preserving,prantfft places fee *••'."
responsibility for checking storage yards.
for drippage on the plant owner/
operator- Regular checks of storage
yards; particularly, following, thainilial
storagroFnewfv, treated wood",, witt
allow owner/operators to respond to .
drippaga in aecot Jonce with today's
proposal. " -'"•..'
With, respect to the word ?responset'*
EPA Intends this term to- include •
cleanup and removaT of protectant
drippage from: the storage-yard. For
purposes of today's proposal, claariurhof
visible drippaga&om the- treated lumber
in the storage yard will, satisfy tlie
requiromenU for Immediate response.
Tho proposed requirements, for th& .
contingency plan are alsa tha same as
thosa finalized in the wood preserving,
rule. Chvnar/operatorsmust prepare and
maintain a written plan that describes,
how the plant will respond to, storage
yard drippagp. At a, minimum, the plan
must describe how the owner/operator,
will accomplish the- following:. • J
(i) Clean; up thsdrippagei ,
(5i) Document tha cl'eanup, of
three years; and
Uv) Moiiag* the- contaminated media
irianittiintercoasJstBntwithF&derai.
registered prbfessionaJengine« or a
responsible company official ofi proper
authority OK eo«ipanylett«b8adVtbat
drippage in accordaaca with- these rules,
to be adequate docinneKtation.
The Agencji -is proposing to require
plants that store wood art-site ia areas,
the. treated.1 wood bundles to rdirtimiz8>
the quantities: o£ sui&tce protectant that
ran off the wood into the environment..
The chtoraphenolic formulations usad
by the woo
' is, however^a costsideiahJe amount of
soil (process area and storage yard} and
. water (ground and surface! that already
. has been- contaminated as- a result of •
past surface- protection practices.
EPA g«nerally prefects human heaitk
and the en vironn^ent against the risks
associated with contaminated soil -via
the."contained'in" poliey.Thfr , .
"contained-io" policy slates 'thai madia
containiog a listed hazardous waste' are
themselves ccmsitigred listed hazardous
wastes whan they, axe-actively managed
{e.g., excavatedj. Sea Chemical Waste
MoHagemenf, Inel w EJ?J&*t 869 F^d
1526, 153a-4a CD.C.Cir. 1389), Tha
media, henceforth, ara reg^jiated as:
hazardous wastca until such time as the
media no, longer "contain" the
originallyjisted hazardous waste,
Tha Agency- is in- the; process o£
examining' issues related to
contaminated; media and. reviewing
existing policy on thtese issues, EPA
recently pioposed to exempt 0»dia -
contamiHated with petroleura wastes,
See 57 FRfrl5«.0Etec.24i.l092j
(materialsi net regulated underthe
Underground Storage Tank Pro^aml
and58FR8562.fFeh-. 12* 19931-
, (materials tregulatedtnidtaE the
Undei^roand Storage Tank program).
Agency will1 consider an. tnpial
dialogue witfcinterested parties aspart
of the rulernafciagptoMssspadficalilyr
related tath* Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule- fHWIRk proposed on
--: -' - • •-jOT±-i; , •
wi&draiirak on-Ckiobeir:
sectoral outrBachpi^rani has oeea
initiated.
Because a't tha< histtjiieal soil , •
contaminatianf associated with the
surface protctetlon- Industry, the F033^
listing;propcised today raises issues
concerning therregjilati art and
; management of contaminated soils. Ths<
proposed Imtmg poteniialry affecta
actions takesi. at several1 thcmsand sites
that asre past usorswf
pentacbloEophenate. While this
proposed listing^coupled with •
application «}£ the "con tained-in" politgf
to'thesesites^assurasgovemmeBt
jurisdiction; if ssieh soils are; actively
managed, it idoeanot, on its ownv
compel eorratctiveeffition. It raay^insiact,
serve taimpaeie os stmv site clean-ups /
as well, as otter minor activities that, OR
their own, pose no significant •
environmental risks; if those activities
result in the generatMHi of contaminated
soils that must be handled 6s hazardous
wastes. In light o£ ^eseissuesv EPA is
reqtiestiang'cfota and- eommeat on the
"contanied-ffnr"poKcy8s:it pertains to
Such data and comment raite^t
(1) The appioprinteDess el subjecting
these soils t« all requiremaBts of the
Subtitle Cpre^ram when actively
managed;
(2>Thelevelo£oontaminatfettin
process area and storage vard seBs as-
well as grcwiiidwati«; and .
(3) The risks poeod by Ihes* soils.
ThftAgesey acknowledges that a
substantial Etamher of plants that
previously used chlorophenoJiC
. formulations haT»contaminated theii
equipment v*ith dimdn, an impurity-
• found in th& formulation. Sampling deta<
show that diexin i», indeed, foundte
the protectaait formulation* and wastes
from plants Hhat have switched ever to
non-cnlorophonoli&fannulatioQ9,
indicating that there has been aoss- . •
contaminatfoiifby-pzevioufl
chl6rophea&lie,u9ft. The original,
proposatof !D«eeH(d«jr30, 1988 (SaFH
53282) propjsed that alkcrossr
within the scope of the listiag unless aw
equipment-cteatningprocedus* was- used
to decontaminate Ilia eqaipnteat wid
of product aiad wastes Todagt's proposal
. differs safastaatialljE from thw »88»
proposal wilferesjKict to oross-
detannined (dirt aplanl mast haw
' '
penaKhkeopheaoattrJexpressedes
waste.
due to
-------
3,7, 1993
252 J3
use
pcajiaehioropl
0,1 ppra.
&DZE collected
subsequent to 6be'19»a proposal
supports the Agency's tedlngs &•£
wastes fenmsuicli plants pom what that
h'fe*ini® excess eancar risk fecm
proposal The Agency acknowledge*
-- that factors in this analysis argue both:
rotection
wastes as hazardous. The Agency I»s
decided to list these wastes as
belo wf , but EPA specaficany requests
comments on tiba- option to not list these
wastes as. hazardous. . .
. has rapidly oBdfewd.«wS few* •:•. •
expected to mcroaaa. A* indicated in
sedian HI, thwAgflnejr boows dTte%
twosansnaiSaeaminti
chknapheooticfcK
Cthe state leceEt
chlnrepfoeoaliG
production of its chlorophenoliD
ground water of 3xlQ~ft, as derived! fnaa
detailed discussion- of thaAgHocj'srisk
ass8ssm«»t i* contained in wetioD V^C) •
of this gre«nabte,,a* wallas in tb«'-•'•'
dofcfcrt ^lisaoditod.i^'^-.niiRMk&ig'. •
V. Options Cnmutared by thaAgancy
the an«iy«w,de«crfl»dmSentioa VII p!
As indicated aDove/tfiere is some
information which suggests fitatthff
Agency sfcould not list wood surface
protection wastes as hazardous.. First, -
the use of rutt-streng!h chlorophenoKcs
Tahmtpiily fikd far pcoditct
registration cmnBiiatieMi. A notka . •
describing tStss «dfe» vtm pdaJsahad lor
notice (sec 57 FK 234O1 $one 31. 19«2;».
atp
UatksniMdiii
action, • .final ca
sent to
•a
This
Chamieal
IDS,
, Any
th* ask Mseciated;
new registration befera these dusmicals
to
haaaido-us waste Mstiag proposal which
uses the Ageacy'a rfdt duaactatizctioii
guidance (U.S. EnviFa««Mn«ai J / •' .
Protection Agwicy, GiridaHcafci Rrsk
be,
below the range ofv«Jistfli«Ag!>ncy
w»lticli> is described in
was to. iiefeimtae to wha* extant ihese
wastes JWSB a tbieal to hunaaa heakb '
and tStt» anwiwuHHient Foe tbiapsopos^,
the Agency peirfoBnuedia rauhi&catedi
study of how these wastes have; been • ,
and are currently distributed, to the
" environmenr. The two principal areas of
nsk^ssoicfated wife snriBee''jjrotecti«nr
. wastes arer ' . '• • • , •
(IJDrihkfrrg watBr contarnmatfoR
assocfatod yriftt gtoundwater SOHTOBS
contamrnated tqf the current and past
use of cEiforopftenoKcs; and
(2jrngiastioaoff£sIiandsLenfish \ •
tissues and ingestioB of soils
contaminated ojiec a KH% nariod of time
by PCDC|s.aniiiK33tsi -f ^d^oans" Jx
To malee a listing de&rmmatk)n,^ie,
Agency applies * "w«igfc{-otewidfine&"
approad^Kxaminingsiskaaaoeiated
with all ]potentiathtnna« health and
WiifironEiiental exposure pathways. By
listing vti*ts&£tt>m the- use oJ auifece
protectien Sotnmiations-that eontaia O.I
ppm PCi* or tStwnf, the-Agenej wookt
effect a chaogB in the risk associated
chlorophenolic formulations witk. PCP
and diojxfens; Th« risk radwctiott
achieved by cleaning tanks acud
i.e., Iheiflcremenfall risk, is relatively
mcMt8st."FhsAgeBcy%risi:a»aJ^sis
uidicrtes th^S UieiBcrenientet gja
follows;
Cental
.tendency
(nctivkftjaf
roafc
• •*>«!»*-
latfort
GUNS.
&Z •
0.0004
1 Best estimate for TO j
no«ffod on Sie risk asswoaSed witi*
contaminaiedisoitsaiadgjjasnKi
ce unless wse of EiS-Btrengkh:
of cfeJortSph«soSc» is ttw past. Otoly
• would «ddl»ej«tkJ*iiisi. SSte.
remediatieais
listing cf .tiiw w
ss
tn»««Me8BWnt«rf
. mddeat^Wgi!?»etal*K3!^opw
tde*Jreb*dt|«l
Agency's contained-in policy. The
, . "fcaaiai^iiUnt'* policy stales that raedSa-
FUM%, the-Agency is aWaift that the containiEg»lr3ted haaaadous; Waste era-
th'enaselww cooskfeaei Ks*d b
wi
^ , „
.* axeairatad^'See ChenRicol Waste
1526s S5a9M|ft IDtC. Cfc 1980,). The
pent«*lniaph«na(lBr wanted to resaroe
its prodtttiicBi.it woeM be seqafewt to
FIFRA for registeriae*ijaw> cheraicak,
-------
25714 " Federal Krister- f?Vdl. 58, Nor 7&J/ 'liaasdayv April 27, V1993 /; Pnflpesed Rates
This required pjribr conipletldn 6f health
and environmental effects data sets that
EPA uses To determine if the Chemical
poses'an unreasonable risk; EPA •'
requests comment tin whether FIFRA - •
requirements would mdet RGRA '"•
concerns.
B. Rationale for Proposing To List
Surface Protection Wastes as Haz
Wood
The Agency elected to propose the ,
listing of these wastes as hazardous for
several reasons. First, the Agency's .
analysis suggests that, even when
chlorophenolic formulations are no
longer used by a plant (as is currently
the case with a majority of surface.
protectors), contamination of soils and
ground water will continue to occur.
This is because "transitional users"
typically have nol cleaned their
equipment and elevated levels of
pentachlorophenates still remain in
their formulation. Drippage onto the
ground following treatment of lumber is
a normal occurrence in the surface •
protection process^ The chlorophenolic
formulations used by sawmills are ,
aqueous solutions that contain both
carcinogenic and systemic Constituents,
including dioxin.
The risks from these wastes may be
comparable to those from other listed ,
wastes. As a comparison, the population
risk from the groundwater ingestion
pathway for the recently.promulgated
wood preserving wastes listing was
lower than risks from wood surface
protection wastes (zero excess case over
300 years). However, the Agency listed
wood preserving wastes because of the
high levels of constituents of concern
and significant number of damage cases
including 54 NPL sites. Although the
central tendency and high-end risks
determined for these surface protection
wastes seem to be near the low end of
concern,, the constituents of concern in
the waste are in high enough ,
concentrations that these wastes would
have been listed under the previously
used methodology employed for listing
determinations. •
Second, EPA is very concerned about
potential risks thatmay occur if , '
chlorophenolic formulations are put
back into use. As indicated above, the
cancellation of thfe formulation's FIFRA
registration was voluntary. Following '
the voluntary action, EPA Cancelled the
registration. Registration of pesticides
are governed by section 3 of FIFRA. The
Agency's regulations governing the
registration process can be found at 40 •
CFR part 152, subpart C. If the cancelled
chlorophenolic formulations .are re-
instated for use in wood surface
protection operations, the risks •: •
associated v»»th the use of..
pentachlorophenate tod dipxin can be . •
expected to increase significantly. The .
Agency believes that listing these wastes
as hazardous will provide additional
barrier to the use of these formulations ,
' beyond the FIFRA registration process.
As noted above, EPA requests comment
on whetherFIFRA would meet RGftA
concerns. -,'•••'•
. In addition, the Agency has
information concerning 21 damage cases
that document the presence of, and -
threats to human health and the
environment posed by the past use of
pentachlorophenate (PCP) and
tetrachlorophenate (TCP) at surface
protection plants in ground water,
surface water, jand soil. Significant
concentrations of PCP, oftenorders of
magnitude above the water Health-
Based Level (HBL), were detected in the
ground water of many sawmills. The
sampling and analysis data which
contribute to these damage incidents
were collected during on-going surface
protection operations at a time when
chlorophenolic formulations were
actively used, and EPA believes they are
indicative of damages that could occur
in the event that production and
widespread use of chlorophenolics
resume in the future.
• Furthermore; as discussed above, the
"no-list" option, if adopted in the final
rule, would necessarily rely on the
FIFRA cancellation of the
chlorophenolic formulations in order to
minimize unacceptable adverse impacts
on human health and the environment.
The Agency may take into consideration
the impact of other statutory and
regulatory requirements when making
hazardous waste listing determinations.
under RCRA (as it has done here, with
respect to the impact of the FIFRA
cancellation on the anticipated future
volume of wastes generated). However,
the regulations governing the listing of
hazardous Wastes at 40 CFR § 260.10
specify a wide range of factors, not all
of which will necessarily be adequately
addressed by other statutory or
regulatory schemes, such as those.
administered under FIFRA. Therefore,
the Agency is reluctant to;rely solely on
other statutes to accomplish the goals of
EPA's hazardous waste listing program.
Finally, today's listing is unique in
that it sets' a level of pentachlorophenate
of 0.1 ppm to formulations as the level
above which the listing would apply. .
This allows plants to clean their
equipment such that their formulation is
beneath the 0.1 ppm regulatory level, .
thus reducing the number of plants that
.would be affected by.this rule. The
Agency acknowledges, as discussed
above, that there is concern about .
potential one-time waste disposal prior
to the effective date of the final rule. . •..
However; EPA believes; there may be >r
disincentives to such one-time disposal.
The economic value of chlorophenolic
formulations may discourage disposal.
In addition, potential liability under
either the Agency's RCRA contained-in
policy (discussed in section IV(c) of this
preamble) and/or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act (CERLCA, or
Superfund) may deter unsafe on-site»
waste disposal.
For the above reasons, the Agency is
proposing to list wood surface
protection wastes as hazardous, but is
seeking comment on the option to "not
list" these wastes in the .final
rulemaking. The Agency specifically;
requests comment and supporting
information on the risks posed by these
wastes. , ;-
VI. Description of Wastes Generated
A. Types of Wastes Included in This
Proposal • .
This section describes the waste
streams'tliat are generated by the use of
surface protection, formulations • • •
containing chlorophenolics. Two types
of primary waste streams are typically
generated: process residuals and
drippage. Secondary waste streams
include spent formulation and
wastewaters.
Process residuals are tank, sludges that
accumulate in the! dip tank and/or mix
tank as the lumber passes through for
treatment Some plants use spray
systems that generate a sludge when
recovered formulation is filtered.
Periodically, the accumulated sludge
must be removed and is typically placed
on sawdust or wood chip, piles on-site.
The ultimate destination of the sludge is
dependent on the management of the
sawdust piles. Plants have reported
burning the sawdust on-site or shipping
it off-site for use as boiler feed for
energy-recovery. Depending on the
particle size.,, some of these wood chips
may be.shipped to a pulp or paper mill.
Some plants generate little or no tank
sludge as a result of certain process.
variations. Dip tank operations .' •".-..
sometimes utilize an internal circulation
system to enhance mixing and promote,
penetration into the packed bundles, .
The agitation does not allow any ,
particulates to settle, and when the
bundles are removed, some, of the ..-'•
suspended solids are also removed. :
Green chain operations sometimes use a
system of rollers that are partially .
submerged into the dip tank. These
rollers ferce the pieces of lumber under
the surface of the formulation to ensure
thorough coverage of the exposed "
-------
SB, jjjpt 79^,.Tacsday* April 27, t99S
,23715
surfaces.
thete^
through any sludgy that baa sattted. fn
and
through any/sludge that haasatttedfn earlier maatisned. »s»*6t»n*ia4 ameautt Canada provides; JB&HH
the taakandiSkiisrfaidf.ftlaa»e»rthft tank of newHt&rrHietJoniOHi&esawHMit .off from ancus-siJatwB)-
ma
Unk (Hid aehiavw Ifee-awne result saan
inteEi^ cMw^atten »3pstem, Tfeasai : ..'.'-.
practices- tra described, is mere detail in
preamble.. , . .. .
Another wastestrewn is e'
formulation drippegw feoa»
treated lumber. Excess drippage can fall
on the ground wfesti t&efwaqKf^fs
transpOTted ftora the dip; tank or green
'. chain to stackin and! ackaging. "jfte- ,
""
operations tend1 to resuft fia less excess
formulation orr the wood* thari either the
o^ppfngorjgrean-chafnoperatfpnff. '
Some p7antstrtilize- simple reoivery
systems to mininuzg the foes of
prfarto '
tnmsfer tcr storage; Green drain ai«f
spray operati^-inajtjlifiawra GOlfeetibn
pan tm^lar Sj&cioriviayofto: collect
forni«l^cm; as the fnjsfely treated
lumber runs atJongtitff green- c&ainy The?
treated Wwrf waterr stored mi-site- dr ,
''
buyer.; " , .
Other wsatesgeawafed: by sarfeee-
today's
and discarded spent forroufetlon,
Wastewaters ass^ftaJ^
by thi»hMi«s&y sinca-ft fe
to wet fteshJj? treated felBber.
wet tctradwcB'fee
formation. These wa««ewafe»s wouM nol
formulatkra. Tte Agency has fountfc that
larger plants witicfacjpesatoijMEoots ;;
perfosm: "good bcHjsekeepfeag'* "-• •
measures, iiieludteg fiw wa^tdown.' of
floors and equipment- Tbaswiastewstersf
generated from these:activitie8, iflhey
contact formulation within the scope of
the proposed listing, would be a listed
hazardous waste^ Discarded spent
formulation incUwfes-any. discarded-
foimuIalioDt6^a>p4ant dispose*^ as
a result of a changp:in product .
formulatioa. , ;• . .
B. Qftpititittesfjf'SVastef^enerated
fka Agency believes that there we •; -
thsw distinct user groups wi*biri &a
srnfece protactkm industry geoerating
this proposed FD33 wastai sawinilTs^
an
^ :
of wood. The Agency has been tunable
to acquire information ion .the extent of
use within tlie furniture manufacturing'
in the tfaiited, States The-
.ui ji < K
third) of thesei
prpteetioaopeiaiioni-Gf thasa9«G>
mills,, the EPA estimates, that abc«t 5O,%
pttcctntaga astimatea may he hi^a.. fea
smaller mills, aadf,kH« fear the Iai|pi V
mills, but 4be Agency beJisiteSk on - •
weighted, average,, that tbay-»« • ;
sufficiently accuiata. fiar guspo^aji ol
estimating waste generation quaBititie&
and for performing risk modeling. :
Ketoff e»fee: djOTff.qHaiiBtfesof -
waste generaiad OB e oaJfoBstl feel cffli
be estimated. Foimalatiocdripptjgifr and
precipitation naa-offfeamsloszagis yards
surfeca fBoteeMon piaa*»that thai
Agency boiiewss esosrasult ia\ , ,
substantial human exposure. These arw.
. <• »•.«•. '_••'*. - r^-
generated by the industry «sad;6Bier
proposed _ __ ......
The Agoocy has esteBatedi from ore-
site firidi aaa^oliagaHdi mtecvtews
concentnatioBi!, feat tba amount sif
mills througfetoat thoU^Sl is between
1000 and 4000 gjHonspsr one mliikia
board feet of lumber teeWed.€aTO3i the
number of sawmill plants ia operation
thraug&out &ie coimtify, ffie number of
process types and set-ups; and the type
of man^eraentfisscSiees, the Agency
assumes
onetadlliHabofflsdfeetofhunber .
surface-protected. ' ,.'.-.•...
The other type piE w,aste that presents
significant human-exposure risk is
storage y ard rua-oSL Dependong on
mnrlcAt :gnni^i^i^^|g lilinh i
t
in the yard Jollowiiig snrf
for longer thai* a month. Duriagfiiis
period, precipitation may carry
formuktion into neaiby bodies of water
or further contaminate soils througbomt
the yasdl The Agency/ is aware thai '
teger milk oftan pet&ag& thair wmd or
otherwise k«eeS«etF wood profsctetJ ,
hei lor battei resai«>,Thit
t.*- '*•• ,-.-• j..-irjV .''>-
A aapy eli this staaly isria>,tte docket fo*
today/8-ruleBHakii^.ThBfsKHiula-iJsedto
derivathsiactoaicaBiceEtta^kmof
making raskassBSSBiesats is
wn. process, tanks
or filter asa gamsntted iiafrequsHiiijt asidt
neves HI liiTg#qnaatitiesbj?tMs
industry. fekdeedvaB»»ysi33a.ll;piaib£s
have neve? refiMwed abtdge?beci»is»it
has not caused; a; pcobJem: and th«
.
Cither plants, because of their processv
generate shid§et, but alt of it leaves- the
plant witit the treated; wood piodoct^
C.
The'Aganey.&as found that wastes ; • ;
generated by this, industry ar» managed-
by any. of itie. fottowfiag. method's: £jj .v , ,
Burae^ op-site; as fuer^CZlsblppeGfo^
site for uwj as boiler fuel^ (£J land;
dispb«£Hf on-site, ffi land! disposed off-' .
site, or f5jdripp«c{ or plaGfto: onto soff,
The-majprity of milis 'famxdis, feinrouratiott
to drip dSfBctly; onto tjie ground: and!
dispose of sludge fe sawdust pffes. The
Agency has seen. Very httfe evidence off
management of thess wastes tftat wouloj
be in,cmnijlfance.with RCKA
raoufrenifeiBts, wew tfiis proposed1 Bstfng
fmalnaBdl IJfoweyer, EFA nates that t&ere
are srbme pfeitte that dispose of these
wastes in
regarding, waste management practices
can be found in the docket fos this
rulemaking. ' • ' ; - :'
D: PoHatiart Prevsatieff andStec$e&wgi
Practices , , :'' ' •'. ;•• ."'•••
The[Aganey is currently preparing a
separate guidance manual
reeoHHsteScfing' watertsFy poJIatiem
prevention and waste mmiTn-featian-
techniques for the lumber industry. The
manual will be completed prior to
expected promulgation of a final F033
hazardous waste listing rule in
December 1993. Some recommended ,
strategies SwiroHirtSbH prevention in the
surface protection industry are
* *' 1 • A.l_ • » * ' — " * -
Lin this section.
'information will hg i
mgniial •/,'..
Tha ultimata goal of pollution •
. is to reduce-ppeseM and
;and' tft*'
in plant size, location, eKmiteyaWdE ««,«,,«««ro««r«^P,«™DDJ,D!,i«v
management practices, there is a high that reduce or eliminate the qi
uncertainty in estimating the amount of. and/or toxicityof wastes at th
-------
35716
Federal Register AVpL 58, Ntf 79r fcl\»esday? Apai?27,:*993^
of generation.Pollution prevention is,.
the first step in a hierarchy of options;
for-roducing the generation of waste.
Tha first; recommended pollution .
prevention option into replace-chemical
treatment with another, type of treatment
to achieve surface protection. One ,
alternate is to dry the wood to reduce
water content (high water content leads
to sapstain). The Agency is aware that
this option may not be economically
viable for a smaller mill; If such a
system cannot be feasibly employed/it
would b"0 preferable for 4 user of •;.•
chlorophenolic-containing formulations
to switch to an alternate formulation
that does not generate a hazardous
• waste. . .'•< *, -'..
Because the proposed FOSS'iisting ••
Includes a concentration standard for
treatment formulations, a plantcould'>
avoid generating a hazardous waste by
ensuring that its formulation is at or . .
beneath this concentration 'standard (0.1
ppm pentachlorpphenate). The Agency-
performed field testing on a dip tank .-..
formulation following the cleaning of
the'fank (the plant was switching from
a chlorophflholic formulation to a non,-
chlorophenolic formulation) by '.;'-''
sandblasting and foun.d that, :. ,; .. „
sandblasting effectively reHuces*',;
cWprpphenoliccbntamin^tioiqijo^-;:" '<
acceptable levels*, This is the only, ? . .-.'..
method that has been field tested by the
Agency. The Agency requests comment,.
and data on the efTectiveness(of other
cleaning procedures', e.g. gteam , V.
cleaning, etc. Another pollution . "
prevention option is the use of high
velocity spray systems that generate • '
fewer process residuals and less
drippage. Again, however, a small.
production volume may not favor this
option since spray systems require a
larger flow of wood through the system
to be economically or technically
feasible. ' ; * ; • ' .
Other pollution prevention strategies
for use within the surface protection
industry: (1) Local and general ,
ventilation Within the cutting process
area to reduce dust which would '
accumulate on wood; (2) blowing wood
with air to further reduce sawdust Jon
wood prior to surface protection; and (3)
the use of drainage collection devices
(gutters) on roof tops to keep rainwater
away from process wastes. For wastes -
that cannot be reduced at the source,
generators may consider recycling as the
next best option. Pollution prevention
practices are very critical in plant;
• operations that produce a hazardous
waste since they can" reduce the amount
of hazardous waste generated. Recycling
ac^yjties, When safely operated and
majntauied, are next best because they
• take what would have been termed"
hazardous waste generated from1 the
process and reuse it to reduce actual
hazardous waste generation that is
. destined for disposal.
YH. Analysis Supporting ThisProposal
In support of this proposed '•':-. -4"
rulemaldng, the Agency has: ' "•
„ .(I] Performed sampling and analysis
..of various surface protection sites which,
include actual waste and soil sampling;
(2) Studied the management of these
' wastes;- •" • ';"-.'-. . ••••--. :- :."• ;"• •,
• (3) Obtained examples of previous
incidents of environmental '. ; ;
contamination (lcno\vn' as damage
cases), and. '" • ,•'' • .,-„- ...../ •'•••'.. :. •
(4) Performed a rigorous risk
• assessment which uses actual sampling
.. and site data to model the effects of past
and present contaminatiori and to -"
estimate the risks that the contaminants
pose to human health and the . .'
environment as a result of ,., .^ ', ;
chlorophenolicuse; •.•'.,' v . . V
A. Recorded Incidents ofSnvirdnmentfil
Contamination ., *
' -The extent of pentachlorpphenate
contamination in plant process area
soils is well documented. The damage
cases do not provide data on sediment
, .SAMPLE ANALYSIS
contamination in nearby streams, but -•*•
they do support the mobility property of
a '^Ip^^^tie^Tsiidi'''^-^'^'^-.^
pentachlo;rophenate) to ground and :
surface weiters • Ten of the 21 damage
cases showed on-site ground-water
contamipfttioh MUi'PCP ^^ above the HBL
of O.001 ppm. Eleven of the 21 plants -,':-
showed surface water contamination ,/!
with PGP'ut levels above the HBLr '''.':
B. Waste Characterization qhd .7 ..... ".-' '
Constituents 6f£oncern ' . . ;
•.
randomly iselected, one cannot draw
accurate conclusions about all sawmills
from this small sampling population. '
However, the waste characterization
data obtained nt>m the samplo •'"."."' ,:.- '•':•;•
populatipiii is" appropriate and useful in
making a determination on the waste
itself, although it may be Of limited use,
in characterizing the entire industry. Afl
three waste streams encompassed by the
proposed .listing contain the following
proposed Appendix VIE constituents pf
concern: Pantachlorophenol,- ' .
telrachlorophenol, total equivalence of1'.'..
2,3,7,8 substituted dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) amd total equivalence of
2,3,7,8-substituted dibenzofurans \. . .
(PCDEs)* Analysis pf samples collected
at five plants show that process area ;;;
residuals ai-e not hazardous wastes
under the Tpxidty Characteristic
Leachate Pirpcaduire (TCLP, 40 CFR ,. . .
261.24). Analysis of samples taken at .!-.•
these five plants show thaj - '•'•'•:•
contaminated storage yards (which -••
represent tlie largest area of a mill)
contain low levels of dibxin (at or below
1 ppb) and non-detectable levels of '
pentachlorpphenate. Such dipxin <^ .-,: ' :
concentrations are below concentrations
that would generally trigger a Superfund
clean-up (1 ppb). By comparison,
process area soils have been found to
contain high levels of dioxinand very •
low to non-detectable levels of
pentachlorophenate.
, " , Waste stream dk»dn .
: ' * = •: , . V
Sludge ..„ ........ t. 4.. .
ForrnUfaUon
Process soil ;..............*,
Storage yard , J..;. .*..
FSedbnBnt/dra!n ,."..'. .....
Current user of PCP
PentaConc.
(pprti)
1722
290\ „
0.17 „...,„..
0.09 ,...„
No Analysis ...
TEF dioxfn
(ppb)
88
0.01 ,..
0.94 .j,
0,07 U. .............
rJoAnaiysIs""
Max. Penta
247
8.3
1.4 ..........
Non-Detect ..
0.97 ,
Past user of POP
Median penta
(pprn)
28
2.6
t.o „ •
Non-Oetect ..
003 .w
Max TEF
dioxin
(PPb)
15,36
2.14
4.08
0.96
0.034
Median
3.95
0.0085
2.13
0.05'
0.017
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No; 79 /Tuesday, Affril 27. 1993 /Proposed Rjdes
25717
C. HealtharidfcetlogicalEffects•-..-' •;;•--./.
1. Tbxicity of Constituents ;
A-variety of toxic effects.with \r
implications for human health and the
environment have been associated with
the chemical constituents found in
chlorophenolic surface protection •
formulations. These constituents
include pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
tetrachlorophenol, and other
chlorophenols, as well as numerous
polychlorinated dibanzodioxins and ,,.
polychlorinated dibenzofurans. ' , :>. ;• •
Pentachlorophenol is classified as a
probable human carcinogen based on^ ,
sufficient evidence in laboratory ;
animals, to addition, pentachlorophenol
•exhibits non-cancer pathological effects
on the liver and kidneys* 2,3,4,6^. ,
Tetrachlorophenpl is a systemic toxicant
which also has adverse effects on the
liver and kidneys at low doses. As a
group, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
and dibenzofurans exhibit a wide range
of toxic effects at exceptionally low
doses. The most studied congener,,
2,3,7,8-tetrachlor6dibenzo;'p-dioxin, is
classified as a probable human
carcinogen, a teratogen, and an - ..- r*
immunotoxin. ..-'•;-• ; .' : ; .
a. Human health criteria and effects.
EPA uses health-based levels, or HBLs,
as a means for evaluating levels of
concern of toxic constituents in various
media; M establishing HBI&. EPA
evaluates a wide variety of health effects
data and existing standards and criteria.
EPA uses any Maximum Contaminant'
Level (MCL) promulgated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act as an HBL for
contaminants in water. For other media,
or if there is no MCL, EPA uses an oral
reference dpse (RfD), an inhalation j ' ;
reference concentration (RfC), and/or a .
carcinogenic slbpe factor (CSF) to derive
the HBL, in conjunction with various
exposure assumptions and, for
carcinogens, a risk level of concern. The
risk level of concern may vary, but-for
the purpose of deriving the health-based
levels in the following discussion, the
risk is taken as 10 ~6 (i.e., one in a •-'••'.
million). A given constituent may have
an RfD, an RfC, and/or a CSF,
depending on. the variety and nature of'
the toxic effects exhibited.The RfD is an
estimate (with uncertainty spanning
perhapsan order of magnitude) of a •
daily expiosure to the human
population, including sensitive • .
subgroups, that is likely to be without ••'
•appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. The CSF is an
estimate of the upper bound confidence „
limit of tile lifetime risk of developing
cancer, per unit dose; which results -
from .the application of a low-dose
extrapolation procedure; When '
available, EPA uses RfDs, RfCs, and
CSFs .that have beien verified by the •
Agency's Reference Dose/Referenee-
Coricentf ation (KfD/RfC) Work Group oir
CRAVE (Carcinogen Risk-Assessment
Verification Endeavor) Work Group, If v
no verified values exist, other estimates
of RfDs, RfCs; arid CSFs are examined to
determine if they are appropriate for use-
in establishing HBLs. HBLs are intended
to be protective of human health under
a wide Variety of exposure conditions.
Health-based levels in water and soil,
and the criteria used to estabh'sh:them, >•'
are shpwn in Table 1 for the •
constituents of concern in .
chlorophenolic surface protection
formulations. • '•'' , r •': ' ' ' •
TABLE 1.—HEALTH, BASED LEVELS AND CRITERIA TOR CONSTITUENTS QF CONCERN
)• ' • '• , . • ' , ** . . • •- • . •
••*'-';•• • >t Cbnsfituerit . - •' - .„'-•,;.,.. .
1. •...-•- *••.-.•,' f,l ; - ' ,. .-,»'• •-. • ' •'• .-. . ;- .
• .<•••.... ,;.-.. . ; • . . ' ..,».!•., - f . . . ; , ,,
1 Pentachiorophonol .^ . «'. ;...% ..~
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ., ...,
2,3,7,8-TCDb .,,.........;::,.....„. _..... f.
Health based levels
• :.. , i {,.- '. .. . /.i- •-,.-. f --"',:•"-.:-•>: ,'-. • :•'.
VVaterln^L)
• o.boi
1.0.
0.00000003
^(nr^CO- '
'"-.•' * ' -J ' '
;'--'">jo!:' :.s'T-
2000
'; 0.000007
.V '.. -ji "..':'',;'••.. :-.-0rtte''a" . ,''f;:.}.^:',''",":,'
,;;^;(n^Lt;
; Qp)1. ;
aoboboflba '
" Of b jmg/kg/d)
: , • .'• -- . ( •
; 0.03
0.03
. '.' o-ooooooobt
^SP(mg?kg/
' • :• d) •
"•'••.-. •>. -
-------
2C5718
FkdkrakJtegjbfe* t Vd. • 58,, Ntu 7» / Taasdag,. April 27, 13Sa / Proeiiised
thyroid.'tosgjiOi hardipaiato,. andlung;
.
Toratagfioeaia has been- Qteervad^
includiagsufih fmnk
mico-and.farismal'cffgaaihflmenliagftin
rats, SeyeiBiEBBrodufitlve effects fe.gi
sponlanaausabortroaihawebiaafouad.
in monkB3S..SuppEes3ian of inuBuoo.
syatem-fiinclrpiihas.tieenEapoited.iH .
nmill: aysv mica, and cUisKspccfe&.
Other BQly.hTorinnteJdihwi^xlTnyui-
(PGDDjanjigoly-eBfejiiiated '
dibopzofiitan. {PCDgj congenBrs.difier in
1 tha numBsc and: posftifltt ofchlbnha
atoms tltej: conical. Of tha limitedl
adequately tasted",. only a.mixtiire ef
'
shown to be carcinogenic
.OH &
statistically signifkantiaMieaseswera
in.cidfi&caaf .
GHSEifioraas: in, Hiicerand
toxieity^" suebasgpMffial wetght.lcrss,
aadi toxic hepatitis, wei& als« obsecuad,
• Huwevao,.a,nuic& laigpF body of data,
is available feombofetslort-tflnn-ia vivo
and" a. vaEiatjf of in, vifeor studies, caiteting
"
dkvelopnwataltoxicaL^oall'
trazLsJoimation, and! e
whicB. can.b\e used, td aiijiplemeiit the
congeners m waicfe&e
lateral 2^3,7,.andL8pQsiliQns on tfie
dihenzodioxiiL ana; dibenzaSiEan
atoms are much more biologically active
than the non-fr.S^ff-stifistrtatBtr : :
congeners. Ingtoaiiom,, tlte iaefatisse;
generally otnnir iB' liiaenwirnnsnant aa ai
complex mixfamBBTt- it is appropriate to
conclusions-^ afiout' I3tefe tosdeity a«^a
group- of
effeets.
basis for theB"toxie-fty' equivatency
factor" eoHeepfcto WBfefetMfl'
coheen&atibn- ef a given- PCDE* or
congener can' Be tfaflslatoJirrtcasT • •
equivalent coneentiatfon- of 2,3,T,&-
TCB&.-R sttbgrougiof ffieBToith Mairtic
Treaty Oi^aaization' Cbmrnrtfee* on tiie*
C2ialfengBSr ofMfadehi Society - {NATO/'
CCMSJ'lias agorovedm griiidpfe feer
adbgtfon of tferi-tEFs fortfie 2;3",7(8-
substitutod'eongeaers ii'sted'm Tank ?.
T?BB.E £—TOXICl-TV EQLHVftLENCy-FACTOHS (FTEFS^ FOR; PGQD'AND
DibenzodtaibK
i TEF
Dibenzofuran-
TfeF
2,3,7,8-Tetrachtorodibenzo-p-dloxin ....
* 1,2,3,7,8-PontachlofOdibonao^xJleMto
2,3.7.8-Hexachtofodibarafl^iKiioxins...
2;3-,7.fr.HeptecHor(xHb«K
. 1 -j
. ffiS
O5.
at
2,3,7,8-Tetrachk>r'odibeii2ofuran
CtOOt
2-,3s7,©443^sS!orodibsnzofurans ,
0.1
0.05
05
O.t
0.01
0.001
Source. U-.S. Envifenmentaf Rreteetien- Ageney-. t989- Update- to- fee- Interim- Proeediwes- fop Es,
which has been ctessifiad- as a 5z
carcinogen', ftas a CSFof 0.011 (mg/Kg/
day)1"1'. Z'.'f .e-TVic&rot uphuaof hagBaen-
shown to cause an increase in
lymphomaaand leukflnaias iiLra.tJs and
found: attralatixely kna contneatiatJiiHs
wben p
b. Cbnatituaatsproposad; for addition.
taappondixXniLAniiiBheroCtna
constituents of concern that are
in wastes generated from wood surface
protection.pi33cesjses-w.uk. chloioBhanols
do not appear on the list c£ hazaidaus.
canstitoienfeiat40 CFR@aEt 2filr
'
to a
appendix-VKkSodiunt
, .
tha sodiianj-saltoi
teHal; Ehe
phenols by ecidrfrcstfon. Therefore, .the*
sodium and potassium .salts are
expected:to alicilfea sanifi health effects
as»thfr CQErfeipcadlag phenols. For thiis •
rjaasaaKEPA ptopesea.fo add these four
compounds' to the list, of hazardous
constituents, in appendix VIS.
•, Tha othec two compounds proposed,
fer. addttioit to a^panmx VHT, QCEJD ana
OGDFi. are members of the, i-argp femil^
of polychrBariijated' dioxiris and. furahs
(P£3)Ds and'FtUHFs^C^rtiahT oiiiiese'
compounds, most notg&ly, 2,S'.T'.ff-
TCEffi)', have bean showtt to- Bw
3; fls d5scussed' •
er. EPAVRtafc
foH'ownig ihgestion, fhe.$odium'and-;
potassiiHH'sal
and* 2,3^4,6'te
Assessment Fbram Ira? evaluated' •'•
toxieity data' foi? mciny diterinated
order to estaMrsfe
estimating risks ,as»aciat
exposures to nriaoiaiii^isf thesas
voTftr: re
fftuuloft Oroccuptttfoiisity
combined; EPA fe currgntTy, ay
^
tfjegg rttidies
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 27, 1993 / Proposed Rules
25719
compounds.5 These data indicate that
2,3,7,8-substituted congeners of '
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and
dibenzofurans have toxic effects similar
to 2,3,7,8-tetrachIorodibeiizo-p-dioxin.
Data available from in vivo and in vitro
studies reveal a strong structure-activity
relationship, in which the 2,3,7,8-
substituted congeners are much more
biologically active than other congeners.
Both OCDD and OCDF are 2,3,7,8-
substituted congeners. The data also
show that the relative responses of
different PCDDs and PCDFs are
generally consistent across a variety of
toxicity end points.
In regard to OCDD specifically, test
animals exhibited initial signs of
"dioxin toxicity" in a subchronic study
of mice exposed to OCDD at low levels.8
These data suggest that when exposed
for long periods, animals absorb and
accumulate sufficient amounts of OCDD
to manifest dioxin-Iike effects.
Furthermore, rat hepatoma data from in
vitro studies demonstrate a form of
enzyme induction for OCDD that is
characteristic of dioxins. Stracture-
activity relationships suggest that
similar effects would be expected for
OCDF (although no confirmatory
experimental data are available).
Therefore, EPA has concluded that there
is sufficient evidence to show that
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) and
octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) are
hazardous constituents which should be
added to appendix VIII of 40 CFR part
261. The-Agency specifically solicits
comment on the addition of OGDD and
OCDF as hazardous constituents to
appendix VIII. <• -• . •
c. Potential human exposure
pathways. Human exposure to the
hazardous constituents found in wastes
generated by the use of chlorophenols
for surface protectioh can occur by a
wide variety of pathways. These
pathways are identified by the nature of
the release of the contaminants into the
environment, the subsequent fate and
transport within the environment
(which depends on the physical,
chemical, and biological properties of
the hazardous constituents), and the
routes of human exposure to
contaminated media. The primary
media of concern are soils, ground.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989
Update to the Interim Procedures for Estimating
Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans
(CDDs and CDFs). Washington, DC: Risk
Assessment Forum, March, 1989. EPA/625/3-89/
016.
"Couture, L.A., M.R. Elwell. and US. Bimbaum.
Dioxin-like effects observed in mala rats following
exposure to octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
during a 13 week study. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology, Vol. 93. pp 31-46,1988.
water, surface water, and air. However,
biological media (sucK as fish and
shellfish, beef and dairy products, and
food crops) may also act as significant
reservoirs of contamination from which
dietary exposures can occur. The major
routes of human exposure are ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal absorption. Fate
and transport processes include
sorption onto soils, infiltration to
ground water, runoff to surface water,
soil erosion to rivers and streams,
suspension of soil and dust particles in
air, volatilization, translocation and
deposition to plants, and
bioaccumulation in aquatic and
terrestrial organisms. Processes which
can lead to changes in the chemical
identity of the constituents include
photolysis, hydrolysis, microbial
degradation, and biological metabolism
within the food chain.
A major source of contamination at
sawmills is drippage of excess
formulation from treated wood. This can
occur directly onto bare soils or onto a
pad (on which the equipment is
supported) from which infiltration or
runoff occurs. Another significant
source is precipitation wash-off from
treated lumber in storage yards, which
can run off to surface waters, infiltrate
into ground water, or be retained in the
soil column.
Of the many possible'human exposure
pathways, the Agency has focused its
assessment on three principle pathways
for which data are available. These
pathways are: direct ingestion of
contaminated soil; infiltration to ground
water and ingestion as drinking water;
and soil erosion followed by
bioaccumulation in fish and shellfish
and subsequent dietary ingestion. The
Agency's assessment of risk to human
health via these three pathways is '
discussed elsewhere in today's notice.
d. Ecological effects. At one time
pentachlorophenol was one of the most
widely used biocides in the United
States, having been registered for use as
an insecticide, fungicide, molluscicide, *
herbicide, algicide, and general
disinfectant. Therefore, it is not
surprising that pentachlorophenol has
also been found to cause a variety of
ecological effects. Even at relatively low
concentrations, pentachlorophenol has
been .shown to be extremely toxic to
aquatic life. Among species of fish,
salmonoids appear to be the most
sensitive, commonly having LQso values
below 100 ug/L.7 However, some non*
salmonoid species of fish also display
LQso values in this range. Although
pentachlorophenol does not appear to
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms,
there is some evidence that certain of its
metabolites may bioaccumulate. EPA •
has established ambient water quality
criteria for pentachlorophenol for the
protection of freshwater aquatic
organisms, as a function of pH. At a
surface water pH of 6.8, the criterion is
5 ug/L, measured as a four-day average.
At lower pH's, the ambient water .
quality criteria are somewhat lower. '
However, these criteria may not be .
protective of the most sensitive species,
e.g., juvemile sahnonoids, for which
lower criteria may be appropriate.6
Because process wastewaters,
excluding material storage yard runoff
(see 40 GFR 429.11(c)), are prohibited
from being discharged, directly by the
effluent guideline regulations for the
sawmill portion of the timber products
industry (40 CFR part 429),
contamination of surface waters with
pentachlorophenol from sawmills is
expected to occur only from stormwater
runrqff. Considerable dilution occurs in
water courses during rain events,
thereby minimizing the possibility that
concentrations of pentachlorophenol •
could be high enough to be harmful to
aquatic life. Therefore, EPA does not
believe that surface protectioii
operations pose a significant risk to
aquatic ecosystems, if transfer of
chlorophenolics to the soil and
groundwater is prevented, in the
absence of unlawful discharge of
chlorophenolic surface protection
formulations. . ,
Pentachlorophenol is also toxic to .
terrestrial animals and plants. It has
been used- as a nonspecific herbicide,
defoliant, and crop desiccant and
therefore exhibits toxic effects in many
species of plants. Pentachlorophenol
has been, reported to be poisonous to a
variety oif domestic animals, including
cats, horses, pigs, and poultry. Wildlife
have also been killed by the use of
pentachlorophenol as a pesticide.
Less information is available on the ,
toxicity of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol in
the environment. Although it has not
been tested in salmonoid species of fish,
it is acutely toxic to bluegill, having an
LCso slightly above 100 Mg/L. 2,3,4,6-
Tetrachlorophenol has also been shown
to be acutely toxic to certain species of ,
zooplankton at sub-part per million
levels.
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorbdibenzo-p-dioxin
is extremely toxic to mammals, birds,
and fish. Exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD has
been'associated with acute and delayed
7 LCso is the concentration in water at which 50
percent mortality is observed in the species test..
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Pentachlorophenol—
1986. Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations •
and Standards, September, 1986. EPA-440/S-S6-T
009.
-------
25720 .. FedeM* IBggurtfo / .Vol. 58.m 7ft 'A:
April 2E, 19»3' /•
Bates
histo
TCDD; ma efffets-of
ralatlonsHii shni&rftrtibtff ona»
elucidated for effects oirKnmairliBaBftr.
Acu
species- .
pi u|Tui'l!l'on-oreffltik worms Cffig., robing,
woodcotefe; atitfsfaevraj. A&part'of e
'':
for certain wildlife species areras-tewcas.
or lower than,, those of-sorae latiuratuLy
animals.FTfar example, tfieLE^a vafae
fos Donwntte-quailtis. 15 ug/kg*wftereas:
for dom8stfc(mi'drens,.lZJjQ.varae5llErm
the range, of 2S.ro StFug/fcg, AC fewer
doses-, below ia(ig/Eg,dtnnestfc
cBidcens exfilMt.signs ofcM
disease and liver naffiaTogx.
TGDITis.also assodatBcfwflfrpoOT-
reproductibn in- herring guHte.EggjpfteH -
tfiuining,aDg8arstto Be tfie^most
common, reproductive eSfect in avito'
sgedas. AsuIiB effacts fixa4uaCb; .
or@misma.sEaw, an. tmusual" pattern of
deJayecCrjaspon'sa, wfiHrBBy-acuta.eifect's
show asimllflrity to-cBronic effects. . -•
Among aqMt>Hr nrgnntkina,- nsBiappeai;
'
pulp and
TCDB'fii soiT as' Ibw- as- 3!parJfe per
trillion- cbttftP cause* axftseree'e^feetsspt-o-
of 2,3i7iJ8-TCDD toxfeity €Fquivalsi3feiin!
sawnrili!srorlsiara-well)afeQV0'tfiesB'
levels., some- §dVerse> effeEtfr on .
tBrrestriaf wiWlSfe may/occur IfoweveT;
the rBfatryerysniaH' areas- of
contamiiiatedtsorls at sawsrilfe ccraid1
miffgat'e tfieser effects: Fm-tiiermtjra;
'
ponuTatibas would'SDpeartcrbe:
^
mihiniarrisk.to aquatic organisms from
run-off of ZiJ.r.ff-TeDD'contHnrinated
soils. '
pg/L. "Ehaimoat commonlj
nonlotkal effect iit fiskfs. giowtHT
retardatfoxtory.oDLaac.frXw, " '
2,3,7,8-TCD&BaslJeensnowjito.
rTtofn.
2.
> EPAhaiagsaraBfetfaluftstantialljady
of inforinati'Qn'on 0iivirmiuituital4
contami'riatfbn at sawmill feciMBS ,
chloropfearadssfiarth]
af its
Region^ Wafer Qua-lM*y-C5jritzoF BVsanfe;
To strp^lBnteikftfte^niftOTnatibn' ftoui;
Qregofliand' CffiRsrafcrEPA cbntfaE«a*
a search of tfie'open literature and: .
seaicnad' its. own CERC^IS* data Bass.
CZRCLI&ikEPArs.EentralrBposffO,rx of
assessments, emergency r.emoKffIs, andl
a. Contemiiiated) media.. Altogethar;.
of metfiar esHSamikifftSon
are fbrpBntac&Ibrojift'enGFan(d!2,J?,4,6:-
tetrachldropficein'ol &t.groand watte;
soils, and suifece water,1* A sntail1 "
amount of d&tff are also avaiTaSfe for
PCDDs and1 EO3FS iji soilk, exDresseias
2,3,7,SrTCijn.toxiciiy equivalents
(TEQJ..T&e.data on-sMs repzesantscat
in the immediate vicinity ofit&apxoGaaa
ccaiesraitraJjiojis fenm;
TABEF3.—RESOURCE DiWi!KSEl»MeiDa«l! MEnii^CE»ffiENTRATIONS
Groundiwatar ,
Cbrurtlfijarrt1
N<
tow
N- .
I*
P&ntaditoropttBnof
45
3
! 0:002: -
t.1.
N/A.
8
0
t^numbfic orfacnitrea.witb data-available.
N/A»dat& not'.avallatrfB. .
Only vaiUeB-tfc«lare«abov0:ft«eJtft &as«K*lbvels are given..,.
As sMtwjo:ia.TahiQ<3w .
•water,
facilities with ground water data^!0
Wlldllfa Soivicoj, 1966. Biological Rcfiart 85,,.
0;091 mg/L. Alp II &ciiaifls wi3ffli:oni-8ite
surfaea water, data Have lavels, above this
. MCJL In. additioa,measurements o£
pentachloEQphenolat one faciBijf show/
levels;o£9Qmg/L,inwaJar being
• discha^ed firam-an
into surface waters.! This discharge is
believed tahavaorigmated'in the
procesaaraa. AttFiough-nol shown in
Table a, of five facililies for which
surface, wateit data are? ai
Exchange Computer Bufletin, Board' System (
BBS). Althougft TZirBanj and" adWSorreifbr diincrrrs ,
specifically to discha^es from sawmills.
gdvlsortcu on tho consumption of fish'and ahellHsh
13 EPA's own sampling mid analysis data, whinfai
at»disEua«ed.ed!iflMd}ara.toitadaj's,noliQa).aienat
-------
Iffierd flgpafter / Vol. SB. Mo. 79 / Tuesday. Apual 27, 1393 / Ptoprcod Ruies
pentachlana
fcndts above the
.------„ ^ -^—**•-*- parts .parlnL.—„-.
to 0.1 ang/l,. fa suite, «f 47JteiKtiiB wife based l«wl far-soiL
exhibited I
par Hiillsron two jRoeths alter «he
hea&fe Abased iBnrf «f 9 a^kg. .AJso atot
POJDs, aad iPO3Fs
iaxaaMtflEiiaatBd madiatit sawmill
'Subsar&OB soils. i«, «n
IheihaaMaihisBdleBeJtojdeptiisasgraat simalar Jevels KCTOES the
. as six£ae£. • •. ". '• :':•--.
jtofoe fotiadat
le
surface waiter resourcajs at
facilities hav« been dastcged dae to «o-
sitecxMtaiaiiiBtionbyljMardous . .
ooQstituan
exceed'tha MCLof liag/JLIa
case fflast of tsight do iaraJs i»;SMrfao?
waiar s&nsitB ajcceed ttfaa MQX a
, by a small anaouctt. jyth
in rebte 3. off four oases wife «nfece
water dsta nffrsite. ia stenmsaodiaT
generally of iessareoncsm/3 Aklaoagh
the sodium and potassttima«ils«f these
cessat _
srarfaDB protecijpa, s^naficant isTsiican
tea yens or tarn*, ttcnuvnir.,
of iwt-eatitHi in soil appea
site-apatafic-inadriitioa.
show levels of ,3*0 'a^/JL in watex IbaiBg
into stmiace waters, a
believed to kawB«iri5pa«ted in 4h«
piopess anew. In 5oife,!otf 13 cases 6»
.
However. «in the context «f»an- . .'-,
occupatiattal exposures, ifeess dauwges
pose a threat to public health onlyif ihe
conUmination migrates ofksiie or if oa-
sito eagMisiUB occuxs as a oonseqweace «f
acheflgeiniaodusB-T-oaddressiheBB
scenarios, EPA performed a mslc
assessmaai toben(d Jewels PGQFsijind^tatjBgJyto
kg.
fiwe cases-for whk3iaibsuf!face*oil-d»ta
aMavaiiabto. oaiy««*Bis*be¥e tfcs
heaJih basafl lewei-jaffitewartJiy «boat
this case is &*{ das saaeplei Jar witich
'indicating that these compouads.noaa .be
expected to pecsiat at ievrfa of owttseni
_
evidaoced by dQessfBameats of «J<5*ated
levels
-------
25722 Federal Register t Vol. 58, No. 79 I Tuesday. April 27, :1993 t Proposed Rules
may be fcollectedand retumed-tathe -
process,' topically there is-little or no -
effoclive collection system. In dip tank
operations, the amount of drippage
generated depends on the length of time
the lumber is allowed to drain over the ,
tank before it is transferred from the
process area. Process drippage may drip
directly onto soils in the vicinity of the
tank or onto a concrete pad from which
runoff occurs. The runoff may
subsequently infiltrate Into the
subsurface environment or be conveyed
to surface waters. , ' - «v • •-.•
Based on drippage measurements
made during a field experiment; EPA
estimates that the amount of drippage
generated is between 1000 and 4000 • ,
gallons for every one million board feet
of treated lumber. This compares to an ;
estimate of approximately 10,000
gallons of formulation used per million •
board feet of lumber treated;18 ,
Measurements of the amount absorbed
by the wood vary widely. However, EPA
believes that absorption accounts for no
more than about 1500 gallons per
million board feet. Based on these
figures, the drippage and absorption
combined do not appear to account for
the amount of formulation actually
•used. Although measurement error may
account for much of the'disparityVsome
portion maybe attributable to leaks and
spills. In spite of the uncertainty; the
Agency is assuming for the purpose of
characterising risk that 2400 gallons
infiltrate into soils-for every one million
board feet of lumber that are treated.,
The Agency believes that this'value is*
well within the range of uncertainty of
the data. EPA requests comment on the
validity and reliability of this
assumption. '
Estimates of.the strength of the
formulation solution range from 0.2
percent to 2 percent, as total
chlorophenols. However,
chlorophenqlic formulations differ
substantially in the proportion of
pentachlorophenate and 2,3,4,6-
tetrachlorophenate salts from one
product to another. Some formulations
aro composed primarily of sodium or
potassium salts of pentachlorophenate •
while others contain a high proportion
ofsaltsof 2,3.4,6-tetrachlorophenate. .
Drippage consists of undiluted excess
formulation; therefore, the strength and
composition of the drippage is the same
as that of the formulation. For the
purpose of characterizing risk associated
f with, the usage of chlorophenols for
surface protection, the Agency is '
assuming that the concentration of
chlorophenols in the drippage is 0.4
percent, or 4000 parts pet -million.!1?, For
the purpose of characterizing the
incremental risk associated with the - ,
cross-contaminatioriof non-' .
chlorophenolic formulations, the •
Agency is assuming based on its record •
samplingthat the residual concentration
of chlorophenols in the drippage is
approximately 3 parts per million. This
estimate is based on sampling and
analysis data on levels in the,
formulation of users of non- -
chlorophenolics who previously used
chlorophenols.
. 2. Storage yard wash-off. Wash-off is
generated whenever precipitation
contacts treated wood. Although this
can occur anywhere that treated wood is.
handled outdoors, most wash-off is
generated at sawmills in uncovered
storage yards. While generated only
intermittently, these wastes are high in
volume. The volume generated depends
on the size of the storage yard and the
amount of rainfall. However, the
concentrations of waste constituents in
wash-off are relatively low compared to
the concentrations in process drippage.
Although storage yards may be paved
with asphalt, more typically they are
situated on unprotected compacted soil
Or are overlaid with gravel. In most
situations, some portion of the wash-off
is expected to infiltrate into the ground,
the amount depending on the particular
site and the specific conditions at the.
. time. The Agency is assuming for the
purpose of characterizing risk that 25
percent of the wash-off infiltrates into
' the ground: ; • •: ' '.'»
Studies conducted in British
Columbia by Environment Canada show
that leaching from^treated lumber begins
after as little as one millimeter of
continuous precipitation and occurs
even after extended periods of drying.18
The Environment Canada study
collected data on the concentrations of
chlorophenols in storage yard runoff as
a function of rainfall intensity! EPA
evaluated these data, which include
several rain events of one to two days
duration each. For the purpose of
characterizing "risk associated with
chlorophenolic usage, the Agency took
the average runoff concentrations that
were reported for the individual rain •
events and weighted them by the
corresponding cumulative rainfall totals
to estimate an overall average runoff
concentration. This concentration,
which is approximately 7 mg/L, .
represents the average concentration in
the wash-off over several cycles of • '
precipitation and subsequent drying.
For the purpose of characterizing the
Incremental risk associated withr cross-
contamination'of noin-chlorophenolic
formulations, the Agency reduced this
concentration by the same factor that
the concentration in drippage was
reduced, as described above. The
Agency requests comment on whether
this approach is appropriate and
requests additional data to assist in
refining this .estimate.
^..Process area and storage yard soils..
For the purpose of characterizing risk
related to soil contamination, EPA :
collected soil samples from the process
area and storage yard at five sawmill
facilities, one of which was a current
user of chlorophenolics. Each sample
was collected by a six inch auger
inserted to a depth of six inches. In
order to collect representative samples
of the areas of soil contamination, a
team consisting of a hydrogeologist and
chemical engineer made a careful
assessment of the sampling locations.
The samples were analyzed for PGDDs •
and PCDFs.^0 The sampling and
analysis results demonstrate the
presence of PCDDs and PCDFs in both
the process area and storage yard. The,
concentrations of the storage yard
! samples collected by EPA* which-range
from 0.014;ug/kg (parts per billion) to
0.96 Ug/kg (parts per billion) have a
mean value of 0.22 ug/kg (parts per
billioh),;expressed as2;3,7,8-TCDD
toxicity equivalents (TEQ). Two process
area soil samples collected by EPA have
concentrations of 0.94 ug/kg (parts per
billion) and 4.1 ug/kg (parts per billion),
-expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity
.equivalents (TEQ), giving a mean value
of 2.5 Ug/kg (parts per billion),20
The levels measured in the process
area samples represent the
accumulation of PCDDs andPGDFs in
soil from drippage over an extended,
though unknown, period of time. The
Agency lacks adequate historical data
"TolaV usage is based on a manufacturer's
e«Um«Ie. " '; •
, ' 17The concentration of chlorophenols is based on
a manufacturer's estimate of what is typically used
in the industry. " • • •'••'
"Environment Canada. Assessment of Storm '
Water Related Chlorophenol Releases from Wood
Protection Facilities in British Columbia. Pacific
and-Yukon Region! August, 1987. Regional Program
Report 87-15. ;
"EPA also analyzed the soil samples for • ' ' •
chlorophenols. However, neither '• ; ••
. pentachlorophenfll nor 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenpt ,
were detected in the soil samples. These results ,
differ with the results from the resource damage :
incident reports, as discussed elsewhere in today's '
notice, which show pentachlorophenol and 2,3,4,6-
tetachlorophenol in process soils in the part per
million range (and above). Such site to site • •
differences are not unexpected and are probably
related to variations in soil types and the spiTs
ability to bind chlorophenols from aqueous
•" solutions of their salts or other site-specific factors.
zogpA notes that the limited data on , ;
concentrations of PCDDs and PCDFs in process area
soils from the resource damage incident reports, as
discussed elsewhere in today's notice, are generally
higher than the concentrations discussed here.
-------
.Ma. 79•f,toiefto$fAf& 27.• 1993• A
theleiwieoffCDDsB^PCDFein lovwjrteseJsoef^GmJsHndKaJRsia
contamiartitmtiMi'&eleweisiariiEated
oile involved: fl)
lewdaal dripp^gs In the storage yard
|(thtjogh this has aot actually "been
jbsei vediijrfee AgeHtyfr <2jj ,
precipitation wash-off &om-te>ested
nrjer (tiongli no actual Tneasuramerits
of PCDDs imd PCDFs is wssBilf are
able); J3) phototransformation of
Isoil pentadhlorophenol to
loctachloroaibeaazo-p-dloxin (OCDDJin
|situ and subsequent phohslytk: .
Silorinaltian to other PCDDs,?wJiich
i been observed In the laboratory; or
(4j pbototransfonaation-of
Ipfrenoxyplienols (i^a., "prediosfins,"
|which are co-contaminants of
hloropheaolic formulations) ifl various
Ds and PCpFs, which appears to
"' e tha presence of a Atojfftg * , .
gen dcasnr. For the .purpose of
alyzing seal-related exposaae •, .
•pathways, |he Agency believes e steady and uniform.;'tne .
sorted and aflueous,phases-are assumed ,
to be'in equilibrium; sorp^on isi fisher
assumed to follow alinear isottienn..
model to^erfbrm screening analyses to
identify the constilueBts &al are likely
to migrate iflaough ground water jit '"''• '">
appreciable xates, the modeiinpart
param(^8rslb,wMchth8jnqd8
that are i
hi gromtd -wzfter. The •sorM
« a
source of ground water contaminsffibn.
Pacametarslo wiuch the jnt>dBKn.g
factor off
reasonable to expect WHWspandfe^y ptofosA.
carisoa fceotioa antireratad
geologic nsateiiaJs of whscfatiia aquifer
influence the modeling results. %du*s •
^Bt|KBa;aiii8tocs«sBd&rA(
vaBat^xsafeJDiKltdia '
GROUND
Chlofophenolic Usi^
(ppnt) «._..w«_»™.
BassHna
Residue
-------
45724
F«detal Register/.-.VbL 58, Not 7<9 /.-Tuesday*April 27, i993,/l»B)po*ed Rules
In th'6 riskasseiament background
documentroHodayVpropOsaU '-;
!2. -XHuct soil Jnge&onfndv&tp
path
, in rantprninated'Soils.w]—r«v-rs
outdoors, as a-resultof normal hand t»'<-
« mouth, behavior. Such exposure could ••
, occur if th0 site where the contaminated
soijs am located j» converted to . :.;.;
: residential housing, in the absence of • {
soH remediation.?? The Agency assumes
that ^dulfcextfbsuref •assbyated-witij *•:;•-•
incidental soil ingestion'ariBiOeneraHy >
low vyhffiicptnpared to childhood-, :"
• exposaresj-' -.-.-, ; •,.'•,*.v•%• •..«,•', ;,• '„..;
< • 'LiniitedVsampIing and'analysis data,'
dblle#8dby EPA haye identified soils in
, the process area and storage yard of
" tewmills.that are, contaminated with
PODDs and HDFs. these eompounds
are highly persistent and can be
expected to remain in the soil for many
years to conic"; EPA used aqtuaj, ... • ,;
measurements of these compounds in
soilin-conjunction with various
• exposure assumptions to estimate
potential childhooiexpqsures to PCDDs
andPCDEs if sawmill sites were
cpnvertedjto residential use without
prior soU'remediation. These 1 ,
assumptions are detailed ia Table 6
below and in the ifisk assessment ',
background document for today's , ..
proposal. *""•'
TABUE 5.—PARAMETERS VALUES TOR
' DIRECT-Sbit iNQEbnoN PATHWAVS
3; Fish'anclShellfish ji
sawmills are located adjacentto of in
close prtradmity to rivers; and streams. •,
This fact, combined with, die results of
actual sediment measurements, indicate
a high probability that PCDDs and
PODFsiiave migrated into surface water
sediments, presumably by soil erosion..
' Once river and stream sediments are ,<-.:•
.contaminated, biological uptake may' .
occur by freshwater organisms. This is
of particular concern to human health in
the case of freshwater fish which are
consumed as part of the diet. Uptake of
the more highly chlorinated PCDDs and
PCDFs^such as those found in soils at ..
sawmills, has bean documented in
laboratoiy studies of young fish exposed
to contaminated riverine sediments.^4,,
Furthermore, estuarine fish and , • ; :
shellnsh may also be subject to uptake
ofP^DsandFCDFswiten ,
contaminated sediments are naturally, .
discharged into.bays.and estuaries.
EP. A used a methodology for fish and
shellfish ingesiion which is similar to .
one used m the proposed rule for land
application of chlorine-bleached pulp
and paper mill sludge (5p FR ,21802),
This approach uses the USDA's , ,: •,, . :
Universal Soil Loss Equation to estimate
the ratio of the rate of erosion of soils
from a contaminated site to the rate of
erosion in the watershed as a whole,
The ratio represents the dilution of
Parameter
Sol Concentration (ugftg) •
Sot Ingestlon Rate (o/day)
Exposure Duration (cfays) „
Absorption Fraction, (-) '..'
Central
tend-
• ency,
, value ;
0^18
' 0.1
800
0.3
High
end
value
0.96
02
1825
1.0
As discussed previously, for the
baseline risk the Agency reduced the
measured values, by a factor of four in
making estimates of soil concentrations
' tesulUng-rrom cross-c6niaminari.on.
With regard tb chlorpphenols; hbwevpr,
Oie Agency's own data indicate .an -
absence 6f significant *pil
coatajnlnaUon. For this, reason, EPAias
not attempted to. characterise .;
^quantitatively, the nptential risks
associated with childhood exposures to
chloxopKenbls via direct soil . .
Ingestibh." ••• , ,v "-.-«-:r.:'•'•• './"
.
cJ coo ttmin'aWa'iolljiJ a &ctorth«t could also
dUcoaragamldenUnl.davelopment.oI former ' '
' • '•
established using an empirically-
. derived Esadiment: fish bioaecumalation
factor. Data from aUSDA national food
consumption survey are then us§d to, ,-
estimatof human exposure in the general
population. In addiUon, data from other
' surveys are used to estimate exposures
among irecreatipnal fishers. Values of the
important parameters usedJn^ the
analysis are suairnarized in Table 6 • ,
•below. --;' ,' '-,-• • ;;--' -• ''•).- / .'••- -:
TABLE 6.-~PAPAMerER VALUES FOR PISH
the entire drainage basin. Applying this
ratio tor "diiutlbn" iactpr) to the
concentration in soils from a
contaminated site gives the average;.;
sediment concentration in the
Watershed to which fish and shellfish
may be exposed. To determine the
average Watershed acreage per sawmill,
EPA mapped the location of over 2500
sawmills to determine the number of
sawrniJl$an iBach of over 2000
hydrologic cataloguing units in the
continental United States, as defined by
the UiS. Geological Survey.28
Parameters for biological uptake are
. . . .,; •
"ThoAgojlcyiiWsdOiitdataeromth'enjjoura
djumgo Inddoots deicribed eUawhere in toaa/i
notice suggest that process soils could pose a threat
to human hsalth due to contaminatJon with
chlorophanols, primarily pehtachlorophanol. The ,
data are innuffident to draw any conclusions •
However, any risks pbssd by soils contamfnated
with chloropferaols are contingent on rftsidential-
redevehirwnent, without prior reniediation. • - ,;>
"Kuehl, D.W.,P.M. Cook, AJl. Batterman, D.
Lothenbach, and B.C. Butterwbrth. Bioavailability
ofpolychlorinkleddibenlo-p-dioxin»and ;
diberaofurans from contaminated Wisconsin River
sedimflnttocairp.<3ieniosphere, Vol.l6,pp667- -
.,879.1997- .'•:\'r,">..' ,.,-."'•.•;.;:. .,';., 1-v'.:',':«.':..'
z» The mapping results indicate that among '
catalogutog units Where sawmills are located, there
• is ona sa«mill on average i|jr every 270,000 acres,
• or approximately three sawmill* per cataloguing •
unit. EP A esUmatas that approximataly* third of
these sawmills currently surface protect; or about,
' one sawmill on average per cataloguing unit. , •
Panfimeter ,
'. :'' '"**•
Site Area (beo
tares) ................
Ratio of Site Slope
to Basin Slope
(-)
Site Delivaty Ratio
(-) .i..i._..:.....'.'...
Soil Concentration
(jig/day) ............
Sites per Basin
Area_(ha)-1 •••••
Cover Factor (-t) .
Bloaccumulation
Factor (-).,......
Consumption Rate
Recreational Fish-
ers ..»......«..'••»•««..
General Population
Ratio of TCDD-
TEQlnfishfilat
to whoia body
; (-) .....i.......:
Diet Fraction (-) ..
Central
tertdftncy
value
- - -•.' -i-i
1.0:
o.ab
o:2ie
,'2-78x10-*
.0.04
, 0,008
30
5-9
0.5
0.4
High**
•^: value.
•'..;. -1'«(i
1.0
•'•"'•' ' 'Or62
0.96
1.03X10-5
0.004
:P-1
140
38
0.5
- 0.4
A detailed description of the . < -''
methodology for the fish and shellfish
exposure pathway is found in the
background document for today's
proposal.
c. Characterization of risk from usage
of chlorophenolid fotmultitions.'
For today's proposal, EPA is taking a
generic approach to the characterisation
of risk from the land disposal of certain
wastes generated by the surface
protection of wood at sawmill facilities,
specifically process drippage and
storage yard wash-off. A generic
approach is necessary due to a lack of ...
adequate data to perform site-specific
risk assessments for a representative
sample of sites.*0 With mis approach, a -
generic scenario is developed in order to
represent a prototypical sawmill site.
« EPA coW that a generic approach to risk :
. characte:rizaUon complemenU the site-specific data •
on madid contamination ftom resource damage .
tncJderit).a« described eUewhsre in today's notice.
Although useful for judging tha«asonablane»> of
the generic aMessment, the resource damage
incidentnjo not of themielves provide sn adequate
basis for characterizing risk. , ,
-------
. . • . • .'••«
Federal Register / MoL 5g, No, 7ft / Tkesfey». April; 27. 1993 A Proposed Rales '•
) prototypical site, is characterized in
i of size, waste generation, waste
cterization, waste management
ices, hydrogeologic characteristics,
bd drainage basin characteristics based
i industry responses to questionnaires,
PA site visits, sampling and analysis
ata, and other information available to
[10 Agency. The development of this
:enario involves the evaluation of each
F the parameters that is required in
rder to characterize human exposure , .
ad the selection of specific values for
^chof those parameters. Each of the
posure pathways described ,
evipusly was analyzed using this
sproach. . • ,
f If the values for all the exposure; .,
jarameters are selected to represent
rhat is typical (as indicated by the
pean or median values for the •
meters), then the corresponding risk
am such an exposure scenario
bpresents a central tendency estimate.
i the other hand, if the values of all
be parameters are selected to represent
pe high end at the same time, then the
orresponding risk represents a .
Qunding estimate;, such estimates are •
fjarally useful only for eliminating
' i exposure scenarios from further
asideration. In theory, one can
lerate a distribution of individual risk
! a population from the joint
listribution of the various exposure
larameteis. The Agency has determined
pat EPA risk assessments should, at a
ninimum, include both central
andency and high-end estimates of :
idividual risk, wheris the high end
represents conceptually the «G|H»^^-.
percentile of the population distribution
and above; High end estimates are
intended to exclude estimates, such as
bounding estimates, that are likely to be
above the risk to the most exposed
individual in the actual population. .
In order to characterize the high end
risk, the various exposure parameters
are first evaluated individually and
high-end values for the parameters are
selected based on the 90th to 95th
. percentile of the distribution of the
values, or on some less precise measure
of the high end where detailed data are
not available. For this analysis, one
estimate of the high end risk is made by
setting each parameter to its high end1
value, one parameter at a time, and ••'•'•
taking the highest of the estimates from ;,
this group of scenarios. A second
estimate of the high end risk for this
analysis is made by setting the exposure
parameters to their high end values, two .
parameters at a time (resulting in a large
matrix of exposure scenarios), and '
taking the highest of the risk estimates
from this group of scenarios. These two
estimates are intended to represent .the
lower and upper ends of the high end
range of the distribution of risk. EPA
requests comment on this approach for
making high end risk estimates: -;"'"'
1« Individual risk from usage of
chlorophenolic formulations. This '.
section presents the results of the '
Agency's assessment of individual risk "•.
associated with.the uncontrolled land
*. • . '
chlorophenols for the surface protection
ofwood. -.'•'.•'•-: ••:i/>v'.'»--:V.^-*.V''.-.-
For the carcinogenic waste : • .:
constituents (i.e., pontachlorophenol,
PCDDs, and PCDFs), individual risk is
described in terms of a lifetime excess -
cancer risk. The lifetime excess cancer
risk represents the estimated upper
bound of the 95th. percentile confidence
interval of the probability that an
individual will contract cancer over his
or her lifetime due to exposure to a - -
particular substance, The results for
, PCDE)s and ECDE& eire combined in
terms of 2,3,^^K3M3toxieity:. « ,
equivalents (TEQ) by using the toxicity
equivalency factors discussed elsewhere
hi todayls notice; i?cir;2,3;4;6^ ,: A ;:? /
tetrachlorpphentfl,, which/is classified 4s
neither a human htMf 'a; probable hUmatt'i-
carcinogen, individual risk is described
in terms of a hazard quotient. The :' ".*•'.
hazard quotient is the ratio i of the '
concentration to which an individual is
exposed to the media concentration •'• : •= v
corresponding to the reference close ; -
(otherwise-referred to as the health- : ;
based level). The higher the hazard :
quotient, the greater the likelihood thai .
adverse health effedts will be observed C
in an individual and the greater the
severity of those effects. ,
The risk results for the ground water
pathway are given in table 4. These '
results are broken out separately for
drippage in the process area and wash-
off in the storage yard. Risks from cross-.
contaminated non-cMorophenolic '-'-..'•
formulations would be lower by about a ;-
factor of 1400. -' ••"••• •'' •"•*' •'•• ''' -'..--; "; •"'•••>
TABLE T.T-INDIVIDUAURISK FROM USAGE OF GHLOROPHENOUC FORMULATIONS FRQM GROUND WATER
• • •' '• •-.••.'--. • ''.•• . ; • .'•'•• . ••_ • •' Constituent '• ' •' :•'• • --• ,,,•' •• ;; •'.,-'.. • •'••'" .
•entachtorophenolt ......:.........,......; ^_..u.:...,: -. . , .: ,
•gtrachtorophenol * • ' ' •
Central
tendency
•.'•• 7virt"*'*
; ix*0*J
High end :
iZxiO^toJbdO^
t Upper bound excess Iffettme cancer risk.
•Hazard quotient.
The expected increased risk to a
ically exposed individual is
ra chance of seven in ten thousand of
ontracting cancer over a lifetime. The
ssumption is made here that ground -
rater is ingested at the rate of 1.4 liters
er day for 9 years. Nine years is typical
f the length 0f time an individual -
wells at any one residence and,
lerefore, of the average duration of
xposure to cdhtaminated ground water.
he risk calculation assumes that the
idividual's nine year residency period,
ecurs during the peak nine year
xposure segment over the modeling
eriod. Of course, these results are , .
. based on the premise that ground water
down-gradient of the source of ;;.; ./ X
contaminatibh may be used for drinking
waterj'As part of the RCRA section §007;
survey of 166 surface protection - y'
''
provide the distance to the nearest i
ground water well. The survey data
indicates that the median distance
reported by the 68 responding facilities
is 500 feet. Four of the 68 facilities
report wells being as close as 100 feet.
The further assumptions are made that
the well is used fordrinking water, is
located dowfligMKlieht of the facility on
•.,frora>tn«fp^pjf^sWGbUd.aq(il'fieir.''' '.
v^oweye.#slr^fcaw*^^ ?-••••'.
:I<^e^'n^riv^.ai^ v-i
contaminated groundwatei*tyxao&(j^>^:--'
be intercepted at least in patt^bjf s\«c^»: 7':.>-4
•water .drainages, .theieby jedac^ng-blt)^ ';.";i'i ••*•-."
;1he magnitude and likelihood ofhuman -,;?;.'•
«xposures..Furthermore, the -, . _: ;.' -
(x>ntaminated plume may not reach a
drinking water welLlbr many decades;- -,'•
raising die possibility that = - , - '
..
j;ignificantly lower concentrations in theV
tbxicJH^oftfielniitoijfpW*ibUli' ?;V" :;1
metabolites that may result from .;>- > V-"
-------
25726 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 79 J Tuesday, April 27, 1993 /Jfaoposed Rules _^u=^,
inconsequential The Agency requests Risks from soils contaminated only by the storage yard.
comment on these individual risk cross-contaminated non-chlorophenohc
estimates. formulations would be lower by about a
8.—INDIVIDUAL RISK FROM USAGE OF CMLOROPHENOLIC FORMULATIONS FROM DIRECT SOIL INGESTION
Source
Constituent:
.2.3.7.B-TCDD TEQ t - •'••••
Process area
Central tendency ;
2x1 (T5
High/End
SxKT5 to 2x1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, NQ.: 79 / Tuesday. April 27. 1993 /.Proposed Rules . .' 25727
made with the-implloit assumption that..'
larger risks to more highly exposed
individuals in the population are offset
by smaller risks to less exposed
individuals. .For noncarcinogenic •
effects, population risk can be estimated
by multiplying the proportion of the
population that receives an exposure
which exceed^ the reference dose (RfD)
by the size of the exposed population.
An OCtimatc* f\f tlkie *imn n'U..^^..-!
I An estimate of this type obviously
ne knowledge of the
requires some knowl
distribution of individual risk in the
, exposed population (as measured by the
hazard quotient, for example). This
estimate also can be converted to an
annual average as discussed above.27
Estimates of population risks
associated with existing environmental
contamination for the ground water • -•
ingestion pathway, the fish,and shellfish
mgestion pathway, and the sott
ingestion pathway are given in Table 7.
Incremental risk associated with the
cross^contaminatton of non-,. .: .,..., -
chlorophenolic formulations is :
discussed in the benefits section of
today's proposal. Noje that population
risk estimates ard Hot made for
pentachlorpphenol and 2.3,4,6- .
tetrachlorophehol for the soil-based :
pathways, (i.e., direct soil ingestion arid
fish and shellfish ingestion) and for
2,3,7,8-TCDDfor the ground water,
pathway, for the reasons cited earlier.
TABLE IO:-POPUIATION RISK FROM USAGE OF CHLOROPHENOUC F^RMUUTIONS BY EXPOSURE PATHWAY
.'.-'. •'.';• • '
Constituent , • • •
Pentachlorophenolf „.......„
2,3,4,6-Tetrachtorophenol* •„.
2,3,7 8-TCDD TEQ f
t Cancer cases, annual average durir
Non-cancer cases, annual average <
• .Pathway " ; ; , :
. " '• • ' ' ••••:.'.'••.•','•
ig 70 year period of maximum exposure. .
taring 70 year period of maximum exposure. ^ • '
Ground
• water
9x10~2
2x10+2
NA
• . ' X../
•Rshartd •
shellfish
. NA
NA'
1x10r2
.'.-..i'.'soB.;, ;
'. ,'•'.•'".' M
• NA
2xtO-'
For the ground-Water pathway, the
population risk estimates are based on
, an estimated exposed population of
approximately 17000 individuals over
70 years. This is derived by adjusting
the number of sawmills which currently
engage in surface protection operations.
by the proportion of sawmills reporting
the presence of a ground water well and
making the assumption of one
household per well. The residence time
or turnover period is assumed to be 9
years, resulting in eight exposed
households (or cohorts) over 70 years.
The exposed households are assumed to
obtain their drinking water from wells
which are located 500 feet directly
down-gradient of the surface protection
operation and draw from the top of a
shallow, contaminated surfitial aquifer.
The rationale for making these
particular assumptions is discussed in
the risk assessment background
document for tbday'srproposal. Because
the assumption that each well is located
directly down^gradient of the surface
protection operation, and is used as a
drinking water supply is probably quite
conservative (particularly given the
frequency with wbicjisawmills are
located near surface waters that are
likely t r
residential. Thisfcpuld occur^yherea^vi-
sawmiHis abandoned and, witiiolit
prior soil reniediatlbn, is later '.-', "'" "
develbped^for residentiaihousing prfis
sold to a developer iq!r:prpspe^tiver--"' '> • -
homeowner. ^'di^icusspd earlier,'the : '
population^riskicariibe estimated ty-
the central tendency estimate of ;>'t
individual.risk. Hp:iveyer; becauserjthe.
stprage;yard is §p toiuc^-Jarg^fhgn the''.-,' \
ptocess^iffeja,* Siily^the'i^vldu^fisk " .
vajlu^-fpr the storage yard is used i^ljiis ;
calculation. Jdeajly,:c'-- i--^-''J^-^^*-'-i-*''''
hare .iiki^iycjaftdidpls fpt \
develp^ment KtpWeyefr, t
, ..... ,—.—^,— Jntimberof •
annual cases for non-carcinogenic health effects is
. to estimate thIjijs^-^ ,• ;.:'<'
ft-:- ,f'^ '';j5f.;'-V/>;.' ^.'-- -.'-J-.l .>«;'*'ir':t'''!<;;^.i3''.:''is"i''1'-x.
-------
residential and eSfimpfimAe mnribernf
potentially ^xp6sBfl;chflarBP. "basted tm
rural T
Restriction gm^mm are not necessarily
limited lo those identified vs jicesentfe
the F633 wastes in "toda/s-nofifeeilitft
include those constituents py paTameters
proposed Ifefeg of T'OSS wastes
turnover times xff«3b3d4watnig
household* {i«., tb* «•» period from
whea
standards for FO33. A coliection of the
aYailable treatment information has
been pkcad in the "docket for today's
rule.' ; ". :
EPA intends to propose treatment
standards for F033 in.a separate
rulemaldng. Hdwevar^ EPA specifically
,. is soliciting 'comment and data on the
following as they pertain to the
escrp
technblogias {sei& asbioremiediatton)
that might be currency. avaiybleOT
anticipa'ted as aipplicaMe;
<35 Performance date fat Ihe bert^aeaat
of these «r •similar wastes Cin pMtacaliar,
constituent CaBoentrations in ootii
treated and untreated wastes, as well as
aquqjosant design Mid operating
conditions); ,.-..' ,
(4) toformation on known or
perceived difficulties in analyzing
treatment residues or specific
constituents;
{5} Quah'ty assurfence/cdnteol
information for all date sufemissipns;
(JSl Factors effecting -OH-site ead off-
site treatment capacity;
v{7) Information oh the potential costs
• for set-up and operation of any current
and alternative treatment technologies
for these wastes; and ';'..-.
t8] Infotmatiun on waste
minimizatira approaches.
K. State AsuOuartof
A. Applicability of Final Haiti in
, Authorized States
Uader section 3006 of RCRA, S>A
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
prqgram within the State. (See 40 CER
part 271for the standards and
requirements for autboiizaticai.) ., •
Following authorization, EPA.*etaiiifi
enfoicemeja* authority under sections
3007, 3008. 3013, sad 7003 of RCEA,
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 CHSWA} amended
RCRA, a State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu oi the Federal
program in that State, The Federal
requirements no longer applied in flie
authorized States and EPA could snot
- issue permits for any plants located in
the State with permitting authorization.
When new. more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or ,
enacted, the State was obligated Jo enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames. New Federal requirements
- did not take effect in an authorized State
until Ihe State .adopted the requiremants
as State law. ",
By contrast, under section 30D6fg) of
RCRA, 42 13.S.C. 8926fe), new
requirements and ptohibfions imposed
by the HSWA take effect hi authorized
States at the same tune ftia^they take '•
effect in nonauthorized States.:EPA is
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58> hfo. m./ Tuesday, April 27^199S / Proposed Rules
directed to implement feose
requireniente and prrfiiMtions in
authorized States, including the -
issuance of permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so. While
States must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the Federal HSWA
requirements apply in authorized States
in the interim.
B. Effect oit State Authorizations
1. HSWA Provisions
Because this proposal (with the "
exception of the proposed CERCLA -
reportable quantity) will be promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State-submitting a
program modification is able to apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3006(g)(2)
or 30p6(b), respectively. oh the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent or equivalent to JBPA's " '
requirements. The procedures and
schedule for State program
modifications under section 3006(b) are
described to 40 CFR 271.21 . ft should be
noted that all HSWA interim
authorizations are currently scheduled
to expire on January 1. 2003 (see 57FR
, February 18, 1992).
2. Modification Deadlines
SactioBi271.2lCe){2) of EPA's state
authorization regulations (4Ck CPR part
271} requires tbat States with final
authorization must modify their
programs to reflect Federal program .
changes and submit the modifications to
EPA fiw approval. The deadline by '
which the. States must modify their
programs to adopt this proposed ,
regulation, if it is adopted as a final rule,
wfll be determined by the date of
promulgation of a final rule in
accojdance;with §271<21(eK2). If the
_. proposal is adopted as. a filial rule, Table
1 at 40 CFR 271.1 will be amended
accordingly. Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become RCRA Subtitle Ciequirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs already may have regulations
similar to those in today's proposed
TSewState regulations have not
* ' ' "" Hera!
/meet the tests
for authorization, Thus, a State Would
not b* authorized to implement these
regulations as RGRA requirements until
State program modifications ere
submitted to EPA and approved.
'pursuant to 40 CFR 27131. Of course,
States'w^ejdsSngregulations that are
not less stringent than current Federal
regulations tnay continue to administer
and enforce their regulations as a matter
of State law.' '"':;:•:..'' .••••*-•',".,, «'•.» •.•:
It should be noted that authorized
States are required to modify their
programs only when EPA promulgates.
Federal standards that are more .
stringent or broader in scope than
existing Federal standards. Section 3009
of RCRA allows States to impose
standards more stringent than those in
' the Federal program. For those Federal
program changes that are less stringent
or reduce the scope of the Federal
program, States are not required to.
modify their programs. (See 40 CFR '
271,l(i).) This proposed ru& if
finalized, is neither less stringent than
nor a reduction in the scope of the
current Federal program and> therefore,
States would be required to modify their
programs to retain authorization to
implement and enforce these .
regulations.
X. Proposed Amendrnent of SW^84€
(Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, PhysicaliChemieal Methods)
The Agency is proposing to require
that certain wood surface protection
plants test the pentaehlorophenate
concentration of their formulations (see
discussion in section TV(B) above) using
the analytical and test methods found in
SW-846 (Test Methods for Evaluating
Sdlid Waste. Physfcai/Chemical •-
Methods). In connection with t&is '
proposed testing requirement, the
Agency is today proposing to add
method 4010 (temunoassay Test for the -
Presence of Pentachlorophenate) to tlie
Second and Third Editions of SW-846.
SW-846 contains the analytical and
test methods that EPA has evaluated
find found to be among those acceptable
for testing under subOtieC of the
.Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as amended (RCRA). These
methods are intended to promote
accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, ,
precision, and comparability pfanalyses
and test results. , ' ^ ,
Several of the hazardous waste
regulations under subtitle C of RCRA
require that specific testing methods
describedin SW-846 be employed far
certain applications. For the
cpnvenienwr of the reader, the Agency
lists below a number of the sections
currently Kund fe 4O CFR pfflfts26Q
through 27& that require the use of a •
specific method fat a particular s .
application, or the use of appropriate
SW-84emethodsuigeneral. If today';?
proposal is adopted in final form, the
proposed pentachloropfaenate testing
* imentwoiiMb»«dti<othisast.
a particular plant (ive.» delisting ~,i' • ,;* ,•".''"
• prtitibn^;.-•.,.;... .,-;•„-:,':;^^t;.j:,:^\ v;
(2)Sectipn 261.22(a)(l)«Bdj(2)ter,
Evaluation oi: waste against the-r>
corrosivity characteristic;:"", . v : : .
r (3) Section 261Jl4(a>—Leaching -.;' ^
,' procedurefcH^evaiuatioaofwaste . v
against^ toxicity characteristic;
of vfasia to dlttermine it1 free iiqui^vaj[u«U0n; of 'a
waste to determine if it is a liquid for
prohibitions; , f
(7) Sections 268.4«K»),268.41(a}, and
268.43(a>— Leachipg procedure for
evaluation of waste to determine '
compliance with Land Disposal K> , \
treatment stardards; , '-• ?
fti) Sections 270yl9tcKl)(iii)«nd(iv),
and 270.62ft»)([2KiHC) sad ff»r-AjEwlySis.
and approximate quantification of the
hazardous cQiistitueats identified in the
waste i>rior to conducting a trial bum inl
support ^of an application for a ,.
hazardous waists incineration permit; .
Slid : ."'-. -: •••• ' -. ";,;' .*, .; ' • . ';. .' :'••'.
(9) Sections; 27,u.22taM2)(iiHB) and
conducted in saipport of a destruction
and removal efficiency (DRE) tria) burn
wai ver for boilers and industriei ."•••
furnaces burning low risk wastes. •
analysis and ap
conducted far a trial bam in support ef
« an apphcation fcSfa permit toburir^
hazardous waste in «4>oilfs end •;..> ,
industrial furnace, 1-,:
In -situations where hazardpua waste
regulations uniier subtitle C of RCRA ;
described in SW-^848:be employed for
certain applications, methods contained
in the Second ]5drtioas of SWrH8«46,^as ,
amended, ctimsntly must be utilized. '- , '
See40GFR26().llaBd270.6(a)/Ina;
separate ralemakhig. EPA has proposed
to require theuise of the Third Edition •
of SW^84Sta»JMM»dad byjapdate t in
lieu df the SeccmdEdiUott of SW-846,
as amended, in situations where the use
of SW-846 maJhodsara specifically ;
1989).
In
.SubmissibH ofdata iniuppjort of
petitions to"exclude» waste produced at
situatioosas*
setting forth ad:eptabfe,«tthough not
required, methods to be impfemented by
-------
25730
Federal Register / Vol. .58rNo* >»-/ Tuesday, April 27. 1993 A Proposed Rules
the user, a^appjopriatei in responding
• to RCRA-related sampling and analysis
requirements. , •.•••:.-, • ,
Ibtoday's proposed rul&, the Agency
is proposing to require that certain ,
wood surface protection plants test the
pentachloropheiiate concentration of ' '
thoir formulations using the analytical
and test methods found i» SW-846. The
proposal does not, however, require the
use of any one specific SW-846 method.
, Because me Agency believes that •
method 4010 is appropriate for the
testing requirements proposed today, it
is proposing.to add that method to SW-
846. Method 4010, iridudingjtts
protocol and documentation supporting
this proposal can be found in the docket
for this rulemakirig. :'
If the portion of the proposed rule.
referenced above (54 FR 3212 (January
23,1989)) that would require the use of
SW-846 Third Edition methods in lieu
of SW-846 Second Edition methods is
promulgated and, thereafter, the Agency
determines, after reviewing comments
submitted, that SW-846 test methods
should be required for the proposed
pentftchlorophenate testing requirement
and that Method 4010 should be added
to SW-846, the Agency is-proposing
that Method 4010 be added only to the
Third Edition of SW-846 as Update HA
to that edition. If, on the other hand, a
final rule replacing the Third Edition of
SW--848 fofthe •Second Edition of SW-
846 in Situations where the use of SW-
846 methods is specifically mandated is
not promulgated prior tp promulgation
of a rule* finalizing the proposals
discussed above in this section, the.
Agency will consider adding Method
• 4010 to the Second and Third Editions
of SW-846 so.thatit will be available for
use regardless of which edition is
mandated. ' V
SW-846 is a document that will
change over time as new information
and data are developed. Advances in .
analytical instrumentation-aid
techniques are continually reviewed by .
the Agency and periodicaljy
; incorporated into SW-846 to support
* changes in the regulatory program and'
* to improve meth'od performance. This .
proposed addition represents such-an _
indorjjbraUonYTnereKrire, altftpugh only
comments related to the proposals
referenced above will be considered in
connection witli today's proposed rule,
EPA also solicits any available data and
informatipn that nwy affect the .',.-•'
" usefulness of SW-846. •' . ' .
JCI.GERCaLA Designation and
ReporMble Quantities ; , '
All hazardous wastes listed under
RGRA" and codified in 40 CFR 261.31
. through 261.33, as well as any solid
waste that exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined in §§ 261.21 through
261.24), are hazardous substances under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. See
GERCLA section 101(14)(c}. CERCLA
. hazardous -substances are listed in Table
3Q2.4 at'40 CFR 302.4 along with their
reportable quantities (RQs). :
Accordingly, the Agency is proposing
to: :
(1) List the proposed FQ33 hazardous
waste as a CERCLA hazardous substance
in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4; and
(2) Establish an adjusted CERCLA RQ
of one pound for F033.
Reporting Requirements '",'.
Under CERCLA section 103(a), the
person in charge of a vessel or plant
from which1 a hazardous substance has
been released in a quantity that is equal
to or exceeds its RQ shall immediately
notify the National Response Center of
the release as soon as that person has
knowledge thereof. See 40 CFR 302.6.
The toll free number of the National -'
Response Center is 1-800-424-8802; in^
the Washington, B.C. metropolitan area,'
the number is (202) 426->2675. In .
addition to this reporting requirement
under CERCLA, section 304 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right;to-Know Act of 1986 (EPGRAJ
requires owners of operators of certain ;
plants to report the release of a CERCLA
hazardous substance to State and local
autfeoriUes^EPCRA section 304 . 1
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 tq be affected by the
release, and to the State emergency
planning commission of any state likely
•to be affected by the release* If today's
proposal is promulgated as a final rule,
releases of one pound or more of F033
waste will be subject to the
. requirements described above.
Adjustment ofKQs ,
, Under Section:i02(b)'of;iGERCLA,.all
hazardous substances newly designated
under CERCLA have a statutory RQ of
one pound unless and until adjusted by
regulation. !Fhe: Agency's methodology
foradjusting RQs of individual -
hazardous substances begins with an
evaluation of the intrinsic physical,
chemical, and lexicological properties
' of each hazardous substance. (For more
detailed information on this
methodology, see the preamble to an RQ
adjustment final rule published on
August 14,1989 (54 FR 33426).) The
intrinsic properties examined, called
"primary criteria," are aquatic toxicity,
mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and
inhalation), ignitability, reactivity,
chronic toxicity, and potential
carcinogenjcity. 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.
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. (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].) 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 the
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 of 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 the BHP. ~
The methodology summarized above
is applied to adjust the RQs of .,
individual hazardous substances. An
additional process applies to RGRA
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.
Under the proposed definition of the
F033 waste, Its constituents may ,
include 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, which has an adjusted RQ bf one
-------
Federal Register /
58, Na. 79 /.Tuesday; April 27, 1993 I \.
pound (the lowest RQ). Thereforei the
Agency i» proposing a one-pound
adjusted RQ for F033.
XII. Compliance Costs Associated With
the Rule ' '
A. Executive Order 122&1 '
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for all "major" rubs. A major rule
is defined as one that is likely to result
in: '/'"'• .' ' •" •"
(1) An annual impact on the economy,
of $100 million or more;
(2) A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3} Significant impacts on
compatition, unemployment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete in/domestic or
export markets. -•, "
EPA has determined that th« F033
Listing Proposal is not * major rule, as
defined by the above criteria.
Nevertheless, the Agency has prepared
an abbreviated RIA. at "Economic
Assessment" (EA) in order to examine
costs and benefits likely to occur as a
result of this action. The EA is in the *
public docket for this notice. A brief
summary of the Economic Assessment
findings is presented below for both the
no-list and list option. •
B. Cost of Proposed F033 No-List Option
Facilities may choose to take some
remedial option as a result of publicity
surrounding this action. However, no
specific action will be required under
this option. As a result, incremental cost
' impacts to the regulated community are
expected to be zero under the no-list
option. '
C. Cost of PraposedFQ33 List Option
a. Methodology
i. General approach* The objective of
the cost analysis was to determine the
social cost of the actions potentially,'
regulated firms would take to comply
with the proposed F033 listing. The
principle used to determine the actions
firms would take is that they would
undertake the lowest cost alternative
available that would satisfy rule
requirements, , ,-.'.'..
Facilities have several alternative
compliance strategies available to them:
(1) Treat wasteas hazardous; , .
(2) Use anon»PCP formulation and
take actionsrnecefsary to ensure that
concentrations of PCP in surface . .'.. •
protection formulations are at or below
' '
(3). Replace equipment and use a non-
PCP formulation; or . .
(4) Go out of business. . ..:"
Using the least-cost alternative -
principle, EPA projects that all .
potentially; regulated facilities would
choose number two above; use a non=_ . ••
PCP formulation and clean their "
equipment to ensure that PCP '•• '
coricentsattoas are less than or equal to
0.1 ppm. Under this scenario, facilities
are assumed to test their formulation,
clean equipment and test again '
following cleaning to insare
compliance. Furthermore, although not
required, facilities ere assumed to avoid
liability concerns thro ugh tb.0 added
costs associated with offsita disposal of
wastes generated during the cleaning
process. • '. -" ,• '-''"'
ii. Identification of potentiaUy .'-•
regulated community. Any eatity that
generates wastes from wood surface -
protection praeessea.contaMBg levels of
pentachlorophenate above 0.1 ppm is
potentially subject to the proposed rule.
Because sapstain can begin to form oa 1
wood within hours after it is cut,
sawmills are in the best position to
apply the anti-stain chemicals.
Nevertheless, there are isolated cases in
which downstream facilities such as
furniture manufacturers and flooring
companies prefer to surface-protect
wood after they receive it EPA has
learned from industry representatives,
however, that few, if any, such facilities,
would be affected by eh F033 listing.
Therefore, the Economic Assessment
(EA) focuses exclusively on sawmills,
for this proposal.
As described elsewhere in this v
preamble, EPA estimates that there ai"e '
over 3,200 sawmills currently operating
in the United States; of which «
approximately 98O surface protect at
least some portion of their wood. The
three primary methods of surface
protection are dip tank, green chain,'and
spray chamber. .
iii. General assumptions. The.; •
following assumptions underlie the
Agency's projection of what facilities
would do in response to an F033 listing
and the resulting cost of these actions;:
(1) No facility will be using sodium
pentachlorophenate upon promulgation
of a final rule;
. (2) All current users of sapstain
control chemicals were once users of .
sodium pentachlorophenate: .
(3> SodiumpentachlojophenfitB will
not be used again by any faciMty in ttw
future;end .. ' '.: -. -^ ''•• ".•-:••.'.:.
(4) All affected faciHtiesOBOj would
currently genar^e wastes Inat meettlie,
listing diescription (i.e,, have , .-, _. ^ •
formotationa with pentachloraphanataB
concentrations, greater than 0,1 ppm),, :
Tb« first thrae of these aswinrotioHS
refl«^ thabesliinfonnaUcui.Bvailable; ^
The last assumption is conservative, :
Many facih'tied may currently hays . ; ,
formulations with concentrations of- •
pentachloroptonate at or below 0.1 ppm
(the apprpjam^te number is unknown).
Facilities' are iino wn to soutinely clean
their equipmeiat, or did so when they
switched formulations. ' •v_'..
b.Resulb ' -"••-.•' •••••-
i. Per facility boste. Gpste of thp ,
projected cpn^pliarjce action are
assumed to vary across facalities *
depending on the type, of surface
protection equipment used and the
quantity of lumber processed. Estimated
one-time per facility costS:range from a
low of $l,96Ofora sawmiBusiiiga
spray chamber and producing less than'
100 million board feet per year, to as
high as $9,350 for a facility using a dip
tank ^d producing cttprelthan 100 v ;
mMonboal^ feet per y6arvL«b6r,: ^~
testing and 1 waste disposal are thje .:
primary cost fectprs'. Vyaste disposal
costs represent anywhere from six to 70
percent of total estimated. faciHtjr' '
compliance casts, depending upon
equipment used and facility size, fe
addition^ testiiig costs may vary widely
and contribute; to the overall range. , ,
Labor cc^ts reflect best professional
judgment of the estimated hours
necessary fjp- ei diorqugh "high
pressure" water spray cleaning. These.,:"'/
costs also vary based on facility size.
, ii. T&tal cos?.estimation.*fbs total
social cost of the proposed rule was
calculated by multiplying the number of
mills in each tndostry classifewtioa -•:"••.
(based, on the type of eqtnpaientV', '•' .
emplpyJaS arid volume of lumb^J1 : , ,
produced), by Iftia per frattrycjaSt. '! !
estimates for 'that classification; . ' ";• .
The aggjregste social cost
-------
" maria^ed Ufa lh*"lechnolcigy- used tb' :
dispose of the soil. These factors are
difficult to quantify. In practice;the
expense of added: soil management costs
likely would discourage many firms:' •
from disturbing (building on, v
excavating, etcj areas of contaminated
soils. 'However, even-though finds are
likely to avoid disturbing contaminated
soil areas, some affected facilities may •
chpose to implement stricter soil
management requirements put of human
health and/or liability concerns. Any
estimates of tile costs associated with •
v future management of "contartiinated
soils could be only speculative, and are
, not included to this analysis.
Opportunity costs associated with .
restricted property use may result front
•' thte action. These costs would he
reflected in reduced property lvalues.
The presence of PGP-contaminated soils
may reduce the value of the land by
compelling clean-up actions, or through
• the lost use of restricted areas. .These
* costs are assumed to be reflected in the
market value of the property. '•'.'•'.
* Furthermoretihe Agency feels that most
reductions In the market value of -J
property results from past . '
contamination. Opportunity Costs,;
. therefore, may be attributable, in many
Cases, to existing State an,d Federal laws.
• iii. Agency prefetied cleaning optiqn.
•'• Sand blasting and epoxy coating is.not
required to satisfy rule requirements.
• However, the Agency recognizes this as
the most effective cleaning method
available and recommends its use in ,v
meeting tKe required 0.1 ppm PCP
concentration level. Sand blasting and
epoxy coating would cost approximately
52,500 per facility for the a-verage dip
tank anctgreen chain operation. Spray
' chamber facilities .would not be able to
employ this method. The most effective
altemative.for these facilities would be
to replace their equipment at costs
ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 per
, facility. None.of die above estimates
include testing or waste disposal costs.
While sandblasting and epoxy
coating (equipment replacement for
spray ppeftdras) is preferred to insure.
the most effective cleam'ng possible, the
Agency recognizes that iiidustiy will
, logic^ly-chooMi the least cast cleaning
methoo; available'io; meet'ruifr .?!'; <'
requirements. As a result, final cost
estimates presented in section C.(b)
reflect this assumption. '
D. Benefits of,Proposed F033 Listing
a.Methodology . •,-.-,• • ••••
. ,i. Overview. The objectiye-bf the
baneflU'analyisis \*as to estimate the
- number of cancercases that could be
avoided as a result of the . • *-.
implementation of the proposed rule. To
derive this, estimate, EPA identified the
constituents of concern, identified the*
exposure pathways, determined the risk
to individuals associated with each of
the pathways, and correlated the
individual risk to the population as a ..
whole by multiplying by the estimated
number of, exposed persons. .• ; .;
When estimating the potential
benefits of the proposed rule, it is
important to distinguish between risks
that result: from past practices and risks •
from future actions. Because the •••• V
proposed tide, by its own tenrisV will ':• "
not require remediation of existing . • '.
contamination, it will affect only future
actions and will not mandate action '
with respect to contamination from past
practices. The risk analysis conducted
in support of -this proposed rule . ;
exammed both risk from past practices
as well as incremental risk from action
affected by the proposed rule. This
proposal addresses only incremental
risks, as a result, only the incremental
.risks are discussed in this section of
today's notice. "'- v •-
ii. Identification of constituents. of
concern and the measurement of their -,
risks. The constituents of concern used
in the risk assessment include ,
pentachlorophenol (PGP), :»:; . ;.
pojyclilprinated dibenzo-p,-dioxins .'..,,,
; .
dibenzdfurans (P;CDF). JBecause of . . :
' limited quantitative data on .the toxicity
of the specific isomers and congeners of
the latter two constituents, PCDDs and
PCDFs were modeled using quantitative
values for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD), an isomer of dioxin.
Tetrachlorophenol (TeCP) is also a
constituent of chlorophenolic
formulations and was included in the
full risk analysis. However, because it is
not a carcinogen, results for this . ,
constituent are not discussed in this .
section of today's notice. . ,
As, PCP and TCDD are both. Class B2
carcinogens (probable human
carcinogens), the magnitude of their
' risks was measured using carcinogenic
slope factors. The slope factors for PGP
. .
and 1.56x10* 8(mg/kg/d) ." a reSipectively.
• iil. Identification of exposure ,
pathways and population risks: EPA.
modeled risks for three pathways:
Ground water ingestion, fish and
shellfish ingestion, and soil ingestion.
There are also potential exposures from
surface, water ingestion, soil and dust
• inhalation, and dermal exposure to soil;
but preliminary analysis suggested that
these pathways were unlikely to pose
significant risks. The exposure scenarios
, for each of the modeled pathways' are as
follows;' ;' • "•' • "••;.••.-' '• -..-••<•,•••••'
;• (AjGrpuisd-wateirjngestion. -' . v:
Hazardous cdnstituents from surfac® •
protection wastes can migrate through
the soil to ground water. People can be
exposed to the contaminated ground
water when it is used for drinking"
water. PCP was used as the constituent
of concern for the ground-water analysis
because it is more mobile through the
soil column than dioxihs, which tend to
bind to the soil. Contamination of the
upper aquifer, from which residential ,
wells might be drawn, was modeled. •
.Thus the/potentially exposed " , ,,,:
population consists of people drinking
cdnt&minated water from residential ,
wells located near the source of the,
contamination. The lower aquifer, from
which community wells might be .'" * '.
drawn, was not modeled because of the ^
lack of site-specific information on the •
location of community wells near
sawmill fadlHieS.
Standard exposure assumptions used
.to translate the estimated constituent
concentrations in ground water into
health risks included ingestion of 1.4
•liters of contaminated ground Water per
day by a 70 kg adult lor an average of;
nine years. The excess Ufetime cancer
risk to an individual drinking
contaminated ground water was
estimated to, be 5x10-''.. This means that;
. an individual exposed to the:. . > .
., contamination would have a one in
2,000,009 incremental risk of.»
contracting cancer over his or her
lifetime. . , -
To calculate population risk, the
Agency assumed that one residential
well serving a family of four would be
located directly downgradient of each
potentially iregulated facility. In
addition, the population risk estimate
was calculated for eight cohorts of .
' individuals consuming contaminated:
water over a 70 year period: Because
cancer cases were not discounted, the
exact timing of the onset of cancer was
not important. Under these
assumptions, an estimated 17,000
individuals would be exposed to ;
contaminants from ground water
• consumption: The population risk :
estimate also assumes that exposed
individuals would be drinking
. contaminated ground water during the
70 years that constituent concentrations
are ad their highest. , , ' ..
(B) Fish ana shellfish ingestion.
Wastes from surface protection
processes can be carried into streams
and rivers located near potentially
regulated sawmills through soil runoff,
The Agency assumed that dioxins,
which tend to bind With soil, would be
present in the runoff.
Risks from fish ingestion were
estimated using a five step process.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58. JNfo 79;/v;T»esday^ irtppk??; ;i99& if
I First, the Agency estimated the expected
I soil concentrations of dipxins that , '-..:
I woum be released through cross ;
I contamination. Second, it estimated .
I constituent concentrations in stream
I sediment resulting from erosion of
contaminated soils based on erosion
rates for the entire drainage basin in
which the sawmill is located. Third,
using fish-to-sediment bioaccumulation
{actors,; the concentrations of
I constituents in fish tissue were
I estimated. Fourth, human exposure to
I contaminants were estimated based on
I assumptions about consumption of
freshwater and estuarine. fish and .
I shellfish. Finally, die carcinogenic slope
factor for TCDD was multiplied by the
rate of ingestion of TCDD to estimate
Iriskofcancer from ingestion of
I contaminated fish. '•-:'. • . •
Based on data frpm the Department of
I Agriculture 1977-1978 National Food
Consumption Survey (NFCS), it was
assumed that each person in the US
consumes freshwater and estuarine fish
I and shellfish at a rate of 5.9 grams per .
I day. It was further assumed that .
consumption of fish would occur for
25,550 days (70 years). The excess
lifetime cancer risk from individuals
eating contaminated fish was estimated
to range from 9.6X10"11 to 4.4xlO~9,
depending upon analytical approach. ;
I The Agency's best estimate for this
pathway is B.OxlO"10: : "':•..
. Because sawmills are located in the''
drainage basins that drain into the
primary, areas for freshwater and • ;
estuarine commercial fishing and
because commercial fish landings are
marketed nationally, it was assumed
I that the total population of the US
would be exposed to contaminated fish
and that 24 percent of the commercial
fish and shellfish would be ,
contaminated. (The 24 percent figure is
based on the assumptions that sawmills
which surface protect are located in 40
percent of the drainage basins and that
60 percent of those sawmills will be
affected by the rule.) Thus, to estimate
population risk, the general population
risk was multiplied by the estimated
populationof the US (250 million). , :
(C) Soil ingestion. Direct human /.:..V..-!
ingestion of contaminated soil, usually
| by young children, is another potential
exposure route. Such exposure would !f
most likely occur under a scenario in :
which the land on which the sawmill is
located is converted to residential use,
without significant cleanup of the
contaminated soil; Again, the Agency
assumed that dioxins would be present
m the soil, while PGP would not. The ,
Agency assumed that all facilities would
be converted to residential use and that
remediation of soil contamination
would not take place prior to ; "
construction of the residential units.
The excess, lifetime cancer risk to •
children eating contaminated soil was
estimated to range from ixiqr? to
2*10~6, depending on the, analytical
approach. The Agency's best estimate
for this pathway-is 7xjO~7. . . • ;:;
In estimating population risk, it was
assumed that 540 children would be * .
exposed over a 70 year period. The •
derivation of'this population estimate is
lengthy and is discussed in the risk
assessment background document for
today's proposal,- ''•'." ' '"''>; •• '
b.Results : , ' .:.•••/.
EPA estimated the expected decrease .
in the number of cancer cases that , ' .". •
would result from implementation of ?,.
the proposed rule for each exposure,
pathway. The best estimate for risks
from the ingestion of fish and shellfish
(0.2 cancer cases) are substantially , :
higher than risks from ground water and
soil ingestion. The results are shown in
Table 1 below.
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL CAN;.
CER CASES AVOIPED AS A. RESULT
OF THE PROPOSED RULE '"•••- ..
b.Caveats ,'• X:'':: .;---^ ;'.-:«;:••;-Y.^.- •('
- The cost-effectiveness estimate is Very
sensitive to'the assumptions iised'.t&f.''V
estimate the benefits of the proposed;:, ..
rule. Tjxe prfmlify :fatit6Jf^^leBding^to %;"
overestimation of benefits is that the ^
analysis assiinies thai all of tne'';;{;'!, j
contaminants remaining in the surface
protection equipment will be eliininatiBd
as a result of the proposed F033 iisting.
However, this is likely not to be the case
because: .-.-....'',-.',' ^•.^^-•.^'•'•••h''}';,--^.,,-f
(iJITheperformii:
• concern in'
''• ' " '* ' .1 . -< .
• ' ' ' " ' .. ',"''.
•_' Exposure pathway
Ground water ingestion
Fish and shellfish ingestion
(general population)
Soil ingestion .'.
Total v...,:™ ....,...'.....
Estimated
statistical
cancer
• /cases-. ;
avokted
over 70 ,
:*££•*
: 0.005
0.200
0.0004
-0,2054
E. Qost Effectiveness Analysis '."•
a. Results.. . ' •':.'•' •
One measure EPA uses to determine
the cost-effectiveness of its regulations ,
is the cost per cancer case avoided. The
proposed rule y/pu3,4 lead to reduction ..
of an estimated 02054 cancer cases (this
is a statistical estimate and therefore ••"
does not have to be a^whole number) at
a total cost ranging from $2.3 to $4.5 . •', .
million. Thus, tha cost per wnderca^B , |
avoided ranges from $10.2 to $21,6'"""'
million, using the Agency's best
estimate, for the fish and shellfish
pathway. Alternative analytical <, ,K,
approaches Jor determination of the fish;
and shellfish pathway result in;a post
effectiveness raiage from $2.1 to $iS2i4 j -
million. The soil "ingestion and ground, •
Waterpathwayshave a very minor .
impact on overall cost effectiveness. : '
test ittay^lilfhave small amounts;^ ;V^-:-
dioxiri .reliiaiiiing'ih the eiquiprtierife. • ••' , -'
(ii) Fj^litieifrv/ijuIcE npt1&feteaS^d^c> ;
dispose of the waiJtes from the cleaniriig
process as F033 hazardous waste prior • .
to the effective date of the fihaiftilei As •-
such, facilities can legally avoid the ,-,
costs of disposing of any cleanup wastes
as F033 hazardous Wastes:
,v1
choose to manage wastes from the- '
cleaning pirqceiss «s $umitle'^J^vis'tes '.._
prioitp tne-effecUv^datebfthe^m
reflected in the cost analysis. The ' ^ .
Agency recognizes the possibility thai V
this listing determination could,. in .. .. .
-
.cpntamination process^ not prevent it,
should facilities chooge to discard „ ^ ••;••'
wastes on-site prior to the effective date
' '' ''• "
o erue.:v,» -. .'; ;'-.• .
: The results of ,t]»e analysis may also
underestimate the benefits of the ,':-'-'/
proposed rule, and thus; the cost- :^ ..-.,
effectiveness. The primary factor. .
leading to a potential underestimate is ,.
the fact that all potential exposure 4 •-;
pathways were not included in the final
benefits estimate. Exposure pathways
not estimated- include fish ingestion py;
subsistence fishers whose intake may he
much higher than the general ,;. . '.
population./ ' " -. -"' ^'; - ;'.'••• *-''^-'r'
XII. Regulatory Requirements .
small entities (i.e., smal .
small organizations^and smali yjv.-f..^;-'.''' •: -j.
-''
prepared sUbt ^^anftlys^js'i^a'k^cSy Js;-« .
i- *l.4;^..tij-_:Jwi'tJll-'fcSi'ii.'ft;.i^'»iiJi*!i 4xw''-;
.'•F.or^i
has defined arj
i3i,!»;>
-------
. :. ,ii«t|imduceslee«t'banlOO
, E..,
"
-.,- , v;,te^^^^^>o^to,4.
»(ICR No, l^.$l«id'* oopy jpjay IM -,
obfoia»r1-fi)pm:.'Jiaj!dyiEOT»ac.' ..•/..-.-,...
Infomutti w Poticy Biandhj 3EPA, ^tSl M
'v SkSafelferf -J/'r'-'i*.•':"=»:••'.:;,.-•/> •"••,•>;";'
^^^ijiltXi'«iiL2«i.iiij--•.'•'•
..3tepcgtiiigantilasaPilhofiptHg •
- treatment
' control,
tjgnifictnt is to conduct a sales feet,
•Vi.-^imi'.n.i' ' 'tt ••'-•- •- .'--vr:.*' L- T
searcbing Existing dfsta sources, y ,V.'
gathering and Jn8iintainin,g3ie required •
data, and completiQ£ and reviewing the
colleca3oniifinformat!pn, ^^..-r'''
Send comments Tegarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect ottbis
collection of information, includiiig ,
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
preamble, i,,_,lir.._r—^ __—, ,
40 of the Code of F^detd fisgulatioas «&
follows:..
f GENERAL
c nniiic^Fhn^J^^odaisd by $0.20
- pw uowu ibotj a Tow-«nd esfimato of flie
AKxwfergio'jhs Analysis, Ihe most
^ r «ffetwd fodStiOT sfodiafce,'' "
/' l.TbeaatMrityxitafioafi
continues
Agency, 40'iMStzwrtSW., Washington,
DC 20480; and to AeOfnoe of •: •
Inforfnationsn^Regalatory Affairs, ' ;
Offioe^fWanageraent and Budget, • •
Washington. DC 20503, raarked
6927, 6930, 6934,6935,
sad 6974. ' -.>:-: 'i . • " .--
• less^thanTSva lun&pn board fecftjer
year. Ttfeo'iacilltiBj are estimated Jo '
Asecortd way the Agency -determirwiB
whothorwg«k*GBy Impacts are
LisioT Subjects"' " '••'•'.'.- •: •
40CFRPart26Q ; ' „ . . , -
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous waste,
locorpoifltion by reference'
re vising the "Test Mtaboda for
Evaluating SdidiWastfc.Riysical/
Chemical Metliods" reference of
. paragraph (a) to risad as follows; •
if t»rapd»no9cort8a»e projected tobe
lest thin 10 percent of average -annual
profits. ProfHs'wwTe'asMimBd to be 1.8
percent -of sales based on -data from .
Robert Morris A-saodat^ .an -often used
Hazardous materials. Waste ireatment
and tBsposal, Recycling. '
beard Ssict««rj««Brp«Bs fee profits test.
Tbo*e ptoiudmg ICEK than Eve m3H6h,
-•« ., -
, Hazardous materials, Packaging «nd •
containers, Reporting Teqiiiiements,
Security measures, Suretyi>onds, Waste
treatment and disposal. • •
"TestMetliodB for Evaluating "Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Mothodi/'fiPA
Publication 5 W-S4ffi{ThiKlEflUtk)m
(Novembar, 1906), as amended by Updates I,
II and IIA). Tie Third Edition ofSW-846«od
Updates I.B, and HA (documsat number '
955-001-4KJOOO-1), mo available fiom^bo
SuperinterKlant of Documonts, U.S.
Go vernmeniPrinting Office, Washington, DC
20402,
of annual profits for-eome of *hese
entitles. ' • ' ;
It should ba noted, fhat in pjflctice >t
small businesses inay hot be as
adversely affected ajitho analysis , •
euggeate AKjcauaa both gstimatec -of ; .
compliance costa«t»± tales are -. "..-
conaid«H>dcaiMtflrv«tive.ln addition, .
«>6t» would be iacnrred
. Air polluition -conlroi. Hazardous
materials, Padcaging and containers,"
Reporting requirements, Security
measures, Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal. Water, supply.
'Administrative practice and •
procedure, ConfideRtfei tmsinesg
iBiormation, Hatardons materials
transpojtatkm, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and rocordkeeping
requirements.' ' '-' : •.',•-••• '.'•" ~-<"
' "
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. Ths authority -citation for part 261
continues to read as follows: • .
i 6912(a),8921;
692?, 6934, and fiSSft.,
4. In § 261.31, tit the table in
paragraph -(a), add the TOSS listing, as
follows:1 '••' "' ••. • ••'• • '• '•• .''• ' ''• ' .'-'••
§261^1 Has
. Air pollution Tcontrol Chemicals,
Emergency P3*aning and Goflimimity
Right-to-KMW Act, Extremely . ,
hazardous «abstknces.iHaza«Jous
specif Ic source*.
(a)* ••>.-. ,
Hazardous substencas/HazardoHS .
wastes, IntesgovarnmenUl reflations,
-------
Federal
Register / Vol. 58, i^yos^fruesdayy April 27, 1993 A
mdustry -
.and^EPA. Hazanfous wasSa" Hazard
hazardous nazaraous waste
waste No.
F033
Process residuals,
wastowaters that
come In contact
with protectant, dis-
carded spent formu-
lation, and protect-
ant drippage from
wood surface pro-
tection processes at
operations that use
surface protection
chemicals having an
in-process formula-
tion concentration of
pentachlorophenate
pantachlorophenol
during analysis] ex-
ceeding 0.1 ppm.
5. Add the following entries in
numerical order to appendix VH of part
APPENDIX VII TO PART 261—BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA haz-
ardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents for which listed
F033
2.4.6-trichlorophenor, tetra, penta-, hexa, heptach.o.tx^benzo^.ox.n*. tetra.
, hexa-, heptachlorodibenzofuraris;.
26lf Md *** W?"1^'.*****$** eonsUtuents (with CAS Numbers) in alphabetical order, to appendix Vffl of part
APPENDIX VIII TO PART ^I—HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
Common name
Chemical abstracts name
Chemical HazaroV
abstracts ous waste
No- , NoT
OctacWorodlbenzofuran ....:..„ .............. ..,..., _____ .... same
Octachlorodlbenzc-pKlIoxIn ..........
sodium salt
Sodium tetrachtorophenate ...................... "iZ"""! 255(57^1-1
":. ' - * * " + *
STORAGE, AND D3SPOSAL V J|S FoSSoftnalysis and
FACILITIES, ..-;; . :.,':.• recoicdjbepiiiig requirements.
- , 264.562 Operating .requirements.
7.Theauthority.citatipnforpart264".""« . " '":;_ •^••^
continues to read as follows- SUbpart T—Surface Protection Plants
concentration eqtal to pr less than ff.i
ppm an4 who do aot handle their
wastes as POS3 wj&es aye su$fectYto *
§264.561. ? '
n., ,-, . t,u '" ,
^ Owners and operators t»f wood
surface protection operations using in>
process protectanl formulations that
a.AddsubpartTto
as follows:
rators of wood
operations using in-
process prbtectant formulations that
!: Pontaui (by design or cross-
contamiiiatibnj'apentaehlorophenate
conqentratjon Bettor than 04
subject to §264.56 2 and are Required to'
manage thefr wastes in accordance with
the requirements of either subpartf of"
subpart W of this part ' ''
-------
§2S4.S«1 '; FcmHitaifon wwfytto and . .• -x • • ••>'-
fltcordkMplrM} r«quir«nintf. "• ' .
, * (a) Owners and operators must sample
and test thek surface protectant .
, fonnujaffons. to determine the .
concentration of pentachlorophenate
, (expressed as pentachlorophenol' during .
analysis) contained therein, using a
. method found in EPA Publication SW-
848. The formulation sample to be '
tested must be taken immediately -
following operation. Such testing must
ba conducted by a qualified analytical
laboratory. If analysis shows that the
concentration of pentachlorophenate in
an operation's formulation is equal to or
less than 0.1 ppm, the owner/operator
must sign the following certification:
' I certify, under penalty of law, that the
surface protection formulation used by
(insert name of operation] has been sampled
and tested using a method found, in EPA
Publication SW-846 and the samples
analyzed by (insert name of laboratory and
.ad dress). The results of this analysis
Indicated that the concentration of •
pentachloropbenate (expressed as ,
.pontachloropbenol during analysis) fa the in-
ftootu -Mtf&oa ^protection fennuktloH 4s
(Insert the results of the analysis). I am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting' false information, including the
possibility oTTIno an d7or Imprisonment.
"SUs caitifioeiioanMty be provided by a
= responsible official of the operation or
by & registered, professional engineer.
) Owner* -a»S -operators *nust
operations cease. These records must
include the following: '
(1) A description of the method used
.for sampling -and testing;
•i(2) fiesults of ifaa analysis conducted
te »ccwrdanoB with $264.561(a); and
,{3) 'A copy of &e signed certification
required under § 264.56lT.a).
1264.562
(a) Owners and -operators -must hold
newly treated wooa in tbe process «rea
after treatment to allow excess drippage
of surface protedtoatJio cease and to
allow all en train edliquidif (from
•dipping •operations) ^O'bflTeinovod prior
» to transfer of the wood to the storage
yard. Treated wood must not be
removed €rofa the process area -until fill
free ligulddiateage has ceased. '
, (b)1Ow74orft-arjaoperators of -surface
protection operations that store treated
wood taArB»«a$voiac&ad from
w
Jjna^tiprifflr torn predpitstkjn
avent to prevaat j»iecip4tiUion;from
owner/operator must implement this
contingency plan by: . ,• .. '. :.,',''
(1) Cleaning up the drippage; ,
. (2J Documenting the cleanup and '
retaining this doeumentation for three.
years;and : . .
' (3) Managing the contaminated media
in accordance with all applicable RCRA
regulations.
PART 265— INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
9. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows: : *
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
6925, and 6935.
10. Add Subpart T to part 265 to read
as follows: .
Subpart T— Surface Protection Plants
Sec.. • . ' .
265.435 .Applicability.
265,436 Formulation -analysis «ad .
recordkeeping requirements. ' '
285.437
less than 0.1 ppm, the owner/operator
nrosi rign the following certificatioa:
1 certify, under penalty of law, that ihe
> |c| iXraars Jiad i^pantois of surface
patrfotilun toparatigtMi must dgyplop and
,TTt«trtto>Ir( g fffrntJTTglilTltT' jtftn tv? •••-, .-,., ••
immodiate^esponsaJtapjotBctant •
T— Surface -Protection Plants
§265.435 Applicability.
ta) Owners and operators of wood
surface protection operations using in-
procp^s protectant formulations that
. fjintniii |ljy design or cross- • .
contamination) a pentachlorophenate
concentration equal to or less than 0.1
ppm and who do not hnndte their •
. wastes -as £033 wastes axe subject to
§265.436. / ,
to) Ownsra»nd operators of wood
surface protection operations using in-
process protectant formulations that ;
contain (by design or cross-
con iamrrratkm) a pentachloropiienate
concentration greatfir.thanT).! ppm are
siibjeclto 5265.437 and are required to
manage their -wastes ia -accordance with
the requiremacis of aither subpart J or
sabpart W of this parti
,§265.436; Formulation analysis and
recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Owners and operators must sample
* and test their surface protectant
formulations to determine the
concentration -of pentachlorophenate
(expressed as pentacMoropaenol during
analysis) contained therein, using a
method fouttdiaJEPAPublication SW-
'846. The fonnnlation sample to be '
tested must be taken fenanadialely
following 'flTO
be coadacted by a gualified analytical
laboratory. If fflMlyskfifeiOWfi that the '
• concentration of pealflchltffaphonate in •
an OJperatjoH's formulation is«qaal to or
(insert name of operation) has been sampled |
and tested using a jMthod .found in EPA
Publication SW-*46 and the samples
analyzed by (insert oaote of laboratory and
address). The results of this analysis
indicated that IbaooBoeBtzetkin of
pentachloropbffliatp (anpressod as
pentachloroph«ool
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 27, 1993 / Proposed Rules
25737
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
11. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C., 6905,6912, 6924,
6925,6927, 6939, and 6974.
Subpart B—Permit Appllcatloir
12. Section 270.6 (a) is revised to read
as follows:
S 270.6 Rafermcas.
(a) When used in part 270 of this
chapter, the following publications are
incorporated by reference:
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA
Publication SW-846 [Third Edition
(November,-1986), as amended by Updates 1,
n, and HA]. The Third Edition of SW-846
and Updates I, II, and IIA (document number
955-001^-00000-1) are available from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402, (202) 783-3238.
PART 302—DESIGNATION, -,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
13. 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. ;
14. Section 302.4 is amended by
adding an entry for F033 in Table 302,4
to read as follows. The appropriate
footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished
without change.
§302.4 Designation of hazardous
substances.
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Hazardous substance CASRN Re9u'n?0^ssyno"
Statutory
RQ . Codef
RCRA ~ot,
waste No, umfl
Proposed RQ
igory Pounds (Kg)
F033 Process residuals, wastewaters
that come in contact with protect-
ant, discarded spent formulation,
and protectaht drippage from wood
' surface protection processes at op-
erations that use surface protection
chemicals haying an in-process for-
mulation concentration of
pentachlorophenate [expressed as
pentachtorophenol during analysis]
exceeding 0.1 ppm. (T). • »
1*
F033
1(0.454)
. t Indicates the statutory source as defined byJ, 2, 3,4 or below.
4 Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
1*lndicates that thalrpoundRQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ. -
[FR Doc. 93-9585 Filed 4-26-93; 8:45 ami '
BILLING CODEi iMO-5 . ' • ' . , .' •
-------
------- |