EPA -53O- 2-H -O05~
Wednesday
May 11, 1994
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 261, et al.
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Proposed Rule
-------
24530 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
tFRL-4881-S]
40 CFR Parts 261,271, and 302
RIN2050-AD79
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and JJstlng'of
Hazardous Waste; Organohromlne
Production Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend the regulations for hazardous
waste management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
by listing as hazardous waste solids and
filter cartridges from die production of
2i4.8-tribromophenol. The Agency is
also proposing to add 2,4,6-
tribromophenol to the list of commercial
chemical products that are hazardous
wastes when discarded. As a necessary
part of this hazardous waste listing EPA
is proposing to add 2,4,6-
trihromophenol to the RCRA list of
hazardous constituents. ;
This proposed regulation, if
promulgated, will subject the listed
2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes to
regulation as hazardous wastes under
Subtitle C of RCRA. La addition, 2,4,6-
tribromophenol and the listed wastes
will automatically become hazardous
substances-under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCIA), EPA is proposing for
purposes of immediate release reporting
under CERCLA section 103 a reportable
quantity (RQ) of 100 pounds for 2,4,6-
tribromophenol and the listed wastes.
Also, EPA is proposing hot to list as
hazardous nine waste streams from the
production of bromochlorpniethane,
ethyl bromide, tribromophenol,
octabromodiphenyl oxide,
decabromodipheny 1 oxide, and to defer
action on one waste stream from the
production of tetrafaromobisphenol-A.
DATES: EPA will accept public
comments on this proposed listing
determination until July 11,1994.
Comments postmarked after this date
will be marked " late" and pay not be
considered. Any person may request a
public hearing on this proposal by filing
a request with Mr. David Bussard,
whose address appears below, by May
26,1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted to Ed Rissmann at EPA,
OSWER. 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The official
record of this action is identified by
Docket number F-94-OBLP-EFFFF and
is located at the following address: EPA
Docket Clerk, room 2616 (5305), US.
EPA, 401M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. The docket is open from Sajn.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials by calling (2B2) 260-
9327. The public may copy too pages
from the docket at no charge; additional
copies are $0.15 per page.
To request a public hearing on this
proposed listing determination, file a
request with Mr. David Bussanif.5304),
U.S, EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (80S) 424-
9346 (toll-free) or (703j412-98ie»,iafee
Washington, DC metropolitan area. The
TDD Hotline number is (800J 553-7672,
or (703) 486-3323, locally. For technical
information on the proposed listing
determination, contact Ed Rissmann at
(202) 260-4785.
For technical information on the
CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact
Ms. GerainH. Perry, Response
Standards and Criteria Branch,
Emergency Response Division (5202G),
U.S. Environmental Protection, Agency,
•401M Street, SW., Washington-, DC
• 2Q46Q, (703) 603-8760.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION! The
contents of today's preamble-are listed
in the following outline:
I., Statutory and Regulatory Background
II. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Organobromine'Chemicals Industry
Overview
B. Description of Processes Us«d, Wastes
Generated, and Waste Management
Practices Employed
1. Processes Used and Wastes Generated
2. Waste Management Practices
C Description of Health and Risk
Assessments
1. Toxicological Information-Use of
Structural Activity Relationships
2. Plausible Mismanagement Scenario
3. Risk Analysis
D. Basis for Listing Determination
Decisions
1. Waste Specific Risk Analyses
a. Wastes from the Production of
Bromochloromethane/Dibromomethane
i. Solids
a, Wastewaters
b Wastes from the Production of Ethyli
Bromide
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
c. Wastes from the Production of
Tetrabromobisphenol A
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
d. Wastes from the Production of
Octabromodipheayl Oxide
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
e. Wastes from the Production of
Decabromodiphenyl Oxide
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
f. Wastes from the Production of
Tribromophenol
i. Solids
ii. Wastewaters
2. Conclusions
III. Waste Minimization Opportunities in the
Industry
IV, Regulatory impact Analysis and
Compliance Costs
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to
Executive Order 12866 ,
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. State Program Implementation
A. Applicability of Rules in Stales
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VII. CERCLA Designation and RQ
Adjustment
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
IX. Compliance and Implementation
A. Section 3010 Notification
B. Compliance Dates for Facilities
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
These regulations are proposed under
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA),
as amended by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
These statutes are commonly referred to
as the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and are codified at
Volume 42 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.), sections 6901 to 6992k (42
U.S.C. 6901-699210-
Section 3001 (a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(a), requires EPA to promulgate
criteria for identifying characteristics of
hazardous wastes and for listing
hazardous wastes. Section 3001(b) of
RCRA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations, based on these criteria,
identifying and listing hazardous wastes
which shall be subject to the
requirements of the Act.
Hazardous waste is defined at section
1004(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6903(5).
There are two types of hazardous waste.
First, hazardous wastes are those solid .
wastes which may cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality,
serious irreversible illness, or
incapacitating reversible illness. In
addition, hazardous wastes are those
solid wastes which may pose a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly managed,
EFA's regulations establishing criteria
for listing hazardous wastes are codified
atvolnme 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) §261.11 (40 CFR
261.11). Section 261.11 states three
criteria for identifying characteristics
and for listing wastes as hazardous.
-------
federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules 24531
First, wastes may be classified as
"characteristic" wastes if they have the
properties described at 40 CFR. 261.20
which would cause them to be classified
as having the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and
toxicity.
. Second, wastes may be classified as
acute hazardous wastes if they are fatal
to humans at low doses, lethal in animal
studies at particular doses designated in
the regulation, or otherwise capable of
causing or significantly contributing to
an increase in serious illness.
Third, wastes may be listed as
hazardous if they contain hazardous
constituents identified in appendix Vm
of 40 CFR part 261 and the Agency
concludes, after considering eleven
factors enumerated in § 261.11(a)(3),
that the waste is capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly managed. A substance
is listed in appendix VIE if it has been
shown in scientific studies to have toxic
effects on life forms.
Wastes listed as hazardous are subject
to federal requirements under RCRA for
persons who generate, transport, treat,
store or dispose of such waste. Facilities
that must meet the hazard waste
management requirements, including
the need to obtain permits to operate,
are commonly referred to as Subtitle C
facilities. Subtitle C is Congress" original
statutory designation for that part of
RCRA that directs EPA to issue
regulations for hazardous wastes as may
be necessary to protect human health or
the environment. Thus, facilities like
incinerators or landfills that are
required to comply with RCRA
requirements for hazardous waste are
referred to as Subtitle C incinerators or
landfills.
Subtitle C is codified as Subchapter III
of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste Disposal) of
Volume 42 of the United States Code, 42
U.S.C. 6921 thru 6939e. EPA standards
and procedural regulations
implementing subtitle C are found
generally at 40 CFR parts 260 through
272.
Solid wastes which are not hazardous
wastes may be disposed of at facilities
which are overseen by state and local
governments. These are the so-called
subtitle D facilities. Subtitle D is
Congress' original statutory designation
for that part of RCRA which deals with
federal assistance to state and regional
planning efforts for disposal of solid
.waste.
Subtitle D is codified as Subchapter
IV of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste Disposal)
of Volume 42 of the United States Code
(42 U.S.C. 6941 thru 6949a). EPA
regulations affecting subtitle D facilities
are found generally at-40 CFR parts 240
thru 247, and 255 thru 258.
Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA (42 U.S.C
6921 (e)(2) requires EPA to determine
whether to list, as hazardous, wastes
generated by various chemical
production processes, including the
production of organobromines. In
response to this mandate, the Agency
undertook a two-year study of the
industry and, eventually, listed several
wastes from the production of ethylene
dibromide (EOB) and mcithyl bromide.
The final rule listing wastes from the
production of EDB was published in the
Federal Register on February 13,1986
(51FR 5327). These wastes are listed in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations section 261.32 (40 CFR
261.32) and are designated by. EPA
hazardous waste numbers K117, K118,
and K136. The final rule listing wastes
from methyl bromide production was
published on October 6,1989 (54 FR
41402). These wastes are listed at 40
CFR 261.32 and are designated by
hazardous waste codes K131 and K132.
Methyl bromide and ethylene dibromide
are also on the Appendix Vm list of
hazardous constituents.
In June of 1991, EPA entered into a
proposed consent decree in a lawsuit
filed by the Environmental Defense
Fund, et al. (EDFv. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-
0598 (D.D.C.)), in which'the Agency
agreed to publish a proposed
determination as to whether or not to
list as hazardous wastes from the
production of five other organobromine
chemicals by April 30,1994 and to
promulgate a final decision on whether
to list on or before April 30,1995. The
Agency reserves the right to evaluate
wastes from the production of other
organobromine compounds in the
future, if and when such an evaluation
is deemed necessary.
To provide a sound technical basis for
this listing determination,, EPA
conducted another study of the
organobromine chemicals industry in
1991 and 1992. Six firms were
identified as currently manufacturing
organobromine chemicals at eight
facilities in the United States. Under the
authority of RCRA Section 3007 (42
U.S.C. 6927), EPA sent questionnaires to
these firms and four of them were
selected for engineering'site visits.
These four facilities account for over 99
percent of total production. Samples of
process residuals were collected during
the site visits to familiariise the Agency
with the types of materials generated by
the industry. Later in the study, record
samples were collected at facilities of
the two largest domestic producers. The
next section summarizes today's
proposal and describes the basis for
- EPA's decision to list one waste from .
this industry. The Listing Background
Document for this listing determination
contains a detailed description of the
Agency's basis for proposing to list one
waste, and to not list ten other waste
streams. The public version of this
document, which does not contain
Confidential Business Information can
be copied at the RCRA public docket.
See ADDRESSES section.
The third criteria described above for
listing hazardous wastes in 40 CFR
261.11, is applicable to this proposal on
organobromine wastes. That is, wastes
may be listed if they contain hazardous
constituents identified hi Appendix VHI
of 40 CFR Part 261 and the Agency
concludes the waste is capable of posing
a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly managed.
With respect to the other two criteria,
the wastes under consideration here are
not acutely hazardous and
"characteristic" wastes are not listed
separately, since their classification
depends upon whether they qualify as
wastes based on various tests described
in the regulations. EPA notes that any of
the organobromine wastes could be
classified as "characteristic" wastes if
they "fail" the applicable tests.
Consistent with its regulations-, EPA
determined whether there were present
any Appendix VHI constituents and
whether there was information on any
other constituents of the waste that
could lead to health or environmental ,
concerns. The health effects data, along
with other factors (generally related to
exposure) required to be considered
under 40 CFR 261.11{a)(3), were then
evaluated to decide whether the wastes
should be listed as hazardous wastes.
These factors include the plausible
types of mismanagement scenarios to
which the wastes could be subjected
and the potential of the constituent or
any. toxic degradation product to
migrate from waste into the
environment under the improper
management scenarios (40 CFR
261.11(a)(3) (iii) and (vii)).
After consideration of data on health
effects and exposure to the
wastestreams, EPA decided that certain
wastes from 2,4,6-tribromophenol
production warrant listing. None of the
constituents h'ave previously been listed
in Appendix VIII, however.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to list
2,4.6-tribromophenol as an Appendix
VIII constituent.
-------
24532
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.. 90 / Wednesday. May It, 1994 / Proposed Rules
H. Summary oEToday's Proposal
A. Orgcmabromine Chemicals Industry
T&woiganoDromme-c&einical-
goograpMcaily limited) by the location- of
underground' branrido-beaiiiig brins
deposits. The only major deposits of this
typo:kr.thttllmte£i Stats s.are; located in-
i; and Arkansas! QrcanabxamnM?
chemicals are no longer produced on a
large scale in Michigan. EPA identified
two firms in. southern Arkansas that
produce the organobromine chemicals
listed in the EOF consent decree. These
two-firms account far 95%. of all
orgarrofarommB chemical production in
thcULS.
The source-of all8 bromine produced'
currently'in the U.S, iffthe brine deposit
in the Smockover Formation in Union,
Lafayetla,. and* Columbia Counties,
Arkansas. Total demand for bromine has
fallen 25% since 1979 and domestic
bromine production fell by four
thousand metric tons between 1S91 and
1992, so there is little incentive for the
construction, of new bromine, extraction
plants. In addition, all of the mining
rights for bromine-bearing brines in
these counties are controlled by two
corporations. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, these deposits.are
likely to satisfy domestic demand for
sixty years. For these reasons, EPA
believes that it is; very improbable that
any new producers using substantially
different technologies will enter the
organobromine chemicals industry
during the next several decades.
At the tine of the first industry study
in 1984, etLylene dibromide (EDB) was
the most important product of the
organobromines industry. EDB was used
together with tetraethyl lead in
additives designed to increase the
octane rating of gasoline. Other industry
products included methyl bromide,
used as a soil fumigant, and brominated
fluorocarbons, which are sold mainly as
fire-extinguishing agents.
During the decade that has elapsed
since the original industry study, the
product mix has changed, due primarily
to the advent of several environmental"
regulatory programs. Vehicles requiring
unleaded gasoline were introduced to
the U.S. market in 1971, and the phase-
out of leaded gasoline is now almost
complete. Other nations have instituted
similar programs, though on different
timetables, which has reduced demand
for EDB. The use of methyl bromide as
a soil fumi^ant has been restricted
because of the toxicity of this material.
Two of the important brominated
Ouorocarbons, Halon 1211 and Halon
13Q1, are being phasedi out of
production under the terms of the
Montreal Protocol OIL Substances; tm&
Deplete- the Ozone Layer^ to which the
United States is;* signatory;
The majority nf
y' nra«
sold as flame- retaxdants. Mbstoftfassv
incorporated into; pmlymermixes^ The
polymers then are used tir-manufacture
a variety^ o£ houseriold1 and iiiuustnal
products, including: elgctoonic circuit
boards; talerosxon and computer eases,
and packaging and insulating foam.
Smaller volume organobromine
chemicals are produced by four smaller
firms. The principal use* for these
products, aw as reagent chempcalsand
pharmaceutical mt«im«diat«9. These-
low volume cheim'cate are- produced on
a batch basis with annual' production
often being a> few batches- per year,
B. Description of Processes Used,
Wastes Generated, and. Waste
Management Practices- Employed
I. Processes Used and: Wastes Generated
As discussed above, EPA conducted
engineering site visits at four'
organobromine-producing firms, based
on the information received from RCRA
Section 3007 questionnaires. Two of
these, four firms have- direct access to
sources of elemental bromine (i.e., the
underground brine deposits) and use it
to produce substantial volumes of
organobromine flame retardants. All
other firms in the; industry purchase
elemental, bromine and use it to produce
smaller volumes of. special-purpose
pharmaceutical and chemical
intermediates. Frequently^ these items
are produced under contract for the
pharmaceutical firms.
The processes at the two major sites
also differ from those at the smaller
producers with respect to waste
management practices. The smaller
producers manage all of their solid
wastes as hazardous and ship them off
site to incinerators or landfills operating
in accordance with the standards
promulgated; under authority of RCRA
Subtitle G. Generally, their production
contracts call' for the- wastes to be; sent
to the firms ordering: these chemicals.
The pharmaceutical firms then-
incinerate these wastes from' the
organochemical production process.
Because bromine is an element and
cannot be destroyed by chemical
transformations, the production
processes at the major facilities are
designed to make the most effective use
of all bromine extracted, from, die brine.
As a result, there are many bromine/
into
the1 operation- A. gsneralized description
of the wasteland managtment practices.
at the:mHJorsrtey> fallows.
Bromide4reeKin|f briiwfrom the
Smackover Formation is pumped'to' the
surface and routed to the bromine plant,
where it is acidified, andcrrlDrinatedrD
convert the bromidvto bromine. The
reaction* generates a- sodium chloride, by-
product which-remains hTthttbrine. T&:
bromine then- is volatilized' with steam
and condensed, dried1, and'used on site
as a feedstock. Most orgartobromine
chemicals'are produced'by simple one-
or two-step reactions, of oromine with an
organic feedstock.. Many of these
reactions liberate hydrogen.bromide gas,
which is normally, scrubbed in sodium
hydroxide solution, forming a sodium
bromide stream that often is recycled to
the bromine plant'. Alternatively, the gas
is scrubbed with a lime suspension to
produce calciurn.bromide, a saleable by-
product.
Concentrated sulfuric-acid'is used as
a drying agent for. slemental bromine;.
The spent acid is sold back to the
sulfuric acid producer, who uses it to
produce virgin, sulfuric acid.
At major, production sites* process
wastewateis containing: recoverable
amounts of bromine-are< recycled! to the
bromine-plant for bromine recovery.
The volume of these: wastmvater streams
exceeds that of all other waste streams
combined. Additionally, over 200,000'
metric tons per year of unrecycled
process wastewaters are generated at the
two major sites, from production of die
five organobrominechemicals listed, in
the consent decree., An> additional
450,000 tons of waste waters are
generated from triiiromophenol
manufacture. Less than 800 tons of
process wastes solids ace generated.
These include spent filters, floor
sweepings and chemical product that
does not meet commercial specifications
for quality—so-cafled "off-spec"
product. By comparison, die amount of
waste generated by the minor producers
is cumulatively less than 100 tons and'
is- divided among several dozen
processes, most of which are operated
only a few days per year. Due to the
very low volumes and periodic
generation of these wastes-bytfae minor
producers, the analysis for this-listing
determination focused only on the
major production plants. The minor
producers do not manufacture any of
the products listed in the EOF consent
decree, Tabie I summarizes the wastes
and their constituents of potential
concern generated from production-of
organobromine products studied.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rales .24533
TABLE I.—SUMMARY OF.ORGANOBROMJNE PRODUCTION WASTES
Product
Waste stream
Constituents of potential concern
Dibromomethane/bromochloromethane
Ethyl bromide . .
Tetrabromobisphenol-A
Octabromcxfiphenyl oxide ..
DecabromocSphenyJ oxide .
Tribromophenol
Filters
Wastewaters
Filters..... _...
Wastewaters ...™.
Off Spec Product.
Wastewaters'
Wastewaters..-
Off Spec Product & Fitters
Off Spec Product & Filters
Wastewaters
Wastewaters
FHtets&F«er cake & Off Spec Product
Methyfene chtaride.z
Bromochtorornethane DSbromomethane
Ethyl bromide.
Ethanot
Tetrabtornobisptenot-A Tribromophenol
Octabromodiphenyt oxide Toluene.*
Brominated dibenzofurans.
Decabromodiphenyl oxide.
Tribromophenol.
2 A^r^0V?ncoretthferrtfomobispheno1 A are generated by the same process. The process wastewaters are the Hsted waste Kt31.
2. Waste Management Practices
The largest volume wastes generated
by the organobromines industry are
wastewaters disposed by injection into
underground deep wells regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program (40 CFR parts 144-148). Some
of the combined waste streams being
deep well-injected are classified as
hazardous wastes under 40 CFR part
261. As a result, the industry must
comply with applicable regulations
. under the Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR) program in 40 CFR part 268,
which require that hazardous wastes
may not be land-disposed without
treatment to specified levels or by
specified methods. Disposal by
underground injection is included in
the definition of "land disposal" in 40
CFR 268.2. Specific restrictions on the
underground injection of hazardous
wastes are codified in 40 CFR part 148.
One of the two major production
plants submitted a petition under 40
CFR 148.20 for an exemption from these
LDR requirements for the disposal of
wastes in wells located at its plant. They
provided site-specific information to
demonstrate that there would be no
migration of the injected wastes to an
underground source of drinking water
for as long as the wastes remain
hazardous (40 CFR 148.20). Their
demonstration showed that the
geological and geochemical conditions
at the site and the physicochemical
nature of the wastestreams were such
that the hazardous constituents in the
fluids will not migrate within 10,000
years-vertically or laterally. The petition
was approved by the Agency and the
exemption was granted. EPA expects the
facility to continue this form of disposal
at the same level in the future regardless
of this listing determination because of
economic considerations. As a result,
EPA believes that wastes being disposed
by underground injection at this plant
will not pose a risk to human health and
the environment
The situation with respect to the
second major facility is different: This
facility consists of several plants located
a few miles apart. Each plant has its
own set of injection wells. One plant,
which according to the Agency's
information generates Hsted hazardous
wastewater, has two wells into which
listed hazardous waste is currently
injected. Another, which according to
the Agency's information does not
produce a listed wastewater, has at least
three wells which do not accept
hazardous waste.
None of the wells at this facility have
an approved no-migration petition.
Therefore, for currently listed
wastewaters, the facility will have to
consider waste treatment prior to
disposal. An option under consideration
by the plant is the construction of a
wastewater treatment plant to treat the
wastewaters prior to either release to
surface waters or deep well injection.
The facility is not likely to want to
abandon the use of deep well injection
for economic reasons. Shipment of
wastewaters off site would be
economically prohibitive given the large
wastewaters volumes involved. For
unlisted wastewaters, the most plausible
management scenario would be
continued deep well injection.
The Agency believes that it would be
unlikely that the facility would attempt
to store wastewater in lagoons. The area
has a moist climate, so evaporation is
not a viable option. The plant is
currently under several consent
agreements to remove contamination
resulting from the previous use of
unlined lagoons for temporary
wastewater storage.
Therefore, the Agency selected the
plausible mismanagement scenario for
modeling purposes for unlisted
wastewaters to be the cuiTent practice of
underground injection for this plant's
wastewaters. EPA has no information or
reason to believe that, if not listed, the
wastewaters would be managed in a
different manner.
In addition to underground injection,
' certain other waste management
practices commonly used in the
organobromine chemicals industry are
regulated by specific RCRA regulations.
Both major plants use Bromine
Recovery Units (BRUs) to recover
bromine values from organic liquid and
vapor waste streams. In these units, the
organics are burned and the combustion
products are removed by a wet scrubber.
The BRUs are halogen acid furnaces
(HAFs), which meet the regulatory
definition of industrial furnace in 40
CFR260.1Q.
The combustion of hazardous waste
in industrial furnaces is regulated under
40 CFR part 266, subpart H which '
regulate air emissions from these units
and require monitoring and. analyses.
These regulations impose emissions
standards and air quality limits for the
BRUs, which are designed to control
and reduce the level of risk posed by
this management practice (e.g., 40 CFR
266.104(e) establishes controls for
dioxin- and furan-containing wastes).
Both major plants burn listed spent
solvents and still bottoms in these units;
therefore, they are already subject to the
performance standards of part 266,
subpart H. EPA believes that residuals
managed in this manner and in
compliance with applicable regulations
do not pose any additional risk to
human health and the environment
because the facilities are currently in
compliance with their permits to
operate these units. EPA has not found
any compelling evidence indicating that
the major plants would manage these
wastes in any other way. These recovery
units are integrated into the major
plants and abandoning their use would
require considerable plant modifications
-------
24534
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules
to be made with no economic benefit to
the facilities.
The solid residuals generated hi
organbbromine chemicals production
are currently being shipped off site to
commercial Subtitle D landfills and to
Subtitle C disposal facilities, even
though some of these residuals are not
regulated as hazardous wastes. Other
wastes fe.g., spent adsorbents, filter
calces, and floor sweepings) are being
incinerated. At the smaller firms
production contracts specify that wastes
be shipped to incinerators operated by
the pharmaceutical industry in order to
minimize Mure potential liability. The
most plausible mismanagement scenario
for solids is placement hi unlined
Subtitle D landfills. The plants currently
are not required to send unregulated
wastes to Subtitle C facilities. Because
of the lower cost and wider availability
of Subtitle D facilities, fee Agency feels
that this is the most reasonable
mismanagement scenario.
C. Description of Health and Bisk
Assessments
The Agency realizes that it has
incomplete toxicoiogical data on several
constituents identified in individual
waste streams. Nevertheless, sufficient
information does exist to reach the
reasoned decision!; shown in Tables
2a & b. The rationale for these
decisions follows.
TABLE 2a.—BASIS FOR LISTING DETERMINATION
Product
Dtororoomethane .
Ethyl bromide ~
Tetrabromobtspnertol A
OctabfomocSphenyl
oxkJe.
Decabromodphenyl
oxide.
Wastestream
Fitters
Wastewaters
Fitters '.. —
Wflst&wdters *.......
Wastewaters .
Filter cake
Wastewaters ........
Fitter cake ............
Wastewaters — ..
Analysis
De minimis stream (less than 1 kkg/yr) One producer „.
Deep well injected at site with approved-no migration petition (only one
producer).
De minimis stream (less man 1.5 kkg/yr) ...., .....
Stream Is already listed as K131 for methyl bromide. Also contains
15,000 pom tnfcrornophenol.
Toluene and brominated dibenzofurans present at levels below concern.
Assuming worst case for teachate, risk estimated to be below 10-* for
octebrorrxxfiphenyl oxide.
Major constituent of concern, brominated dibenzofurans, shows minimal
risk; solubility of octabromodiphenyl oxide is very low; modelling of
worst case for wastewaters showed risk below 10-* fc
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 90 / Wednesday. May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules 24535
surrogate'compounds, for which data
exist, could not be found. No
lexicological data exist for other
halogenated derivatives of bisphenol A,
and ethyl bromide differs from its
chlorinated congeners with respect to its
ability to undergo hydrolysis and other
important reactions. The basis for the
listing determinations for the wastes
with these two compounds is discussed
later in this preamble.
At the present time, inadequate
toxicity data have prevented EPA from
establishing a verified or unverified
human health reference value for 2,4,6-
tribromophenol (TBP). The structures of
TBP and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (TCP) are
sufficiently similar to be considered
halogenated congeners of phenol, and
their toxicities are explainable in terms
of identified molecular mechanisms.
The relative quantitative activities of
halogenated phenol congeners such as
TBP and TCP are derived from the ease
of formation and reaction of these
compounds and their metabolites. Both
halogenated phenols contain three
symmetrically placed bromine or
chlorine substituents which are difficult
to remove by chemical substitution. The
presence of difficult-to-remove
substituents at the ortho and para
positions inhibits oxidative
decomposition of these moieties via
formation of cyclic ketone
intermediates. EPA has used this
information to develop a quantitative
structure-activity relationship (QSAR)
analysis for TBP. The critical endpoint
of concern for TCP and TBP is
carcinogenicity. The Agency has
determined that, based on QSAR
analysis, the long-term toxicity of TBP
and TCP are essentially the same. For
today's proposal, the Agency has
estimated the cancer slope factor for
TBP to be the same as TCP, or 1.1 x
10-2 (mg/kg.per day}-i. In addition,
data on TBP analyzed by EPA's Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
indicated a "low to moderate" concern
for oncogenicity, mutagenicity, liver and
kidney toxicity, developmental, and
reproductive toxicity. The Agency's
QSAR analysis reports for TBP are
available in the docket of today's
proposal. See ADDRESSES section.
With regard to dibenzofurans,
quantitative data comparing the potency
of brominated dioxins and furans to
their chlorinated counterparts are also
relatively sparse. Consensus among
most of the studies supports the view
that brominated analogs are less potent
than the chlorinated dioxins and furans.
although several studies suggest that the-
groups are equipotent when considered
on a molar basis. EPA estimated a
potency factor of 0.3 for 2,3,7,8-
tetrabramodibenzo-p-dlioxin (TBDD)
relative to 2,3,7,8-tetradilorodibenzo-p-
dioxin fTCDD). This report is available
in the docket. See ADDRESSES section.
However, application of the toxicity
equivalency factor (TEF) methodology
to all of the BDFs is not currently
possible because of the lack of research
data. EPA conducted aia analysis
assuming 30-100% tcodcity for the
brominated furans as compared to the
chlorinated ones and used the 100
percent value for making risk-based
decisions. EPA believes this is a
conservative approach that will ensure
protection of human health and. the
environment. The Agency requests
. comment on this approach.
For all other compounds, the Agency
is basing its determination of whether to
list on constituents for which adequate
health effects data exist:. (For a complete
listing of the constituents identified in
the samples of wastes from the
production of chemicals listed in the
EOF consent decree and their
concentrations, see the Background
Document for this proposed listing
determination, available in the RCRA
public docket.)
In summary, published health-based
data exist for all but four of the waste
constituents of concern. Inadequate data
exist for tetrabromobisphenol-A, ethyl
bromide, the brominated dibenzorurans
and tribromophenol. Structure activity-
derived health-based information is
available and was used for the
brominated dibenzorurans and
tribromophenol.
Quantitative Structure Activity
Relationships CQSARs) Ikave been used
in other ways in other EPA programs.
For example, EPA uses QSARs in
evaluating premanufacturing notice data
submitted by industry under TSCA. The
Agency may require additional testing
of the chemical being reviewed based on
a QSAR analysis.
However, this is the first time the
Agency is basing a listing determination
for a wastestream on QSAR analysis.
The prospect of using QSARs to identify
wastes for regulation holds significant
promise for the Agency. It is one way to
evaluate some potentially hazardous
constituents without requiring
expensive and time-consuming toxicity
testing. However, the Agency recognizes
that the approach could result in
additional regulatory effects on some
waste generators, local governments, or
other federal agencies. In addition, the
use of QSARs in listing determinations
could have broad policy implications
for EPA. Therefore, the Agency solicits
comment on the following:
l.'Under what conditions is the use of
QSAR valid in making hazardous waste
listing determinations?
2. Is there another way to characterize
the risk, potential of wastestreams for
which there is a lack of toxicity data on
the sole or the primary constituent in
the wastestream? (Note that limited
resources may restrict the ability of the
Agency to conduct testing of the
compounds involved).
3. What type of data would help to
either support or refute the predictions
made by QSAR?
2. Plausible Mismanagement Scenario
The Agency developed baseline risk
estimates by selecting plausible
mismanagement practices based on ':
information collected in the RCRA ;
Section 3007 survey for current '
management operations. For \
wastewaters, the Agency selected the
plausible mismanagement practice to be
the current practice of deep well
injection. The Agency has no
information or reason to believe that, if
not listed, the wastewaters are likely to
be managed in a different manner,
except if pretreatment of wastewaters is
required prior to injection. For sludges
and waste solids, the Agency selected
the plausible mismanagement to be an
unlined landfill Currently, a portion of
the waste goes to a lined Subtitle D
landfilL In addition, the Agency has
information that a portion of these
wastes, while not regulated as
hazardous, are managed as hazardous
with disposal in Subtitle C landfills.
However, the Agency lacks adequate
information showing that, if not listed
as hazardous, the wastes would
continue to be disposed in lined
landfills and result in significantly
lower estimates of potential risk. The
Agency requests comment on this . •
approach to modelling plausible
mismanagement practices.
3..Risk Analysis
Risk characterization approach. The
risk characterization approach follows
the recent EPA Guidance on Risk
Characterization (Habicht. 1992) and
Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA
Risk Assessment Council, 1991). The
guidance specifies that EPA risk
assessments will be expected to address
or provide descriptions of: (1)
Individual risk to include the central
tendency and high-end portions of the
risk distribution, (2) important
subgroups of the population such as
highly exposed or highly susceptible :
groups or individuals, if known, and (3)
population risk. In addition to the
presentation of results, the guidance
also specifies that the results portray a
-------
24536 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11. 1994 / Proposed Rules
reasonable picture of the actual or
projected exposures with an open
discussion of uncertainties.
Individual risk. Individual risk
descriptors are intended to convey
information about the risk borne by
individuals within a specified
population and subpopulations. These
• risk descriptors are used to, answer
questions concerning the affected " ••
population, the risk levels of various
groups within the population, and the
average risk for individuals within a
population of interest. The approach
used in thisanalysis for characterizing
baseline individual risk included: (l)
Identifying and describing the
population of concern for an exposure
route; (2) determining the sensitivity of
the model parameters used in the risk
estimation; (3) estimating central
tendency and high-end values for the
most sensitive parameters in the'risk
estimation procedures; and (4)
calculating risk for an exposure pathway
that provides a characterization of the
central tendency and high-end risk
descriptor.
Population risk. Descriptors of
population risk are intended to convey
, information about the risk borne by the
population or population segment being
studied. These risk descriptors are used
to answer questions concerning the
number of cases of a particular health
effect that probabilistically could occur
within the population during a given
time period, the number of persons or -
percent of the population above a
certain risk level or health benchmark
(e.g., RfD or RfC). and risk for a
particular population segment.
Risk assessment. The analysis of risks
was developed using both the input of
derived or measured toxicological
information and the modelling of waste
mismanagement scenarios. Specifically,
for disposal of solids in unlined
landfills, the concentration of the
constituents of concern in the landfill
leachate first was determined using the
Toxteity Characteristics Leaching
Procedure (TCLFJ on selected record
samples, or when TCLP data were
lacking, by assuming a leachate
concentration based on the aqueous
solubility of the constituent. It then-was
assumed that the leaehale would be
diluted by a factor of 100 (as described
in the Toxicity Characteristic Rule 55
FR 11798, March 29,1990) before
reaching the nearest drinking water
well. The resulting diluted
concentrations can be then compared
xvith the health-based values. In the case
of this analysis, a one-in-a-million
(lO-o) risk level or hazard quotient of 1
was used.
For wastewaters, the situation was
more complicated. One facility has been
granted a no-migration variance from
the land disposal restrictions. The
second facility, which consists of
several separate plants, has not obtained
such a variance. The plants at the
second facility currently dispose of
process wastewaters by deep well
injection. Modelling for specific
wastewater streams was based on the
possibilities of leakage of injected
wastewaters from the injection zone
upward to a drinking water aquifer
through the abandoned oil and gas wells
in the area. Details of this modelling are
given in the Risk Modelling Background
Document and summarized in the
individual wastewater risk assessment
to be discussed in the following
sections.
D. Basis for Listing Determinations
Decisions
1. Waste Specific Risk Analyses
Risk analyses were performed on
eleven individual waste streams. The
models selected for individual
mismanagement scenarios are described
in the individual sections which follow.
a. Wastes From Production of
Bromochloromethane/
Dibromomethane—L Solids.
Dibromomethane is a low-volume
product with limited commercial
applications; therefore, it is unlikely
.that other firms will enter the
marketplace. The only solid wastes
generated from the production of
dibromomethane are spent filters used
to remove rust and other particulate
matter from the product. About two
drums of the material are generated per
year. As a result, the Agency feels the
quantity is de mininus. The filters are
changed yearly and the spent filter
material is sent to a Subtitle C
incinerator. The waste is generated in
small quantities and is mixed with other
halogenated solids prior to incineration
at the Subtitle C facility. As a result, the
Agency believes that although the waste
generated from the production of
dibromomethane contains toxic
constituents, it does not pose a threat to
human health and the environment
because of the small quantities
generated and current management
practices. The Agency is proposing a no-
list decision.
ii. Wastewaters. Dibromomethane and
bromochloromethane are manufactured
as co-products at only one facility in the
U.S., which has an approved no-
migration petition for its deep well
injection unit. The approved petition
means that the waste will not migrate
from the formation into which it is
being infected and will therefore not
pose risk sufficient to warrant listing.
b. Wastes From-the Production of
Ethyl Bromide—i. Solids. Ethyl bromide
is manufactured in low volumes at only
one facility. The only solid waste stream
consists of spent filter materials used to
remove impurities from the product.
This waste contains about 90,000 parts
per million ethyl bromide and is
generated in quantities of 6 drums per
year which is sent to Subtitle C facilities
for treatment and disposal. High
dilution with other wastes placed in the
landfill would reduce leachate
concentration levels to below those for
reasonable concern. The Agency feels
that although the waste does contain
toxic constituents, based on the
production history of this chemical, it is
unlikely that other firms will enter the
market and that, because of the minimal
waste quantities generated and the
current waste management practice,
there is no need for a specific listing of
the filters, ' '
ii, Wastewaters. The wastewater
stream is condensate water containing
only small amounts of ethanol as a
contaminant. This wastestream contains
no other contaminants of concern and is
managed by deepwell injection. Prior to
injection, the ethanol-containing stream
is mixed with wastewaters from other
processes and the resulting mixed
stream thus is diluted by a factor of over
1,000. A,s a result, the Agency believes
that the ethanol content of the combined
stream poses little to no risk to human
health or the environment, and proposes
not to list this wastestream.
c. Wastes From the Production of
Tetrabromobisphenol-A—i. Solids. The
solid wastes generated from the
tetrabromobisphenol A process consist
of spilled product and floor sweepings
from the production area. This material
currently is managed in Subtitle C
Facilities. About 150 tons of this waste
are generated annually. Bisphenol-A is
manufactured by condensation of
phenol and acetone. As a result,
commercial grade bisphenol-A may
contain variable low levels of phenol '
and, therefore, the brominated material
is expected to contain some brominated
phenols. Some of these will co-
precipitate with the product during the
process and be incorporated into the
solid product.
At present, the Agency has
insufficient information to characterize
the amount of the brominated phenols
(including tetrabromobisphenol-A) in
the product or their teachability from
the product matrix. EPA requests any
information on the amount of
brominated phenols in the product and
their teachability from the product
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules 24537
matrix. At this time, the Agency also
does not have information on the
toxicity of tetrabromobisphenol A, and
requests any information commenters
may have on its toxicology, including
the existence of any toxicological
analogues for tetrabromobisphenol A.
• Record sampling of an on-site landfill
at one plant where these solids were
formerly disposed for a number of years
showed the absence of any brominated
materials in the landfill leachate. Given
the lack of .adequate information to
perform a risk analysis at this time, the
Agency is concerned about being
conclusive about the potential hazard of
this waste stream and its potential to
migrate to ground water if managed in
an unlined landfill. The Agency
proposes to defer for this waste stream
a listing determination and requests
submission of both characterization and
toxicological data, if available. EPA will
evaluate carefully all public comments
and information received in response to
this notice. Particular attention will be
paid to any data submitted which tend
to either support or refute a finding of
risk to human health and the
environment from wastes from the
production of tetrabromobisphenol A.
Based on comments received, including
any data, EPA may choose, rather than
deferring, to promulgate a final
determination to either list or not list
tetrabromobisphenol A waste as a
hazardous waste under RCRA.
ii. Wastewaters. Wastewaters from.the
manufacture of tetrabromobisphenol A
are already listed and carry the
hazardous waste code of K131. Methyl
bromide and tetrabromobisphenol A are
produced in the same process. Process
wastewater originates from the
distillation step where methyl bromide
is recovered. The Agency feels that no
further action is needed for the waste
stream.
d. Wastes From the Production of
Octabromodiphenyl Oxide.—i. Solids.
Solid wastes such as filter cakes
typically are disposed of in landfills.
This has been the practice of the major
organobromine chemicals
manufacturers for many years.
Currently, these wastes are being
shipped to Subtitle C hazardous waste
facilities. However/it would be possible
for the generators to change their
disposal practices and direct these
materials to Subtitle D landfills. The
quantities of these wastes generated are
not de minimis as was the case for
dibromomethane solid wastes. Toluene
is present in filter cakes from the
production of Octabromodiphenyl oxide.
To evaluate the potential risks
associated with filter cake containing
toluene, EPA applied the Agency's
Organic Leachate Model (51FR 27062,
April 29,1986) to estimate the
maximum amounts of toluene that
would be expected to leach from the
filter cake in an open landfill
environment. The Agency also sampled
the on-site landfill at one production
site where some of this waste was
disposed. The sampling of the landfill
leachate did not detect tiny toluene
present. The toluene concentrations in
the filter cake were used as input to the
Agency's Composite Model for Landfills
(56 FR 32993, July 18,1991) to estimate
high-end (95th percentile)
concentrations of toluene in a
hypothetical receptor well. The
hypothetical well concentrations
derived from this analysis are about one
order of magnitude below the Maximum
Concentration Level (M(X) for toluene
promulgated by regulation under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The formulae
used and a more detailed discussion of
the application of these models to the
waste samples can be found in the
Background Document, available in the
RCRA public docket. See ADDRESSES
section. Because the modelled leachate
levels are below acceptable drinking
water levels, EPA does not believe that
toluene-containing filter cake wastes
generated in the production of
Octabromodiphenyl oxide pose a threat
. to human health and the environment;
thus, the Agency proposes not to list
this wastestream. The waste solids also
contained about 4.4 ppb of brominated
dibenzofurans (most of which were the
hepta isomer), which the Agency
believes are among the least toxic of the
brominated dibenzofurans. The
toxicities of these materials were
evaluated in terms of equivalence to that
for tetrachlorodibenzo-diioxin (TCDD).
The Agency has concluded that the risk
posed by this constituent is below the
10-«level.
Also, the health-based for a one-in-a-
million risk level for
Octabromodiphenyl oxide using
standard intake and exposure
assumptions is 0.1 mg/L. No leachate
data are available for this waste.
However, the Agency assumed an
upper-bound leachate concentration of
0.2 mg/L based on the solubility of
Octabromodiphenyl oxide. Assuming a
dilution factor of 100 is achievable
during migration to the nearest drinking
water well, the concentration in potable
water would be below thut of concern.
As a result, EPA is proposing not to list
this waste stream based c>n low
estimated exposure to toxic
constituents.
ii. Wastewaters. While the Agency has
no quantifiable concentration data on
Octabromodiphenyl oxide found in the
Wastewaters, adequate data exist on
brominated dibenzofurans found in the
generated wastes.
Brominated dibenzofurans were
detected in some of the record samples
from octa- and decabromodiphenyl
oxide processes. Studies conducted for
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics .and by research groups hi
Germany and the Netherlands show that
hrominated furans can be formed during
the manufacture of brominated diphenyl
ethers, as well as during their
fabrication into polymers. The evidence
currently available to the Agency
indicates that brominated dioxins and
furans may range from 30-100% as
toxic as their chlorinated counterparts.
Using this approach, a record sample of
wastewater from the Octabromodiphenyl
oxide unit showed a maximum toxicity
equivalent of 3.7x10 -' mg/L of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
equivalent. Assuming a 100-fold
dilution of the waste prior to reaching
a drinking water well, the level would
be below the MCL for'2,3,7,8-TCDD,
which is 3x10-8 mg/L. The Agency
selected the highest toxicity value in
making this analysis.
Based on this evaluation, the Agency
is proposing not to list this waste stream
for brominated dibenzofurans, because
EPA believes that estimated exposure
levels to toxic constituents are
sufficiently low so as to not pose a
threat to human health and the
environment.
The Agency was unable to quantify
levels of Octabromodiphenyl oxide
present in Wastewaters. However, the
solubility of the chemical is only 0.2
mg/L. The flow of Wastewaters from this
process represents less than one percent
of the total amount of process
wastewater injected. The health-based
level for a.one-in-a-million risk level for
Octabromodiphenyl is 0.1 mg/L. Due to
the high level of dilution occurring prior
to injection, the resulting concentration
of the toxic chemical expected to reach
drinking water aquifers is well below
levels of concern.
e. Wastes From the Production of
Decabromodiphenyl Oxide—i. Solids.
The production of decabromodiphenyl
oxide generates solid wastes consisting
of collected spilled product. Only
limited analytical results were obtained
from the record sampling of this waste
and no TCLP leachate data were
obtained for this compound. However,
the Agency assumed an upper-bound
leachate concentration of 0.2 mg/L
based on the aqueous solubility of the'
constituent. The health-based level for a
one-in-a-million risk level for this
compound is 0.35 mg/L, (assuming
exposure of drinking 2.0 L/day for a 70
-------
2,4538 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 9& / Wednesday, May tl. 1S94 / Proposed Rates
year exposure period) satha
concentration la the leachate1 is already
below the level of concern befose-aay
furthei dilution. Therefore., the Agency
ii. \vaatawatere> The raazuifactare- of
Ry L oxide also.
genecatea a wastowater stream. The
Agency was. unable to quaaiify tfea
amount of the- product in the- waste water
streanu Based on the process chemistry./
however, a small amount of product
would1 appear irv the- stream. The-
solubility o£ deeabromediphenyl oxide
is less than. Q.2 mg/L. This chemical has
a health-based tesel of 0.35 nag/Lsd the
leachate concentration is already below
the level of concern even before" the
subsequent significant dilution occurs.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing: to
not list tlus-wastestream,
f. Wastes From the Production o/
Tfibrosaopheaol—L Solids, Solids from
the production of triuromophenal (TBP>
consist of spilled uaierials, off-
specification preduct and spent filter
cartridges which were used to remove
entrained TBP particubtes from the
gaseous- hydrogen, bromide coproduct.
The one plant manufacturing, this
chemical mixes the three wastes
togethta: prior to shipment off sits for
land disposal Most of this waste is sent
to a bubtitie C hazardous waste- facility.
However, some is being sent to a
Subtitle-D- landfill.
Inadequate toxiciry data* for
tribromophenol (TBP) have prevented
the- Agency from, establishing a human
health reference value for
tribromophenol (TBP). Therefore,, as
previously discussed, the Agency
performed, a structure- activity
relationship (SAR) analysis in order to
provide a provisional human, health
reference value for this, compound.
Based on. the sfructure activity
relationship, the health-based level- fora
one-in-a-minion risk level for TBP
should be the same as that for 2,4,6-
trichloraphenol (i.e., 0.003. mg/L
assuming exposure of drinking 2.0 litets
per day fora 70-year exposure period).
The health-based level of 0.003 mg/L.
can be considered a bounding, estimate
which could overestimate the exposure
in an actual population. TCLP leaching
data presented Lnr the Industry Study
Background Document show
concentrations of 760 and: 1ft mg/L of
TBP in leachate extracts from, the eff-
spedfication product and the filter
cartridges, respecrivtly.
Since the leachate- levels exceed; the
health -based levels for this wast estream,
the Agency conducted an. analysis of the
potential risk front urtlined landfill
disposal. For this analysis, the1 Agency
selected what are perhaps conservative
dilution: {actors and: exposure
assumptions-. Using: a dilution; and
attenuation factor of Ifitt from tie
Toxkdty Characteristic, rale |55< FR
11798, March 29,. isaajta sfantdate the
subsurface dilution of the ImrhartT
concentration- between: am nalrnffft.
landfili and a kypaAetiad rfiCHptnr
weft* ti» estimate ATJBPH
in groundwateram- TJSt and Gt£6 ragflU-
respectively., Assuming thai people
drinking franrtMakypHtfaeiicd welLan?
exposed to the conteaniiianl by driEikrng
1.4 L/day of cnnJaminated water every
day over a 30-year internal, the health-
based limit of aana-nwwaiUsaa
increased Ufetiineriskaf canEer is Q.01
mg/L. Thusv tbe kwela of estimated
individual risk from, exposure t» TBP in
gratmdtwaer are TmTXt-* and; 2xlOt-*,
respectively.
For this proposed nrle,, the Agency
did. not conduct ft mace sophisticated
risk analysis. A more; sophisticated: risk
assessment may suggest- different
estimated risks than, the analysis
described- above. W&n example, the
dilution factor of 1Q& was. derived
assuming that the chemical- does not
adsorb' or degrade is the subsurface
environment The Agensy. is. aware that
the fate and transport of TBP in. the
environment is dependent on the
en.viraament in which, the* waste is
disposed. H disposal, is to a, neutral or
slightly acidic en vironmentv the octEHiol-
water coefficient (a constant eafljjn
related to the soil-water adsorption
coefficient) for TBP is relatively high,
exceeding 16,000. This value suggests
that TBP in. landfill leachate may bind
to subsurface soils and may migrate: at
low concentrations ovec a very long-
period of time in some ermronmenrs.
On the other hand, disposal- under
alkaline conditions, which are present
in areas where- orgniiolaromines are
produced, would likely result ia less
sorption to subsurface soils. This .
suggests that TBP could: become more
mobile under these conditions. Ira.
addition, the- dilution factor of 100; in
the analysis used' cosresponds to the
dilution factor expected at a drinking
water well 50O feet dorocngradieiU from
the disposal location. The Agency, does
not know the distance between, landfills
or disposal areas that cauM receive- TBP
wastes and the nearby downgradient
drinking water walls or intercept surface
waters. Depending on- the distance to
the Dearest well or environmental*
receptor, the- actual human health and
environmental risks could be-
substantially greater than or less titan
those estimated in the analysis
employed rn this: proposal.
At more sophisticated; analysis would.
also consider othar potential exposure
pathways in addition to consumption of
contaminated graundMater. For
exarflpter since THP*uader some soil
prFs M. Sfceigrttx l»r«r strongly to
particulars-suefc as soil, A« Agency is
concerned that disposal of these1 wastes
could result in soft Gontemmation
aromrd tfee disposal sfte- antf rnnmm
heaftfc an^efmnromentairiafa. The-
concBKtratiaa of 2,4,6 TBP in the floor
sweepings was very ftigjr (np'to 4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules 24539
EPA will evaluate carefully all public
comments and information received in
response to this notice, particularly data
which tend to support or refute a
finding of risk to human health and the
environment from TBP wastes. Based on
•the comments received, the Agency may
finalize or re-evaluate today's proposed
listing.
ii. Wastewaters. Data available to the
Agency suggests that tribromophenol is
produced only at the part of the one
major facility in which the wastewaters
are injected into non-hazardous deep
wells. As off-site management of these
wastewaters is probably economically
prohibitive, the Agency assumed for the
plausible mismanagement scenario that
the plant would continue the use of
underground injection. In order to
estimate risk, EPA had to estimate the
length of time injection would continue.
The Agency assumed that the plant
would inject these wastewaters for up to
60 years, at which point the production
of tribromophenol could end because
the supply of raw material could run
out. Because of the large volume of
wastewater generated by this process,
the Agency used more sophisticated
modelling than for the lower volume
wastes. Modelling of the risk due to the
management of the wastewaters from
TBP production in underground
injection was based on the use of three
linked submodels. The overall model
included:
(1) A submodel which simulates the
subsurface lateral migration of TBP from
the injection wells to nearby abandoned
oil wells penetrating the injection
horizons.
(2) A second submodel which
simulates the vertical migration of TBP
from the injection horizon upward to
the drinking water aquifer; and
(3) Finally, a submodel which
predicts the .lateral spreading of the
chemical from the abandoned oil well in
the drinking water aquifer and exposure
to vertically averaged concentrations
present in drinking water wells within
the aquifer.
It was assumed that the abandoned
wells are filled with compacted sand.
Results of the simulated runs are
presented in the background document
in terms of concentrations as-a function • •
of time for various exposure distances.
The initial concentration of
tribromophenol in the injected
wastewater was measured in record
sampling to be 7 mg/L and the health-
based level (based on a 10-« risk level)
was assumed to be 0.01 mg/L (using the
same high end exposure assumptions
described above for tribromophenol
solids). The modeling results showed
that the health-based level (based on a
ID-* risk) would be exceeded in the
upper aquifer after 60 years (the amount
of time the injection is expected to
continue) at very short distances (less
than 10 feet) from a leaking, abandoned,
and plugged (i.e., Slled with sand) oil
well. The results also indicated that the
plume of contamination would migrate
through the aquifer, away from,the
plugged oil well, and slowly dissipate
over time. Therefore, this plume of
contamination could result in exposure
to TBP over the health-based level
beyond a short distance from the
abandoned oil well, if a drinking water
well is drilled downgradient from that
abandoned oil well. However, this
exposure would probably be limited
because of the relatively small size of
the area in the migrating contaminated
plume where TBP is above 0.01 mg/L.
The Agency has also sampled.
drinking water wells at the plant site
and at a private facility 1.3 miles
distant. No tribromophenol was found
at a detection level of 0.001 mg/L. The
plant has been producing TBP since
1976. The absence of TBP in
groundwater at present, however, does
not completely preclude its presence at
a future date. Considering that TBP was
not detected in the aquifer and that the
model predicted only limited exposure
to TBP above the health-based number,
the Agency is proposing not to list this
wastestream because of relatively low
risk to human health.
However, the Agency recognizes that
the modeling results described above
are dependent on numerous
assumptions, including the injection
timeframe (i.e., 60 years) and the
number and characteristics of the
abandoned oil wells. Modifying certain
of these assumptions could significantly
change the results of this analysis. For
example, if the Agency assumes that the
abandoned oil well is unfilled,
underground injection of this
wastewater could result in a
Contamination plume (with TBP levels
above the health-based level) of up to
4000 feet from the well over 60 years
and even further away as the plume
continues to migrate after 60 years.
Also, depending on the exact location of
the drinking water well relative to the
-plume centerline, a person drinking
from that well could be exposed to a
high concentration of TBP (up to around
5 mg/L) for many years as the
contaminated plume moves by.
Therefore, the Agency solicits
comment on the assumptions used in
this modeling, particularly whether or
not some of them should be changed to
more accurately predict the risk
resulting from the underground injection
of these wastewaters. The Agency
specifically requests comment on the
following assumptions that are
..particularly important in this analysis:
(1) Should the timeframe for injection of
the tribromophenol wastewaters be extended
beyond 60 years?
(2) The model assumed that only one
abandoned well would be open to flow.
Should the Agency consider the potential for
more abandoned wells coming in contact
with the spreading plume?
(3) Should the Agency assume the
abandoned well(s) are plugged or unplugged?
Several other assumptions (used in
the modelling employed by the Agency),
individually or in combination, could
lead to an overestimation of actual risk
and the Agency is requesting comment
on them. They are:
(1) The Agency assumed that a break
occurs in an abandoned well shaft inside the
Sparta aquifer. What are the chances that no
breaks have occurred or will occur in the
aquifer in any of the many abandoned wells
in the area?
(2) The drinking water well was assumed.
to be drilled in the proximity of an
abandoned oil well. Is this a valid •
assumption?
(3) The model assumed an average
concentration of tribromophenol in the
Sparta aquifer. If the well tapping the
drinking water is nearer to the top of the
aquifer, as it most likely would be, would
this make a significant difference in the risk
level calculated?
(4) The Agency assumed that injection of
wastewaters and pumping from Sparta at the
site occurs during the same time frame.
Should the Agency consider the pumping
from Sparta will continue to occur after
injection of wastewater ceases, which could
affect the modelling calculation?
Finally, the Agency requests comment
on whether or not these tribromophenol
wastewaters should be listed as
hazardous waste based on modifications
to EPA's analysis or on any additional
data indicating groundwater
contamination from the underground
injection of these wastes.
determination models potential
contamination to a drinking water
source, it is not a finding under Section
144.12 of the UIC regulations. Those
regulations prohibit endangerment of
underground sources of drinking water
(USDWs) as defined under the UIC
program. A well which fails to meet this
requirement must be denied a permit or
placed under an enforcement action.
The threshold for a determination of
compliance with Section 144.12 is
different from, the threshold for listing a
waste as.hazardous under RCRA. The
test for compliance under the UIC
program is whether the well may cause
the movement of any contaminant into
a USDW in a manner that may cause a
-------
24540
Federal Register / Vol. 58, Ncx 9tt / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Roles
violation, of a primary drinking water
regulation, or may. otherwise adversely
affect the health of persoas-
The Agency is proposiag talst as
hazardous wast» solids and spent fillers
from S» production of 2,4,6-
tribrontopi«iol {KI4O) andthffoff-
specification and discarded1 product
(U408) based on. their projected
toxiciiifis. from structural activity
studies, and potential exposure to these
chemicals. EPA's decision- to propose
these additional hazardous waste
listings represents a determination by •
the Agency that the wastes identified
meet the criteria for listing as hazardous
wastes presented hi 4& CFR 261.11.
Specifically, based on available
evidence, we- Agency concludes that
2 ,4,6-tribitnrrtphenor is similar in
toxicity to its chlorinated analogue. EPA
is proposing that these wastes from
organobromines production be listed as
hazardous, and subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR parts 124, 262—
266, 268, 270, and 271 since they are
capable of posing a threat to- human
health and the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise handled.
Based on the data collected by the
Agency during the recent
organobromines industry study and the
unique conditions of the industry
regarding limitations to future
expansion, EPA believes there is
justification for a no-list determination
for wastes generated from the
production of most of the other
organobromine chemicals identified in
the consent decree (/.£.,
bromochloromethane, ethyl bromide,
octabromodiphenyl oxide and
deeabromodiphenvl oxide) and for the
waste waters from tribromophenol
production. After considering the
collected information and- data from
toxicological» chemical,
hydrogeological, and engineering
viewpoints, EPA has concluded that the
disposal of any wastes from these
processes that are not currently listed in
40 CFR part 261, subpart D do not pose
a substantial present or futtirs risk to
human health and the environment.
Therefore, at this time, EPA; is proposing
not to list as hazardous wastes any
additional wastes generated from the
production of these chemicals. The
Agency reserves, the right to revisit these
listing determinations if additional
relevant data become available. In
addition, the Agency is. deferring action
on the solids waste stream from the
production of tetrabroirtobisphenol-A.
m. Waste Urauaiaaikm QpportuxitK*
in the Industry
During the industry study, tike Agency
identified two potential opportunities
for w aste HiuiiiiHissrtian. T6e first
involves- the recovery of tribromophenol
m the tetrabrornob Jsphend-A sod
tribtomophenol process. ConHnereirf
bisphenot A is made! by- condensation of
phenol and acetone sad, hence-, the
feedstock contains some nnreaeted1
phenol. Record sampling of one
wastewater stream that leaves the
process hot revealed that it contained
up to 15,000 mg/L of-tribromopfeeriot. A
second unreteted wastewater stream
from the-protraction of tribromopflenrf
also contains about 70 ppm. This
chemfcal has a solubility of 7Q parts per
million at 25^C.. From the volumes of
wastewater generated, the-Agency
believes dtat enough material
potentially ocraH be recovered to
increase annual protraction of
tribromophenol by up to 70%. Cooling
and filtering, of this wastewater prior to
deep well disposal might recover
phenolics, limit the' quantity of
brormneted chemicals being disposed,
and reduce the plant's overall
requirements for purchased phenoL
Brominated phenol recovery also could
make recycling1 some process
wastewater viable, particularly in the
tribromophenol process where the
wastewater containing chiefly this
material is disposed of by deep weH
injection.
The second area where savings could
be achieved is hi product packaging.
Materials spilled in the packaging areas
are drummed and shipped to Subtitle C
facilities'. Presently, the two major
.manufacturers of organobromine
chemicals generate over 300 tons per
year of various spilled solid products.
Recovery of this material could result in
significant savings and benefit the
environment. The. Agency invites
comment on both waste minimization
options.
IV. Regulatory. Impact Analysis and
Compliance Costs
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant
to Executive Order 12866
• Executive Order No, 12866 requires
that a regulatory agency determine
whether a new regulation will have
"significant regulatory action" and, if
so, that a cost-benefit analysis be
conducted. This analysis is a
quantification of the potential benefits,
costs, and economic impacts of a rule.
A significant regulatory action is
defined as a regulation that has.an
annual cost to-the economy of StQQ
million or more that adversely affects in
a: material way &s economy, a sector of
jofas, tfa« enTirtmraenk. public health or'
safety, or state, looker Tnbti
gorennnents, or aanosunitus; creatas. a
serious incoDsistesjcy vritri actions taken
or planned by antitber i
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
peognmis. or the rights and obligations or
recipients thereof; or rafees novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or
the* principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
The Agency estimated die costs- of
today's proposed ntte to determine- if ft
is a significant reflation as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Today's
proposed rute is estimated to have an
annuaHxed ktcreiiaental cost of less than
$100,060. Based en this compliance cost
estimate, today's proposed rale is, not
considered to be & significant regulatory
action. This section of the preamble
discusses the resc'fts of the analyses of
the proposed rule.
Approach.
To estimate the costs, economic:
impacts, and benefits of today's
pmposed rule, the Agency compared
post-regulatory ceets, benefits, and
economic impacts with- those resulting
under baseline1 conditions. Benefits are
addressed in the risk assessment section
of this preamble. The baseline
management practices for this waste is
disposal in a Subtitle D landfill.
Results.
Due to the extremely small universe
of facilities- potentially affected by this
rule, the number of facilities actually
affected is insignificant. The
requirements promulgated by this
proposed rule-are estimated to cost
industry less than$100,000' peryear
assuming disposal in a Subtitle C
landfill.
The economic impact analysis
estimates that nor* of the affected
facilities would be significantly affected'
by the proposed rule. Compliance with
this proposed rules-is estimated to
increase operating expenses at affected
facilities by significantly less than one
percent. None of the affected facilities is
expected to close as a result of the rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysts
Pursuant to. the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et sec.,
whenever an agency publishes-a notice
of rulenialdng, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ('RFA)<
that describes the effect of the rule on
small entities (i^.r smalt businesses,
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. QO / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rales 24541
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions). This
analysis is unnecessary, however, if the
rule is estimated not to have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting an RFA, if over 20 percent
of the population of small entities is
Irfceiy to experience financial distress.
based on the costs of the rule, then the
Agency considers that the rufe will have
a significant impart on a substantial
number of small entities, and most
perform an KFA..EPA evaluated the
economic effect of the proposed rule, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, and determined that no facilities
would be significantly affected. The
Administrator certifies that part 268 and
part 148 will not have significant
economic effects on. a substantial
number of small entities. As a result of
this finding, the Agency has not
prepared a formal RFA.
C. Paperwork. Reduction, Act
This proposed rule does not contain
any new information collection
requirements under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction. Act, 44 U.S.C.
35O1 et seq. The information collection
requirements in this proposal were
promulgated in previous land disposal
restriction rulemakings and have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget. Since there are no new
information collection requirements
being proposed today, an Information
Collection Request has not been
prepared. However, facilities will have
to comply with existing Subtitle C
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for newly listed
wastestreams if today's proposals are
finalized.
was authorized to permit When newt,
more-stringent Federal requirements
were promulgated or enacted, the State
was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames.
New Federal requirements did not take
effect in an authorized State until the
State adopted the requirements as State
law.
In contrast, under Section 3GQ6{g} of
RCRA (42 U.S.C-6926(g)iBew
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSW A take effect m authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in unauthorized States. EPA is
directed to implement those-
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized States, including the
issuance of permits, until the State
modifies its program to reflect the
Federal standards, and applies for and
is granted authorization. While States
must still adopt HSWA-Hilated
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSW A applies in
authorized States in the interim.
Today's proposal for h'siting EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K140 and. U408
is being proposed pursuant to Section
3001(eJ(2j of RCRA, a provision, added
by HSWA. When the final rules are
promulgated, EPA will consider its
HSWA obligation to make a
determination regarding listing
organobromine wastes to be fulfilled.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
add these requirements to Table 1 in 40
CFR 27I.I(Q, which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all State-s, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for final authorization for the
HSWA provisions identified in 40 CFR
27T.l(j) Table 1, as discussed in the
following section of the preamble.
VI. State Program Implementation B- Effect on Sto*? Authorizations
A. Applicability of Rules in States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce RCRA programs
v/ithin the State. (See 40 CFR part 271
for the standards and requirements for
authorization.) Following authorization
EPA retains enforcement authority
under Sections 300S, 7003, and 3013 of
RCRA, although authorized States have
primary enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final RCRA authorization
administered its authorized hazardous
waste program entirely in lieu of EPA.
The Federal requirements no longer
applied in the authorized State, and
EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in the State which the State
As noted previously, today's rule is
being proposed pursuant to provisions
added by HSWA. The addition of IC140
to the list of hazardous wastes from
specific sources and the addition of
U408 to the list of commercial chemical
products that are hazardous when
discarded is proposed pursuant to
Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a provision
added by the HSWA.
As noted above, EPA will implement
the HSWA portions of today's rule (i.e.,
the addition of K140 to the list of
hazardous wastes from specific sources
and the addition of U408 to the list of
commercial chemical products that are
hazardous when discarded) hi
authorized States until they modify
their programs to adopt these rules and
such modifications are approved by
EPA. Because this rule will be
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
RCRA authorization under Section 3006
(b) and (g) on the basis that State
regnratronsaw snbstantiaify equivalent
or fully equivalent to EPA'S regulations.
The procedures and schedule for State
programs modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described rn 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted'that alt HSWA interim
authorizations will expire on January 1,
2003 (see 4O CFRZTI^tcJl.. 52 FR
6012S, December 18, 1992.
It should be noted that 40 CFR
271.21(eJ requires that States having
final RCRA authorization, must modify
their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and subsequently must
submit the modifications, to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which States
must modify their programs to adopt
today's proposed rule will be
determined by the date of promulgation
of the final rule in accordance with 4Q
CFR271.21leM2). Onee EPA approves
the modification, the State requirements
become RCRA. Subtitle C requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs already may have regulations
similar to those proposed, in today's
rule. Such State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being proposed today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization.. Thus, these State
regulations will not be deemed as RCRA
requirements until the State program
modification is submitted to EPA and
approved. Of course, States, with
existing regulations may continue to
administer and enforce those
regulations as a matter of State law. hi
addition, in implementing the Federal
program, EPA will wosk with the States
under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts; in. many
cases, EPA will be able to. defer to the
States in their efforts to implement their
programs, rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of EPA's regulations am not required to
include regulations equivalent to the
EPA regulations in their appficatian-
However, States must modify their
programs by the deadlines set forth in
40 CFR 271.21(e). States that submit
official applications for final
authorization 12 months, afterthe
effective date of these standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in then- application.. The
requirements States must meet when
submitting final authorization
-------
24542 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 1 Proposed Rules
applications are set forth in 40 CFR
271.3.
VII. CERCLA Designation and RQ
Adjustment
All hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
261.31 through 261.33, as well as any
solid waste that meets one or more of
the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined at 40 CFR 261.21
through 261.24), are hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended (CERCLA), pursuant
to CERCLA Section 101(14) 42 U.S.C.
9601 (14)(c), CERCLA hazardous
substances are listed in Table 302,4 at
40 CFR 302.4 along with their reportable
quantities (RCis^ Therefore, in addition
to the K140 listing being proposed today
for 40 CFR 261.32 and the U408 listing
being proposed for 40 CFR 261.33,
entries for K140 and U408 also are being
proposed for Table 302.4 of 40 CFR
302.4,
Reporting Requirements* Under
CERCLA Section 103(a). the person in
charge of a vessel or facility from which
a hazardous substance has been released
in a quantity that equals or exceeds its
RQ must immediately notify the
National Response Center of the release
(see 40 CFR part 302).' In addition to
this reporting requirement under
CERCLA. Section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.
11004, requires owners or operators of '
certain facilities to report the release of
a CERCLA hazardous substance to State
and local authorities. EPCRA Section
304 notification must be given
immediately after the release of an RQ
or more to the community emergency
coordinator of the local emergency
planning committee for each area likely
to be affected by the release, and to the
State emergency planning commission
of any State likely to be affected by the
release.
Adjustment ofBQs, Under Section
102|bS of CERCLA, all hazardous wastes
newly designated under CERCLA will
have a statutory RQ of one pound unless
and until adjusted by regulation. The
Agency's methodology for adjusting RQs
of individual hazardous substances
begins with an evaluation of the
intrinsic physical, chemical, and
lexicological properties of each
hazardous substance.2 The intrinsic
properties examined—called "primary
criteria"—are aquatic toxicity,
mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and
inhalation), ignitability, reactivity,
chronic toxicity, and potential
carcinogenicity. Generally, for each
intrinsic property, the Agency ranks
hazardous substances on a scale,
associating a specific range of values on
each scale with an RQof 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.s This adjustment is made
because the relative potential for harm
to public health or we.lfare or the
environment posed by the release of
such a substance is reduced by these
degradative processes. Conversely, if a
hazardous substance degrades to a more
hazardous product after its release, the
original substance is assigned an RQ
equal to the RQ for the more hazardous
substance, which may be one or more
levels lower than the RQ for the original
substance. The downward adjustment is
appropriate because the hazard posed
by the release of the original substance
is increased as a result of BHP.
The methodology summarized above
is applied to adjust the RQs of
individual hazardous substances. An
additional process applies to RCRA
listed wastes, which contain individual
hazardous substances as constituents.
As the Agency has stated (54 FR 33440,
August 14,1989), to assign an RQto 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.
* The toil free telephone number of the National
Kcspons* Center is 800-424-8802; in the
V.«istMRgKffi.BC metropolitan area, the number is
202-267-2675,
2 Far more detailed information on (His
rnflshodalogy, see the preamble 10 an RQ adjustment
Anal rule published on August 14,1989 (54 FR
33426). A different methodology is used to assign
adjusted RQs to radkmudtdes (see 54 FR 22524,
May 24,1989).
-'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 ra'dionuclides), BHP is not
applied to radionuclides.
Proposed Adjusted HQs/or U408 and
K140. Waste U408 is 2,4,6-
tribrornophenol, an individual
hazardous substance. It has been
evaluated for four of the six primary RQ
adjustment criteria—aquatic toxicity,
mammalian toxicity, ignitability, and
reactivity—and the secondary
adjustment criteria (BHP). Based on this
evaluation, the Agency today is
proposing an adjusted RQ of 100
pounds for 2.4.6 •tribromophenol.
The Agency's evaluations of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol for the other two
primary RQ adjustment criteria (chronic
toxicity and potential carcinogenicity)
are not yet complete. If, when
completed, these evaluations result in
an RQ lower than the 100-pound RQ
proposed today, the Agency will
repropose the RQ for 2,4,6-
tribrornophenol at the lower level.
The other waste, K14Q, is a waste
stream, with only one hazardous
constituent—2,4,6-tribromophenol.
Therefore, in accordance with the RQ
adjustment methodology described
above, an adjusted RQ of 100 pounds is
being proposed today for K140. Because
the RQ for K140 is based on the RQ for
2,4,6-tribromophenol, any raproposal of
the 2,4,6-tribromophenol RQ required
by further evaluation will be
accompanied by a corresponding
reproposal of the RQ for K140, :
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C, 601-612), whenever an
Agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions). No RFA is required,
however, if the head of the Agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Since EPA has determined the
hazardous wastes proposed for listing
here are not gentsrated by small entities
(as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act), and the Agency believes that small
entities will not generate them in
significant quantities, this regulation,
therefore, does not require a RFA.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
-------
Federal Register / Voi. 53, No. 9O / Wednesday. May tl, J*» / Proposed Rtrfes 24543
IX, Compliance aaod. Implementation
A. Section 3OHff Notification
Generally, when new hazardous
wastes, are listed* all persons who
generate, transport, treat.-stom, or
dispose the newly listed wastes(s) are
required to notify either EPA, or a State
authorized by EPA to. operate the
hazardous, waste program, of their
activities pursuant to Section 3X110. of
RCRA. However, under the Solid Waste
Disposal Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L.
96-482), EPA was given the option, of .
waiving the notification requirement for
persons who handle wastes that are
covered by today's proposed listing and
already have notified EPA that they
manage-other hazardous wastes and
have received an EPA identification
number. This waiver is being proposed
because of the likelihood that persons
managing today's proposed wastes
already are managing one or more
hazardous wastes that generally are
associated with the generation of
proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
Kl-40 and U408 and, therefore, have
previously notified EPA and received an
EPA identification number, hi the event
that any person who generates,
transports, treats, stores, or disposes
these wastes and has not previously
notified and received an identification
number, that person must obtain an
identification number pursuantto 40
CFR 262.12 before that person can
generate, transport, treat, store, or .
dispose of these wastes.
B. Compliance Dates for Facilities
Today's proposed listings will be
promulgated pursuant toHSWA. HSWA
requirements are applicable in
authorized States at the same time as in
unauthorized States. Therefore, EPA
will regulate the wastes being proposed
today until States are authorized to
regulate these wastes. Once these
regulations are promulgated in a final
rule by EPA, the Agency will apply
these Federal regulations, to-these wastes
and to their management in both
authorized and unauthorized States.
Newly-regulated facilities (i.e..
facilities at which the only hazardous
wastes that are managed are today's
proposed wastes in units subject to
permit requirements when these listings
are finalized) must qualify for interim
status within six months of publication
of the rule in order to continue
managing these wastes in such units. To
retain interim status, a newly-regulated
land disposal facility must submit a part
H permit application within eighteen
months after publication of the rule and
certify that the facility is in compliance
with all applicable ground-water
monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements (see RCRA Section
3005(e)(3)).
Interim-status foeiKties that manage
today's propose*! wastes afterthese
listings-are promulgated, mast file- an
amended Fart A permit application
!il_?! _» .1 J» 1 »
within* six months of publication- of the
final rule if they are to continue
managing these wastes in units that
require a permit. The facilities must file
the necessary amendments by the
effective date of the rule, or they will
Botretain interim- status with respect to
today's proposed wastes.
Currently permitted facilities that
manage today's proposed wastes after
their listings are- finalized' by EPA must
request permit modifications if they are
to continue management of these wastes
in- units that require a permit. Since EPA
initially will be responsible for
processing these- permit EnodifieatioRS,
the new Federal procedures, for permit
modifications will be followed (see 53
FR 37934, September 2», 198&)t These
new procedures contain a specific
provision, for newly listed or identified
wastes- (see 40 CFR Z70-.42(g)). This .
provision generally requiires that a
permitted facility that is "in existence"
for the newly listed or identified waste
on the effective date of the waste listing
must submit a Class 1 modification by
that date. Essentially; this modification
notifies- the Agency and the public that
the facility is handling the waste and
identifies the units involved. By
submitting this notice, the facility
temporarily is allowed to continue
management of the newly-listed wastes
until the Agency can make a final
change to the permit. Next, within 180
days of the effective date the permittee <
must submit a more detailed permit
modification request (i.e., a Class 2 or 3
modification). This information witt be
used by the Agency to develop a final
permit change. For more information on
permit modifications see the September
28,198a preamble discussion
referenced above,
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protectianv Hazardous
wastes. Recycling, Reportiag and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Confidential business infoimation,
Hazardous materials transportation.
Hazardous waste, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations. Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Waterstrppiy.
4G CFR Part 302
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Emergency Planning and* Community
Rigfct-To-Know Act, Extremely
hazardous substances, Hazardous
chemicals. Hazardous- materials,
Hazardous, materials transportation,
Hazardous, substances. Hazardous
wastes, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources. Pesticides and pests,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Waste
treatment aact disposal. Water pollution
control. Water supply.
Dated: April 29,1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40" of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
Part 261—ffiCNTtHCATtQt* AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
2. In §-261.32 tha table is amended by
adding in numerical order the waste
stream entry "K140" under the
subgroup heading "Organic chemicals:"
to read as follows:
§261.32 Hazardous wastes.troot specific
sources.
Industry
and EPA „ __
tenant- Hazardous waste Hazard
ous coae
waste No.
KMO— Waste solids, and fitter
cartridges from the
production of 2,4,&-
tribromophenol.
3- In §261.33(0 the table is. amended
by adding in numerical order the entry
"U408" to read as follows:
f 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species,
container residues, and spill residues
thereof.
(f)« '• *
-------
24544 Federal Register /Vol. 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules
Hazardous
waste No.
Chemical
abstracts
No.
Substance
U408 . 118-79-6 2,4*6-
Tribromophenol.
4
nme
i. Appendix VII to part 261 is
ended by adding the folloWin]
following waste
stream in alphanumeric order to read as APPENDIX VII.—BASIS FOR LISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE—Continued
follows:
APPENDIX VII.—BASIS FOR LISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents
for which listed
EPA hazardous
waste No.
-Hazardous constituents
for which listed
K140 2,4,6-Tribrornophenol.
5. Appendix VEtt to part 261 is
amended by adding the following
hazardous constituent in alphabetical
order:
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261.—HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
Common name
Chemical abstracts name
Chemical
abstracts
No.
Hazardous
waste No.
2,4,6-Tnbromophenol ........ »- Tribromophenol, 2,4,6 .1..
118-7&-6 U408
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
6, The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 690S, 6912(a), and 6926.
7, Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to table 1 in chronological order by date of publication
to read as follows.
§271.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * : *;: :;:;: ; *
tj) * • *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Title of regulation
FEDERAL REGISTER reference
Effective date
[Insert date of publication of final Listing of Organobromine Produc- [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER ref- [Insert date 180 days after date of
ru'e in FEDERAL REGISTER], tton Wastes. erence to final rule]. publication of final rule in the
FEDERAL REGISTER.)
PART 302—DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
6. The authority citation for part 3Q2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602. 9603. and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
7, Section 302.4 is proposed to be amended by adding entries for "K14D" and "U408" to 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 REPORTASLE QUANTITIES
[Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]
Hazardous substance
CASRN
Regulatory
synonyms
Statutory
Final RQ
RQ Codet
RCRNo Catea0fy Pounds (Kg)
K140 Waste solids and filter cartridges from the
production of 2,4,6-tribromophenol.
1*
4 K140
100 (45.4)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Proposed Rules 24545
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES—Continued
[Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]
*
U408
Hazardous substance
« •
2, 4, 6,-Tribromophenol
PACRM Regulatory
U«O«N synonyms
•
118796 ._
Statutory.
RQ Codet wa^No. <**!
* *
1* 4 U408 B
Final AQ
ory Pounds (Kg)
*
100(45.4)
t—Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1,2,3, and 4 below. ' '
A—Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA section 3001.
r—Indicates that the 1-ppund RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ. •
# #—The Agency may adjust the statutory RQ for this hazardous substance! in a future rulemaking; untit then the statutory RQ applies.
8. Appendix A to §302.4 is amended Appendix A to §302.4.—SEQUENTIAL
by adding an entry in numerical order CAS REGISTRY NUMBER LIST OF
toreadasfolkws: CERCLA HAZARDOUS SUB-
„ . _„_„ „ . STANCES—Continued
Appendix A to §302.4.—SEQUENTIAL
CAS REGISTRY NUMBER LIST OF CASRN Hazardous substance .
CERCLA'HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
CASRN Hazardous substance
[FR Doc. 94-11189 Filed 5-10-94; 8:45 am]
• BILLING CODE 65«W(M»
118796 2,4,6^-Tribromophenol.
-------
------- |