Wednesday
August 25, 1999
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 264, 265, 268,
271, and 302
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Chlorinated Aliphatics Production
Wastes; Land Disposal Restrictions for
Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA
Hazardous Substance Designation and
Reportable Quantities; Proposed Rule
-------
46476
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
! 40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 264,265,268,
271, and 302
[SWH-FRL-6413-4]
R1N2050-AD85
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Chlorinated
Aliphatics Production Wastes; Land
I Disposal Restrictions for Newly
I Identified Wastes; and CERCLA
Hazardous Substance Designation and
I Reportable Quantities
ill, '" i, AGENCY: Environmental Protection
:;rj: Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to list
I three of six wastes from the chlorinated
aliphatics industry as hazardous wastes
urider the, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), which directs
EPA to determine whether certain
wastes from the chlorinated aliphatics
industry present a hazard to human
nealth or the environment. The effect of
listing these three wastes will be to
subject them to stringent management
arid treatment standards under RCRA
and to subject them to emergency
notification requirements for releases of
hazardous substances to the
environment. EPA is proposing a
contingent-management listing
approach for one of these wastes, and as
one of two options for another of these
wastes, such that waste generators will
have the pption of their waste not being
listed if it is sent to a specific type of
| : \,,, management facility.
DAJES: EpA will accept public
comments on this proposed rule until
I IJgyernber 23, 1999. Comments
•'.' £ pSi'tmarkecl after this date will be
marked "late" and may not be
considered. Any person may request a
public hearing on this proposal by filing
a request by September 8. 1999.
^ sn"" AM}RKSE§:ilf you wish to comment on
tfjls proposed rule, you must send an
,::!: original and two copies of the comments
referencing docket number F-1999-
CALP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Mprmation Center, Office of Solid
Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,
.H.Q). 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460,. Hand deliveries of
comments; should be made to the
Arlington, VA, address listed in the
fourth paragraph of SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. You also may submit
cbrnments electronically by sending
electronic mail through the Internet to:
rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. See the
beginning of SUPPLEMENTARY
INFpRMATION for instructions on
electronic submission.
You should not submit electronically
any confidential business information
(CBI). You must submit an original and
two copies of CBI under separate cover
to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305 W), U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460. See the beginning of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on viewing public
comments and supporting materials.
Address requests for a hearing to Mr.
David Bussard at: Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Identification Division
(5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460, (703) 308-8880.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the RCRA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800)
553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area,
call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-
3323. For information on specific
aspects of the rule, contact Ross Elliott
of the Office of Solid Waste (5304 W),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
20460. [E-mail addresses and telephone
numbers: elliott.ross@epamail.epa.gov,
(703) 308-8748.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : You
should identify comments in electronic
format with the docket number F-1999-
CALP-FFFFF. You must submit all
electronic comments as an ASCII (text)
file, avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
If you do not submit comments
electronically, EPA is asking
prospective commenters to voluntarily
submit one additional copy of their
comments on labeled personal computer
diskettes in ASCII (text) format or a
word processing format that can be
converted to ASCII (text). It is essential
to specify on the disk label the word
processing software and version/edition
as well as the commenter's name. This
will allow EPA to convert the comments
into one of the word processing formats
utilized by the Agency. Please use
mailing envelopes designed to
physically protect the submitted
diskettes. EPA emphasizes that
submission of comments on diskettes is
not mandatory, nor will it result in any
advantage or disadvantage to any
commenter. Supporting documents in
the docket for this Notice are also
available in electronic format on the
Internet. Follow these instructions to
access these documents.
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/id
FTP: ftp.epa/gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/gopher/
OSWRCRA.
EPA will keep the official record for
this action in paper form. Accordingly,
we will transfer all comments received
electronically into paper form and place
them in the official record, 'which will
also include all comments submitted
directly in writing. The official record is
the paper record maintained at the
address in ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this document.
EPA responses to comments, whether
the comments are written or electronic,
will be in a notice in the Federal
Register or in a response to comments
document placed in the official record
for this rulemaking. We will not
immediately reply to commenters
electronically other than to seek
clarification of electronic comments that
may be garbled in transmission or
during conversion to paper form, as
discussed above.
You may view public comments and
supporting materials in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at
Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays. To review docket
materials, we recommend that you make
an appointment by calling (703) 603-
9230. You may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory docket at no
charge. Additional copies cost S0.15/
page. For information on accessing
paper and/or electronic copies of the
document, see the first paragraph of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Customer Service
How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on
This Proposed Rule?
In developing this proposal, we tried
to address the concerns of all our
stakeholders. Your comments will help
us improve this rule. We invite you to
provide different views on options we
propose, new approaches we haven't
considered, new data, how this rule may
affect you, or other relevant information.
We welcome your views on all aspects
of this proposed rule, but we request
comments in particular on the items
indicated at the end of each section.
Your comments will be most effective if
you follow the suggestions below:
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible and provide a summary of the
reasoning you used to arrive at your
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 1647 Wednesday, August 25, 1999/ Proposed Rules 46477
conclusions, as well as examples to
illustrate your views, where possible.
• Provide solid technical and cost
data to support your views.
• If you estimate potential costs,
explain how you arrived at your
estimate.
• Tell us which parts you support, as
well as those with which you disagree.
• Offer specific alternatives.
• Reference your comments to
specific sections of the proposal, such as
the sections or page numbers of the
preamble, or the regulatory citations.
• Remember that your comments
must be submitted by the deadline in
this notice.
• Include the name, date, and docket
number with your comments.
Contents of This Proposed Rule
The contents of the preamble to this
proposed rule are listed in the following
outline:
I. Overview
A. Who Potentially Will Be Affected by This
Proposed Rule?
B. Why Does This Rule Read Differently
From Other Listing Rules?
C. What Are the Statutory Authorities for
This Rule?
II. Background
A. Schedule Suit
B. Existing Chlorinated Aliphatics Listings
HI. Today's Action
A. Summary of Today's Action
1. Scope of the Listing Determination
2. Summary of the Proposed Listing
Determinations
3. Summary of the Remainder of This
Preamble
B. Description of the Industry
C. Overview of EPA's Information Collection
Activities
1. Field Investigations and Sampling
2. RCRA Section 3007 Survey
D. What Are the Risks Associated With
Management of Wastewaters and
Wastewater Treatment Sludges From the
Production of Chlorinated Aliphatic
Chemicals?
1. What Are the Risks for Potential Human
Receptors?
2. What Are the Potential Risks for
Ecological Receptors?
3. Did EPA Conduct a Peer Review of the
Risk Assessment?
E. Waste-Specific Listing Determination
Rationales
1. Chlorinated Aliphatics Wastewaters
2. EDC/VCM Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
3. VCM-A Wastewater Treatment Sludges
4. Methyl Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
5. Allyl Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
F. Constituents Proposed for Addition to
Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261
IV. Economic Analysis
A. What Is the Purpose of the Economic
Analysis?
B. How May the Public Participate in the
Economic Analysis?
C. How Are Chlorinated Aliphatic Chemicals
Used in the Economy?
D. Where Are CAHCs Manufactured in the
United States?
E. Have CAHCs Been Produced Historically
in Other Locations in the United States?
F. What Are the Estimated Potential Industry
Costs of This Listing?
V. Proposed Treatment Standards Under
RCRA's Land Disposal Restrictions
A. What Are EPA's Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs)?
B. How Does EPA Develop LDR Treatment
Standards?
C. What Kind of Treatment Standards Are
Proposed?
D. Other LDR-Related Provisions
E. What Standards Are Proposed for K173?
F. What Standards Are Proposed for K174?
G. What Standards Are Proposed for K175?
H. What Other Land Disposal Restrictions
Aspects Are There to the Proposal?
I. Is There Treatment Capacity for the
Proposed Wastes?
VI. Compliance Dates
A. Notification
B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities
VII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VIII. Designation of Chlorinated Aliphatic
Wastes (K173, K174 and K175) Under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
A. What Is the Relationship Between RCRA
and CERCLA?
B. Is EPA Proposing To Add Chlorinated
Aliphatic Wastes to CERCLA?
C. How Does EPA Determine Reportable
Quantities?
D. When Do I Need to Report a Release of
K173, K174 or K175 Under CERCLA?
E. What if I Know the Concentration of the
Constituents in My Waste?
F. How Did EPA Determine the RQs for K173,
K174 and K175 and Their Hazardous
Constituents?
G. How Do I Report a Release?
H. What Is the Statutory Authority for This
Program?
I. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on
Regulating K173, K174 and K175 Under
CERCLA?
IX. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Risks and
Safety Risks
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental
Justice
I. Overview
A. Who Potentially Will Be Affected by
This Proposed Rule?
Beginning January 1, 1999 all
documents related to USEPA's
regulatory, compliance and enforcement
activities including rules, policies,
interpretive guidance, and site-specific
determinations with broad application,
should properly identify the regulated
entities, including descriptions that
correspond to the applicable SIC codes
or NAICS codes (source: 09 October
1998 USEPA memo from Peter D.
Robertson, Acting Deputy Administrator
of USEPA). Today's action, if finalized,
could potentially affect those who
handle the wastes that EPA is proposing
to add to the Agency's list of hazardous
wastes under the RCRA program. This
action also may affect entities that may
need to respond to releases of these
wastes as CERCLA hazardous
substances. These potentially-affected
entities are described in the Economics
Background Document placed in the
docket in support of today's proposed
rule; a summary is shown in the table
below.
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE USEPA's 1999 CHLORINATED ALIPHATICS MANUFACTURING
WASTE LISTING PROPOSAL ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE SIC AND NAICS CODES
Item
1
2
Parent
company
SIC code
1311
1400
Industry sector name
Mining: Crude petroleum and natural gas
Mining: Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels _
Number of
U.S.
relevant
CAHC mfg.
facilities*
3
2
Parent
company
NAICS code
equivalent**
911111
212300
-------
46478
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE USEPA's 1999 CHLORINATED ALIPHATICS MANUFACTURING
WASTE LISTING PROPOSAL ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE SIC AND NAICS CODES—Continued
Item
3 ,
4
§
6
7
8
8
10
1!
Parent
company
SIC code
2295
2800
2810
2812
2821
2851
2869
2911
3600
Industry sector name
Manufacturing: Coated fabrics, not rubberized
Manufacturing: Chemicals & allied products
Manufacturing: Chemicals & allied products
Manufacturing: Alkalies & chlorine manufacture
Manufacturing: Plastics materials & resins ....
Manufacturing: Paints & allied products . .
Manufacturing: Industrial organic chemicals, nee
Manufacturing: Petroleum refining
Manufacturing: Electronic & other electric equipment .
Total Applicable Facilities
Number of
U.S.
relevant
CAHC-rnfg.
facilities*
•)
1
•j
0
•]
•)
•)
•)
23
Parent
company
NAICS code
equivalent**
0-1 OOO
*aocnnn
oocnnn
OOC-iO-1
OOCO1 1
OOC-1 4
0041 1
oocnnrj
I ;
•The number of relevant facilities is based on the (a) type of CAHC products manufactured, (b) types of wastes generated, and (c) baselin
waste management practices, in relation to the terms and conditions of the proposed listing options. However, all CAHC manufacturing facilitie
in each industrial sector code may not be affected by the proposed listing options.
"OSW-EMRAD derived the NAICS code equivalents above from the SIC-to-NAICS conversion tables provided by the US Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, at the following website: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naicstab.htm. There is no direct match in the SIC-
NAICS conversion tables for SIC codes 1400, 2800, 2810, and 3600, so a generalized six-digit NAICS code is provid
cases.
provided above for these four
The list of potentially affected entities
in the above table may not be
exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a
guide for readers regarding entities
likely to* be regulated by this action.
This table lists those entities that EPA
is aware potentially could be affected by
this action. However, this action may
affect other entities not listed in the
table. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should examine 40 CFR 260 and 261
carefully in concert with the proposed
rules amending RCRA that are found at
the end of this Federal Register notice.
If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding section entitled
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. Why Does This Rule Read Differently
From Other Listing Rules?
Today's proposed listing
determination preamble and regulations
are written in "readable regulations"
format. The authors tried to use active
rather than passive voice, plain
language, a question-and-answer format,
the pronouns "we" for EPA and "you"
for the owner/generator, and other
techniques to make the information in
today's rule easier to read and
understand. This new format is part of
the Agency's efforts at regulatory
reinvention, and it makes today's rule
read differently from other listing rules.
The Agency believes that this new
format will increase readers' abilities to
understand the regulations, which
should then increase compliance, make
enforcement easier, and foster better
relationships between EPA and the
regulated community.
C. What Are the Statutory Authorities
for This Rule?
These regulations are being proposed
under the authority of Sections 2002(a),
3001 (b), 3001 (e) (2) and 3007(a) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.
6912(a), 692l(b) and (e)(2), and 6927(a)
as amended several times, most
importantly by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
These statutes commonly are 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 6992(k) (42
U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)).
Section 102 (a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is the
authority under which the CERCLA
aspects of this rule are being proposed.
II. Background
A. Schedule Suit
In 1989, the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) sued the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), in part for
failing to meet the statutory deadlines of
Section 3001 (e) (2) of RCRA (EDF vs.
Browner; Civ. No. 89-0598 D.D.C.). To
resolve most of the issues in the case,
EDF and EPA entered into a consent
decree, which has been amended
several times to revise dates. The
consent decree sets put deadlines for
promulgating certain RCRA rules and
for completing certain studies and
reports. Paragraph 1. m. of the consent
decree obliges EPA to propose a
hazardous waste listing determination
for wastewaters and wastewater
treatment sludges generated from the
production of specified chlorinated
aliphatic chemicals. The wastewater
and wastewater treatment sludges
subject to the consent decree are those
from the production of chlorinated
aliphatics for which other process
wastes already have been designated as
hazardous waste F024 in 40 CFR 261.31.
According to the consent decree, EPA
must propose listing determinations by
July 30, 1999 and promulgate final
listing determinations on or before
September 30, 2000. Today EPA is
proposing listing determinations for
these wastes in accordance with the
consent decree.
B. Existing Chlorinated Aliphatics
Listings
Today's proposal does not affect the
scope of the chlorinated aliphatics
process wastes that already have been
listed as hazardous in prior EPA
rulemakings. These wastes include
wastes designated as hazardous waste
code F024 as well as a number of other
chlorinated aliphatic wastes listed
below in Table II-1. EPA is not
soliciting comment on these existing
hazardous waste listings and does not
intend to respond to such comments, if
received.
Likewise, EPA is not soliciting
comments in today's rule on the
applicability of the existing chlorinated
aliphatics listings to the provisions of
CERCLA. Wastes listed as hazardous
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46479
under RCRA are by definition hazardous
substances under CERCLA, and are
included in the list of hazardous
substances in 40 CFR 302.4, along with
their corresponding reportable
quantities ("RQs"). Hazardous
substance RQs are those quantities of
the designated chemical or waste that
trigger certain reporting requirements if
released to the environment. The
previously listed hazardous wastes from
chlorinated aliphatics production and
their corresponding RQs are listed
below in Table II-1.
TABLE 11-1.—LIST OF CURRENTLY-REGULATED CHLORINATED ALIPHATIC PROCESS WASTES AND CORRESPONDING
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES AS CERCLA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hazardous substance
RQ pounds
(KG)
F024—Process wastes, including but not limited to, distillation residues, heavy ends, tars, and reactor cleanout wastes from the
production of certain chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, by free radical catalyzed processes. These chlorinated aliphatic hy-
drocarbons are those having carbon chain lengths ranging from one to and including five, with varying amounts and positions
of chlorine substitution. [This listing does not include wastewaters, wastewater treatment sludges, spent catalysts and wastes
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or 261.32.] '.
F025—Condensed light ends, spent filters and filter aids, and spent dessicant wastes from the production of certain chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons, by free radical catalyzed processes. These chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons are those having car-
bon chain lengths ranging from one to and including five, with varying amounts and positions of chlorine substitution
K016—Heavy ends or distillation residues from the production of carbon tetrachloride. ..'.......
K018—Heavy ends from the fractionation column in ethyl chloride production
K019—Heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride production
K020—Heavy ends from the distillation of vinyl chloride in vinyl chloride monomer production ".".".'.'.'.'".".
K028—Spent catalyst from the hydrochlorinator reactor in the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
K029—Waste from the product steam stripper in the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
K030—Column bottoms or heavy ends from the combined production of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene !..!"."!.".""."
K095—Distillation bottoms from the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
K096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends column from the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane '.".'.
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
III. Today's Action
A. Summary of Today's Action
1. Scope of the Listing Determination
Aliphatic hydrocarbons are
compounds composed of the atoms of
hydrogen and carbon, where the carbon
atoms are linked by covalent bonds in
an open-chain (straight and branched)
structure, and those cyclic compounds
that resemble the open-chain
compounds. Aliphatics are
distinguished from aromatic
hydrocarbons, which are defined as
benzene and compounds that resemble
benzene in chemical behavior. For an
aliphatic to be chlorinated, one or more
hydrogen atoms have been chemically
replaced with chlorine atoms. The
chlorinated aliphatic chemicals, the
wastes of which are described in the
(existing) F024 listing description, and
identified in the consent decree, are
those produced by free-radical catalyzed
processes with carbon chain lengths
ranging from one to five.
EPA performed an initial review and
investigation of the waste categories
identified in the consent decree, as well
as a review of chlorinated aliphatics
production processes and the
wastewaters and wastewater treatment
sludges generated by these processes.
The Agency decided, for the purpose of
studying chlorinated aliphatic wastes, to
divide the wastestreams into several
distinct waste groupings. Waste
groupings were defined to differentiate
between unique residuals, as well as to
differentiate between unique
management practices (e.g., on-site land
treatment) and/or particular
constituents (e.g., mercury). The Agency
segregated chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters into two groupings, with
one group being wastewaters generated
from the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process.
These wastewaters were evaluated as
one group due to the unique nature of
this production process, the fact that
these wastewaters are treated in a
dedicated wastewater treatment system,
and the presence of mercury in the
wastestream. All other chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters were included in
a second group and evaluated
collectively. The Agency found that
many producers of chlorinated
aliphatics manufacture several different
chlorinated aliphatic products at a
single facility and commingle the
wastewaters generated by all processes
prior to treatment in a single wastewater
treatment system.
The Agency identified four waste
groupings for wastewater treatment
sludges generated by the chlorinated
aliphatics industry. These waste
groupings were defined based primarily
upon the particular management
practices used to manage the wastes, but
also based on particular production
processes. The Agency identified four
waste groups for chlorinated aliphatics
wastewater treatment sludges. These
waste groups include sludges generated
from the treatment of wastewaters from
the production of:
• Ethylene dichloride and/or vinyl
chloride monomer (EDC/VCM);
• Vinyl chloride monomer using
mercuric chloride catalyst in an
acetylene-based process (VCM-A);
• Methyl chloride; and
• allyl chloride.
The scope of today's notice does not
include any other process residuals
generated by the chlorinated aliphatics
industry. In particular, the Agency is
not re-evaluating previous listing •
determinations concerning wastes
generated by chlorinated aliphatics
production processes.
The Agency also points out that the
consent decree specifies that this listing
determination "shall include
wastewaters and wastewater treatment
sludges generated from the production
of chlorinated aliphatics specified in the
F024 listing" (a listing which is limited
to wastes from chlorinated aliphatic
production using the "free radical
catalyzed process" but does not include
wastewaters or wastewater treatment
sludges). However, for today's proposed
rule the Agency did not restrict its
evaluation of wastewaters and
wastewater treatment sludges to only
those generated from chlorinated
aliphatics manufacturers using the free
radical catalyzed process. In the
rulema'king for the F024 listing (which
includes process wastes such as
distillation residues, heavy ends, and
tars, but not wastewaters and
-------
46480
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
wastewater treatment sludges) we found
that there were distinct differences in
the amount and type of chemical
constituents present in these production
wastes as a direct result of the
production process used. For example,
the free radical catalyzed reactions
tended to produce unwanted organic
compounds, as well as the desired
chemical product, because this type of
reaction is less specific (in terms of
desired product) than other types of
processes used. As a result, the
chemical constituents that were the
basis for listing F024 includes many
organic compounds that are more
prevalent in process wastes (again, tars,
heavy ends, etc.) generated from the free
radical catalyzed process.
However, in developing the
information for today's proposed listing,
EPA was concerned that limiting the
scope of the investigation to free radical
catalyzed processes might not be
appropriate because of the different
nature of wastewaters and wastewater
treatment sludges as compared with the
F024 process wastes. Wastewaters may
be generated in different ways,
including from scrubber waters, cooling
waters, as well as reaction media, etc.
Ultimately, our primary reason for not
restricting our evaluation of wastewaters
and wastewater treatment sludges to
those generated by free radical catalyzed
processes is that our preliminary
analysis of these wastes indicated that
the constituents of concern (i.e.,
dioxins, chloroform, arsenic) were not
the same as the constituents of concern
associated with the previously-listed
F024 and F025 wastes. In those previous
listing determinations (which did not
include wastewaters or wastewater
treatment sludges) the Agency was able
to distinguish risk levels of concern
based upon particular production
processes,
In the case of today's proposed listing
determination, we were not able to
make such a distinction. The primary
constituents of concern in the wastes we
are proposing to list as hazardous in
today's notice are dioxins, whereas
dioxins were not a basis for listing the
F024 and F025 wastes. Data currently
available to the Agency does not
support a conclusion that wastewaters
and wastewater treatment sludges
generated by free radical catalyzed
processes have significantly different
concentrations of dioxins than other
types of production processes used to
manufacture chlorinated aliphatics.
However, EPA requests comment and
data addressing the issue of whether one
type of manufacturing process (e.g., free
radical catalyzation) versus all other
potential processes (e.g., ionic catalyzed
processes) would result in different
levels of dioxins in the resulting
wastestream. The Agency will consider
modifying the listing description
proposed in today's rulemaking as
appropriate to account for distinctions
identified in information available to
EPA at the time of the final rule.
2. Summary of the Proposed Listing
Determinations
In today's notice, EPA is proposing to
add three wastes generated by the
chlorinated aliphatics industry to the
list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR
261.32. Below are the wastestreams EPA
is proposing to list as hazardous with
their corresponding proposed EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers.
K173 Wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
except for wastewaters generated from
the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process.
This listing includes wastewaters from
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons that have carbon chain
lengths ranging from one to, and
including five, with varying amounts
and positions of chlorine substitution.
K174 Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of ethylene dichloride or
vinyl chloride monomer (EDC/VCM).
K175 Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process.
EPA is proposing to list these wastes
because these residuals meet the criteria
set out in 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) for listing
a waste as hazardous. EPA assessed and
considered these criteria for all six
wastestreams through the use of risk
assessments and risk modeling, as well
as a consideration of other pertinent
factors. Today's proposed listing
determination follows the elements of
the Agency's listing decision policy that
was presented in the proposed listing
for wastes generated by the dye and
pigment industries published in the
Federal Register on December 22, 1994
(see 59 FR 66073). This policy uses a
"weight-of-evidence" approach in
which calculated risk information is a
key factor considered in making a listing
determination.
Upon promulgation of these proposed
listings, wastes meeting the listing
descriptions will become hazardous
wastes and need to be managed in
accordance with RCRA subtitle C
requirements. Residuals from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of the
wastewater treatment sludges proposed
to be listed as hazardous also will be
classified as hazardous wastes pursuant
to the "derived-from" rule (40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(i)).'Also, with certain
limited exceptions, any mixture of a
listed hazardous waste and a solid waste
is itself a RCRA hazardous waste (40
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv), "the mixture rule").
In today's notice, the Agency is
proposing an alternatfve approach to
listing two of the wastes from
chlorinated aliphatics processes as
hazardous, rather than proposing to list
these wastes in accordance v/ith the
Agency's traditional listing approach.
The Agency is proposing a conditional
listing approach for one waste, and as
one of two alternative approaches for a
second waste, because the Agency has
evaluated the ways in which the wastes
are likely to be managed and has
determined that certain waste
management activities would present
significant risks but that others would
be protective of human health and the
environment. Under a contingent
management approach, EPA is
proposing to list particular wastes as
hazardous only if the wastes are
managed in a way other than the
manner in which the Agency has
determined is protective of human
health and the environment. In
implementing a conditional-listing
approach, the Agency is proposing that
wastes that fall outside the scope of the
listing description (e.g., are destined for
the appropriate type of disposal) are
non-hazardous when generated.
However, if it turns out that the waste
actually is not handled in accordance
with the conditions of the listing at any
point in its management, the generators
or other handlers of the waste would be
subject to various enforcement actions
or, depending on the violations, the
waste could become a hazardous waste
and may even be considered hazardous
from the point of generation. The
Agency's proposed conditional-listing
approach for wastes generated from
chlorinated aliphatics processes is
further discussed in section III.E of
today's notice.
Today's action also proposes not to
list as hazardous the following three
wastes:
• Process wastewaters from the
production of vinyl chloride monomer
using mercuric chloride catalyst in an
acetylene-based process,
• Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of methyl chloride, and
1 As explained later in this notice, residuals
generated from the management of wastewaters
proposed to be listed as hazardous (i.e., wastewater
treatment sludges) will not be subject to the
derived-from rule due to the fact that EPA
conducted separate investigations of these residuals
and they are the subject of independent listing
determinations.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46481
• Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of allyl chloride.
3. Summary of the Remainder of this
Preamble
Section III.B. describes the
chlorinated aliphatics industry. Section
III.C. describes how the information was
gathered in support of today's proposed
rule. Section III.D. is a description of the
risk assessment performed for three of
the wastes evaluated in today's rule,
including chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters, EDC/VCM sludges, and
methyl chloride sludges, and the results
of these assessments. Section III.E
provides the rationale for the proposed
listing decisions for all six wastes
analyzed in today's rule. Because full
risk analyses were not necessary for
VCM-A wastewaters, VCM-A
wastewater treatment sludges, or allyl
chloride sludges, we discuss our
assessment of risks attributable to each
of these wastes in the same sections
where we describe our listing decisions
for the wastes. Section IV contains the
economic assessment of the industry
and the estimated impact of today's
proposed listing determinations. Section
V describes the proposed land disposal
restriction requirements for those wastes
we propose to list as hazardous, along
with determinations of whether there is
adequate treatment and disposal
capacity for these wastes. Sections VI
(compliance dates), VII (state authority),
VIII (designating CERCLA hazardous
substances) and IX (administrative
assessments) discuss other analyses
required by statute and various
executive orders.
B. Description of the Industry
In 1992, when EPA began gathering
information about the U.S. chlorinated
aliphatics industry, it consisted of 27
facilities owned by 20 corporations.
However, as a result of information
updates in 1997, we determined that
two chlorinated aliphatics facilities had
closed and two additional facilities
manufacture de minimis quantities of
chlorinated aliphatics, lowering the
number of facilities affected by today's
proposed rulemaking to 23 and
corporations to 19.
Chlorinated aliphatics production
facilities are located primarily in and
around the petroleum/petrochemical
industry which generally is located
along the Gulf Coast. The majority of
facility locations are fully integrated
petrochemical processing facilities. A
few facilities are co-located with other
chemical manufacturing and/or
petroleum refining facilities. These
integrated facilities often manage wastes
generated across different production
processes within the same waste
management systems. For example,
these facilities often combine
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters with
non-chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters
prior to treatment. The combined
wastewater treatment system generates a
commingled sludge. In addition, there
are facilities that manage chlorinated
aliphatics wastewaters in separate or
dedicated wastewater treatment
systems. For the purpose of this listing
determination, the Agency refers to
these treatment systems, and resulting
sludges, as "dedicated" systems and
"dedicated" sludges.
Nearly 10 million metric tons of
chlorinated aliphatics were produced in
1996. More than 85 percent of the
chlorinated aliphatic products
manufactured in 1996 was ethylene
dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer
(EDC/VCM) manufactured via the
"balanced process." This process
involves the production of EDC as an
intermediate product using direct
chlorination and oxyhydrochlorination
of ethylene, followed by cracking to
produce VCM. Other chlorinated
aliphatics production includes
chlorinated methanes, methyl chloride,
and a variety of other products.
C. Overview of EPA's Information
Collection Activities
EPA's investigation of the wastes
generated by the chlorinated aliphatics
industry can be characterized in terms
of two major information collection
efforts: field investigations and survey
evaluation. The Agency's field
investigations included engineering site
visits, "familiarization sampling"
(sample collection and analysis to gain
a preliminary understanding of the
nature and concentration of potential
constituents of concern), and "record
sampling" (sample collection and
analysis to provide data to use in
assessing the potential risks posed by
the wastes). The survey effort included
the development, distribution, and
assessment of an extensive industry-
wide RCRA Section 3007 survey. Each
of these efforts is summarized below.
1. Field Investigations and Sampling
EPA initiated its work activities with
a series of engineering site visits. The
primary purpose of the site visits was to
gather information on chlorinated
aliphatic manufacturing processes and
the generation, management, and
characterization of the consent decree
wastes. In addition, the field teams
identified potential record sampling
locations. The Agency conducted site
visits at 16 facilities prior to record
sampling; site visit facilities were"
selected based on a goal of obtaining
first hand information from a
representative sampling of all
chlorinated aliphatic manufacturers as
well as all relevant manufacturing and
waste management processes, including
an investigation of dedicated
wastewater treatment units.
Concurrently, the Agency initiated the
analytical phase of this listing
determination with the development of
a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPjP) for sampling and analysis,
followed by collection of 15
familiarization samples from three
different manufacturing facilities
(collected during the engineering site
visits). The purpose of collecting
familiarization samples is to assess the
effectiveness of the analytical methods
identified in the QAPjP for the analysis
of the residuals of concern.
Upon successful completion of the
familiarization sampling and analysis
effort, the Agency initiated record
sampling and analysis of the consent
decree wastes. The Agency sampled
wastewaters and wastewater treatment
sludges from twelve facilities. During a
four-month period beginning in April of
1997, the Agency collected 52 samples,
excluding additional blanks and matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicates(MS/MSD)
collected for quality assurance
purposes. Of these 52 samples, 41 were
wastewater samples, and 11 were
wastewater treatment sludge samples.
2. RCRA Section 3007 Survey
EPA developed an extensive
questionnaire under the authority of
Section 3007 of RCRA for distribution to
the chlorinated aliphatics
manufacturing industry. The purpose of
the survey was to gather information
about solid and hazardous waste
generation and management practices in
the U.S. chlorinated aliphatics
manufacturing industry necessary to
support the listing determination. The
questionnaire covered topics such as
chlorinated aliphatic product
information, facility and unit process
flow diagrams, process descriptions,
residual generation and residual
management profiles.
The Agency distributed the survey in
November of 1992 to 57 facilities and/
or corporations identified as potential
chlorinated aliphatics manufacturers
from the most recent information
available at the time. Of the 57 surveys
distributed, completed surveys were
received from 27 facilities. These
facilities represent 20 companies that
reported that they had manufactured
chlorinated aliphatics in 1991. The
remaining facilities notified EPA that
they had either stopped operations or
-------
46482
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
did not manufacture chlorinated
aliphatic products.
We also conducted an exhaustive
engineering review of the submitted
surveys for accuracy and completeness.
Data from the survey responses was
then entered into a data base known as
the Chlorinated Aliphatics Industry
Studies Data Base (ISDB). We conducted
quality assurance reviews of the ISDB to
identify any inappropriate entries and
missing data links. The exhaustive
engineering review of each facility's
response resulted in follow-up letters
and/or telephone calls to facility
representatives seeking clarifications,
corrections, and additional data where
needed. The responses to these requests
for clarification, along with additional
information gathered during engineering
site visits and familiarization and record
sampling activities were entered into
the data base.
In 1996 we conducted a review of
data collected previously, and re-
contacted facility representatives to
verify the status of chlorinated
aliphatics manufacturing operations. In
June of 1997, the Agency sent requests
for updated data (for calendar year
1996J regarding consent decree wastes
generated to each facility. We processed
the data received from this request in
the same manner as the original RCRA
surveys, and entered the new
information into the ISDB. Between
1993 and 1996, two chlorinated
aliphatics manufacturers ceased
operations, resulting in a universe of 23
chlorinated aliphatics manufacturing
facilities owned and operated by 19
different companies. Each of the 23
current manufacturers of chlorinated
aliphatics generate at least one
wastestream identified in the consent
decree. All 23 facilities generate at least
one wastewater residual, while 14
facilities reported that they generate
wastewater treatment sludges.
D. What Are the RJsks Associated With
Management of Wastewaters and
Wastewater Treatment Sludges From the
Production of Chlorinated Aliphatic
Chemicals?
As discussed in Section III.A.2. of this
preamble, EPA considers the Listing
criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11, as well
as any other information relevant to the
criteria, in making listing
determinations. The criteria provided in
40 CFR 261.11 include eleven factors for
determining "substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment." Nine of these factors,
as described generally below, are
directly incorporated into EPA's
completion of a risk assessment for the
wastestreams of concern:
• Toxicity (§ 261.11 (a) (3) (i)) is
considered in developing the health
benchmarks used in the risk assessment
modeling. '
• Constituent concentrations and
waste quantities (§ § 261.11 (a) (3) (ii) and
261.11 (a) (3) (viii)) are used to define the
initial conditions for the risk evaluation.
• Potential to migrate, persistence,
degradation, and bioaccumulation of the
hazardous constituents and any
degradation products (261.11 (a) (3) (iii),
261.11(a)(3)(iv), 261.11(a)(3)(v), and
261.11 (a) (3) (vi)) are all considered in
the design of the fate and transport
models used to determine the
concentrations of the contaminants to
which individuals are exposed.
We consider two of the remaining
factors, plausible mismanagement and
other regulatory actions
(§ § 261.11 (a) (3) (vii) and 261.11 (a) (3) (x))
in establishing the waste management
scenario (s) modeled in the risk
assessment.
EPA conducted analyses of the risks
posed by wastewaters and wastewater
treatment sludges from the production
of chlorinated aliphatic chemicals to
assist in the determination of whether
the wastes meet the criteria for listing
set forth in 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3). This
section (III.D.) discusses the human
health risk analyses and ecological risk
screening analyses EPA conducted to
support our proposed listing
determinations for chlorinated
aliphatics wastewaters (other than VCM-
A wastewaters), EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges, and methyl chloride
wastewater treatment sludges. We
consider the risk analyses in developing
our listing decisions for each of the
wastestreams (described in Sections
III.E.l.a. for chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters, III.E.2. for EDC/VCM
sludges, and III.E.4. for methyl chloride
sludges). The risk analyses we describe
in this section (III.D.) are presented in
detail in the Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination which is located in the
docket for today's proposed rule.
Because full risk analyses were not
necessary for VCM-A wastewaters,
VCM-A sludges, or allyl chloride
sludges, we discuss our assessment of
risks attributable to each of these wastes
in the same sections where we describe
our listing decisions for each of the
wastes, that is, Sections III.E.l.b., III.E.3,
III.E.5, respectively.
1. What are the Risks for Potential
Human'Receptors?
a. What was EPA's Approach to
Conducting the Human Health Risk
Assessment?
EPA's human health risk analyses for
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters and
EDC/VCM and methyl chloride sludges
provide estimates of the incremental
human health risks resulting from
exposure to contaminants detected in
these wastes. The incremental human
health risks are expressed as estimates
of excess lifetime cancer risk for
individuals ("receptors") who may be
exposed to carcinogenic (cancer-
causing) contaminants and hazard
quotients (HQs) for those contaminants
that produce noncancer health effects.
Excess lifetime cancer risk is the
incremental probability (chance) of an
individual developing cancer over a
lifetime as a result of exposure to a
carcinogen. A hazard quotient is the
ratio of an individual's chronic daily
dose of a noncarcinogen to an
acceptable daily dose for chronic
exposures to the noncarcinogen.
EPA used two different methods of
analysis to estimate risks. These
methods are called "deterministic risk
analysis" and "probabilistic risk
analysis." A deterministic risk analysis
produces a point estimate of risk or
hazard for each receptor based on using
a single value for each parameter in the
analysis. A probabilistic analysis
calculates risk or hazard by allowing
some of the parameters to have more
than one value, consequently producing
a distribution of risk or hazard for each
receptor. A parameter is any one of a
number of inputs or variables (such as
waste volume or distance between the
waste management unit and the
receptor) required for the fate and .
transport and exposure models and
equations that EPA uses to assess risk.
(In some cases EPA treats multiple
parameters as a single parameter for the
purpose of conducting our analyses. We
do this to prevent inadvertently
combining parameters in our analyses in
ways that are unrealistic. For example,
EPA treats environmental setting
[location] parameters such as climate,
depth to groundwater, aquifer type as a
single set of parameters. We believe
that, for example, allowing the climate
from one location to be paired with the
depth to groundwater for another
location could result in a scenario that
would not occur in nature.)
EPA conducts both "central
tendency" and "high end" deterministic
risk assessments to attempt to quantify
the cancer risk or non-cancer hazard for
the "average" receptor in the population
-------
Federal Register/Vol..'64.-No. 164/Wednesday, August 25. 1999/Proposed Rules
46483
(the central tendency risk) and the risk
or hazard for individuals in small, but
definable "high end" segments of the
population (the high end risk). For
central tendency deterministic risk
analyses, we set all parameters at their
central tendency values. For the
chlorinated aliphatics risk assessments,
the central tendency values generally
are either mean (average) or 50th
percentile (median) values.
We use high end deterministic risk
analysis to predict the risks and hazards
for those individuals exposed at the
upper range of the distribution of
exposures. EPA's Guidance For Risk
Characterization (EPA 1995)2 advises
that "conceptually, high end exposure
means exposure above about the 90th
percentile of the population
distribution, but not higher than the
individual in the population who has
the highest exposure," and recommends
that "* * * the assessor should
approach estimating high end by
identifying the most sensitive variables
and using high end values for a subset
of these variables, leaving others at their
central values." For the chlorinated
aliphatics high end deterministic risk
analyses, EPA set two parameters at
their high end. values (generally 90th
percentile values), and set all other
parameters at their central tendency
values. We used a "sensitivity analysis"
to identify the two parameters that we
set at high end. A sensitivity analysis is
an iterative procedure in which an
analysis is performed by alternately
setting different parameters at high end
to identify the parameters that most
influence the analysis' outcome. EPA
compares the different results generated
by the sensitivity analysis and selects
the two high end parameters to which
the analysis was "most sensitive," that
is, the two parameters that are expected
to generate the greatest estimate of risk
or hazard.
EPA used probabilistic risk
assessment to support the results of the
deterministic risk analyses and to allow
EPA to quantify individual risk at
selected percentiles of the risk
distribution (for example, 50th
percentile, 90th percentile. 95th
percentile). EPA conducted probabilistic
risk analyses for those combinations of
receptor, contaminant, and pathway for
which risk or hazard estimated using a
deterministic analysis exceeded the
following criteria: a cancer risk of 1x10
~6or a hazard quotient of 1. In a
probabilistic analysis, each parameter
may have more than one value. EPA
2 EPA. 1995. Guidance for Risk Characterization.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science
Policy Council. February.
develops "probability density
functions" (PDFs), distributions that
describe the full range of values that the
various input parameters may have.
Some of the parameters in the
probabilistic analysis are set as constant
values because (1) there are insufficient
data to develop a PDF; (2) EPA made
assumptions to simplify the analysis in
cases where such simplifications would
improve the efficiency of the analysis
without significantly affecting the
results; (3) site-specific constants are
available; or (4) the analysis has not
been shown to be sensitive to the value
of the parameter, that is, even if the
parameter varies, the resulting risk
estimate does not vary significantly. The
Risk Assessment Technical Background
Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatics Listing Determination
describes the input parameters used in
the probabilistic analysis. In the
probabilistic analysis, risk is
approximated through repetitive
calculation of the fate and transport and
exposure equations and models using
input parameters randomly selected
from the PDFs. The result of the
probabilistic analysis is a distribution of
the risks or hazards for each of the
receptors.
The human health risk assessments
that EPA conducted to support the
chlorinated aliphatics listing
determination included four primary
tasks: (1) establishing that there are
constituents in the wastes that are of
concern to the Agency and that warrant
analysis to determine their risk to
human health; (2) establishing a
scenario under which contaminants are
released from a waste management unit
and subsequently are transported in the
environment to a human receptor; (3)
estimating the concentrations of
contaminants to which the receptor
might be exposed; (4) quantifying the
receptor's exposure to contaminants and
the contaminants' toxicity to the
receptor; and (5) describing the
receptor's predicted risk. The following
sections discuss how EPA completed
each of these tasks for the risk
assessments conducted to support the
chlorinated aliphatics listing
determination.
b. How Did EPA Determine Which
Waste Constituents and Waste Volumes
Would Be Evaluated in the Risk
Assessments?
To support the chlorinated aliphatics
listing determination, EPA collected and
analyzed samples of wastewaters from
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
chemicals, wastewater treatment
sludges from the production of EDC/
VCM, and wastewater treatment sludges
from, the production of methyl chloride
(see Section III.E of today's preamble, as
well as the Background Document for
Identification and Listing of Chlorinated
Aliphatics Production Wastes, for
further discussion of EPA's waste
characterization efforts). We used the
results of these waste analyses to
establish the "constituents of potential
concern" (COPCs) in the wastes. We
derived waste volume information from
data provided by facilities in their
RCRA Section 3007 questionnaire
responses.
EPA collected and analyzed 41
samples of wastewaters generated from
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
chemicals. EPA collected six of these
samples at the influent (or
"headworks") of wastewater treatment
systems that manage only wastewaters
derived from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic chemicals. We call
these samples "dedicated" chlorinated
aliphatics wastewater samples,3 and we
chose to use these samples in our
assessment of the risks and hazards
attributable to the management of
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters. (The
assessment of dedicated sample data
allows us to evaluate without question
what risks are attributable to the wastes
of concern to the Agency.) Because we
used analytical data for dedicated
chlorinated aliphatics wastewater
samples in our analysis, we also used
dedicated chlorinated aliphatic
wastewater volumes in our analysis. We
identified eight wastewater volumes
that represent the volumes of dedicated
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters
discharged to the headworks of
chlorinated aliphatics facility
wastewater treatment systems.
EPA collected and analyzed seven
samples of nonhazardous EDC/VCM
sludge. (Some sludges generated by this
industry already are designated as
hazardous because they include
material derived from wastes that EPA
previously listed as hazardous waste.)
Four were samples of sludges that were
derived from wastewater treatment
systems that manage only EDC/VCM
process wastewaters. These samples are
"dedicated" EDC/VCM sludge samples.
Three were samples of sludges that
result from the treatment of EDC/VCM
process wastewaters combined with
wastewaters from non-EDC/VCM
processes and sources. EPA chose to use
only the dedicated EDC/VCM sample
data in our analysis. Because we used
3 "Dedicated" chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters
are those that are comprised only of chlorinated
aliphatics process wastewaters, that is, wastewaters
generated from the production of the chlorinated
aliphatic chemicals of concern to this listing
determination.
-------
46484
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
analytical data for dedicated EDC/VCM
sludge samples in our analysis, we also
used "dedicated" EDC/VCM sludge
volumes. EPA divided the volume of
wastewater attributable to EDC/VCM
processes by the total volume of
wastewater influent, and applied the
resultant ratio to the total sludge
volumes to obtain the volume of
wastewater treatment sludge attributable
to EDC/VCM processes (that is, the
"dedicated " EDC/VCM sludge volume).
The methyl chloride sludge, generated
by only one facility, results from
treatment of the combined wastewaters
from the facility's methyl chloride
production process and other facility
processes and sources. The facility
reports that approximately 18 percent of
the wastewater that generates the sludge
is from the methyl chloride process. The
remainder of the wastewater is from
. pther processes. Because the sludge, as
generated, is not dedicated, and there is
no means to obtain a dedicated sample
of the methyl chloride sludge, we
conducted our risk assessment using the
sample data for the nondedicated
methyl chloride sludge sample, and,
comparably, the nondedicated (total)
methyl chloride sludge volume.
Using the results ofthe analysis of the
waste samples, EPA developed a list of
"chemicals of potential concern"
(COPCs) for the chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters, EDC/VCM sludges, and
methyl chloride sludges. The COPCs are
the constituents which were the subject
of EPA's risk assessment. EPA
developed the COPC lists by taking the
complete list of detected constituents in
the wastes and eliminating constituents
from the list that occurred at
concentrations clearly below levels of
concern, based on screening analyses
developed to maximize risk estimates.
For chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters
and EDC/VCM sludges, EPA also
eliminated constituents when a
constituent was detected in only one of
the samples and the concentration of the
constituent in the one sample was
qualified with the "J" qualifier.
indicating that the constituent was
detected below the quantitation limit
and the reported value was estimated.
Specifically, the laboratory detected 69
constituents in chlorinated aliphatics
wastewater samples of which we
eliminated 28; 53 constituents in EDC/
VCM sludges of which we eliminated
16; and 19 constituents in methyl
chloride sludges of which we
eliminated 11.
Six polychlorinated dibenzodioxin
("dioxin") congeners and ten
polychlorinated dibenzofuran ("furan")
congeners were among the constituents
detected in samples ofthe chlorinated
aliphatics wastewaters, EDC/VCM
sludges, and methyl chloride sludges
and evaluated in the risk assessment.
EPA classifies the furan congeners and
certain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCS)
congeners as "dioxin-like compounds"
because of their structural similarity to
the dioxins (EPA 1994a4). In today's
preamble we use the term "dioxins" to
represent both the dioxin and furan
congeners. Our use of the term
"dioxins" does not refer to dioxin-like
PCBs because we did not analyze for
PCBs in our waste samples from the
chlorinated aliphatics industry since we
do not expect PCBs to be constituents of
the chlorinated aliphatics wastes that
are the subject of today's listing
determination.
c. What Exposure Scenarios Did EPA
Evaluate?
Prior to conducting the risk
assessments, EPA had to establish that
there is a plausible scenario under
which a receptor might be exposed to
contaminants in the wastewaters and
sludges. Establishing this scenario
required that EPA determine:
• How the waste is managed or is
likely to be managed;
• How contaminants could be
released from the waste management
unit;
• How contaminants could be
transported in the environment to a
point of contact with a receptor; and
• How a receptor could be exposed to
the contaminants.
One respondent to EPA's §3007
questionnaire reported that they
discharge a portion of their
nonhazardous chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters to nonhazardous
underground injection wells. Section
III.E.l.a.i. discusses EPA's evaluation of
the underground injection waste
management scenario. Twenty-three
respondents reported that they manage
their nonhazardous or exempt
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters in
tanks. Because management of
wastewaters in tanks is the dominant
wastewater management practice in the
chlorinated aliphatics industry, EPA
chose to evaluate tanks in our risk
assessment for chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters. For reasons discussed in
III.E.l.a.i., EPA chose to evaluate risks
attributable to management of
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters in
uncovered aerated biological treatment
tanks.
One respondent to EPA's §3007
questionnaire reported that they manage
"EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds. Volume I: Executive Summary.
Review Draft. EPA/600/6-88/005Ca. Office of
Research and Development. June.
their EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges in an onsite land treatment unit.
All other respondents reported that
nonhazardous EDC/VCM sludges are
managed in landfills. Eight facilities
send EDC/VCM sludges to offsite
nonhazardous waste-landfills, two
facilities manage EDC/VCM sludge in
onsite nonhazardous industrial waste
landfills, and one facility manages their
nonhazardous EDC/VCM sludge in an
onsite hazardous waste landfill (see
section III.E.2.a. in today's preamble for
a description of current methods for
managing EDC/VCM sludges). For this
assessment, EPA evaluated the risks
associated with management of EDC/
VCM sludges in unlined municipal
landfills and in a land treatment unit.
Because the only facility that generates
methyl chloride sludges manages them
in an onsite nonhazardous industrial
waste landfill, EPA evaluated this
management scenario in our risk
assessment for methyl chloride sludges.
The Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination provides a complete
discussion of the parameters that define
the characteristics of the waste
management units.
EPA determined that releases from all
of the waste management units (tank,
land treatment unit, and landfill) could
occur through release of vapor
emissions to the air. In addition, for the
land treatment unit and the landfill,
EPA determined that releases could
occur through leaching ofthe waste into
the subsurface. We assumed that the
chlorinated aliphatics industry's tanks
retain sufficient structural integrity to
prevent wastewater releases to the
subsurface (and therefore to
groundwater), and that overflow and
spill controls prevent wastewater
releases to the ground surface. For the
land treatment unit, releases also could
occur through release of particulate
emissions to the air and runoff and
erosion of waste from the unit. EPA
assumed that wastewater would entrain
any particulate matter such that
particulates would not be released from
the tanks. EPA did not evaluate
particulate emissions from the landfills
because the moisture content of the
sludges (41 to 74 percent moisture)
would prevent generation and release of
particulates to the air in the time
between placement of the waste in the
landfill and application of daily cover or
a new day's waste addition. EPA also
assumed that runon/runoff controls
would prevent releases from the
landfills due to erosion and runoff.
EPA also evaluated the mechanisms
and pathways by which contaminants .
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46485
might be transported to the points
where receptors are exposed. The
mechanisms and pathways we
evaluated are as follows:
• Eroded waste can be transported by
runoff and deposited onto the soil and
into surface water bodies.
• Leachate can migrate through the
unsaturated5 zone to the saturated6
zone, where contaminants are
transported in groundwater to drinking
water wells and to points of discharge
to surface water bodies.
• Vapor emissions can remain
dispersed in the air, or can be deposited
through wet and dry deposition.
Specifically, EPA models:
• The concentration of vapor phase
contaminants in air,
• The diffusion of vapor phase
contaminants into plants,
• The diffusion of vapor phase
contaminants into surface water,
• Wet deposition of vapors onto soils
and surface water (for example, due to
wash-out [scavenging] by precipitation).
• Dry deposition of vapors onto soils
(for example, due to density).
• Although we do not evaluate wet
and dry deposition of vapors onto
plants, we do assume that wet and dry
deposition of vapors onto soils increase
the contaminant concentrations in the
soil and result in additional uptake of
contaminants into plants via soil-to-
plant uptake.
• Particulate emissions can remain
dispersed in the air or be deposited
through wet deposition (in
precipitation) or dry deposition (particle
settling). We assume that particulates
may be deposited onto soil and surface
water through both wet and dry
deposition, and onto plants through dry
deposition.
Human receptors indirectly may come
into contact with vapors that diffuse
into vegetation, particulates that are
deposited on vegetation, or
contaminants that are taken up by
vegetation from the soil through
exposure to contaminated home-grown
fruits and vegetables, as well as
exposure to contaminated beef and
dairy products derived from cattle
which have ingested contaminated
forage, silage, grain, and surface soil.
Receptors that ingest fish also indirectly
may come into contact with
contaminants in air-borne vapors and
particulates (through vapor diffusion
into surface water, vapor deposition
onto surface water, and particulate
deposition onto surface water),
contaminated groundwater (through
groundwater discharge into surface
water), and runoff and eroded soil that
enter surface water.
EPA determined that the following
receptors reasonably represent the types
of individuals that could be exposed to
contaminants in chlorinated aliphatics
wastes, and were the receptors
evaluated in our risk analyses:
• an adult resident
, • the child of a resident
• a home gardener
• a farmer
• the child of a farmer
• a fisher
The following sections describe briefly
EPA's primary assumptions regarding
the characteristics and activities of each
of the receptor types, and the routes by
which each receptor is exposed.
Adult Resident and Child of
Resident—We assume that an adult and
child reside near the waste management
unit. The residential receptors inhale
vapors and particulate matter that are
dispersed in the ambient air. EPA
assumes that household water is
supplied to the residential receptors by
a domestic groundwater well that is
located near their home. The adult
resident and_child of the resident drink
water that comes from the well. We
assume that the adult resident inhales
vapors that are emitted from the water
that they use in their house (for
example, during showering), and that
the adult resident's skin also is exposed
to groundwater when he/she bathes.
The residential receptors do not ingest
foods that are grown in the vicinity of
their home, however they do
incidentally ingest surface soil from
their yard.
Home Gardener—We assume that the
residential receptor may have a home
garden. The home gardener grows fruit,
exposed vegetables (vegetables with
edible parts that are exposed at land
surface), and root vegetables.
Approximately 23 percent of the
exposed vegetables, 11 percent of the
root vegetables, and 12 percent of the
fruits eaten by the gardener are grown
in his/her garden (EPA 1997a, Table 13-
71)7. The gardener's other
characteristics and activities are the
same as those of the adult resident.
Fisher—We assume that the
residential receptor may be a
recreational angler. Approximately 32
percent of the fish eaten by the fisher
5 The unsaturated (vadose) zone is a subsurface
zone in which the pore spaces contain both water
and air.
6 The saturated zone is a subsurface zone in
which all pore spaces are full of water.
7 EPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook.
Volumes I. II, and III. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/P-95/
002Fa, b, c. August 1997; www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/
ord/webpubs/exposure/index.html.
are from a stream located near the waste
management unit (EPA 1997a, Table 13-
71). The fisher's other characteristics
and activities are the same as those of
the adult resident.
Adult Farmer and Child of Farmer—
We assume that a farmer raises fruits,
exposed vegetables, root vegetables, beef
cattle, and dairy cattle in an agricultural
field located near the waste
management unit. Approximately 42
percent of the exposed vegetables, 17
.percent of the root vegetables, 33
percent of the fruits, 49 percent of the
beef, and 25 percent of the dairy
products eaten by the farmer and the
child of the farmer are grown/raised on
the farmer's agricultural field (EPA
1997a, Table 13-71), We assume that
the farmer incidentally ingests soil from
the agricultural field, and that the child
of the farmer incidentally ingests soil
from his/her yard. The farmer's and
child's exposure to groundwater via
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact are the same as that for the adult
resident and child of the resident.
EPA establishes the locations of
receptors relative to waste management
units based on information obtained
from national surveys. Exposure to
groundwater occurs through the use of
water from drinking water wells, and
exposure via nongroundwater pathways
occurs through runoff/erosion and
releases to air. Therefore, "distance to
receptor" for groundwater exposure
pathways actually is the distance to the
drinking water well that the receptor is
using (the "receptor well"). "Distance to
receptor" for nongroundwater pathways
is the distance to the residence where
the receptor is inhaling air or contacting
soil, the distance to the garden where
the receptor is growing fruits and
vegetables, or the distance to the field
where the receptor is growing crops or
raising livestock. Consequently, EPA
uses different databases to establish
"distance to receptor," depending on
whether we are evaluating a
groundwater or a nongroundwater
pathway.
For analysis of the nongroundwater
pathway (air pathways and erosion/
runoff) risks in the deterministic
analysis we assume that the receptors
live either 75 meters (m) (high end) or
300 m (central tendency) from the waste
management unit. The distance of 250
feet (ft) (approximately 75 m) is based
on the actual measured distance to the
nearest resident for the worst-case
facility evaluated in the risk assessment
conducted to support the "Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities—Organic Air Emissions
Standards for Process Vents and
Equipment Leaks Final Rule" (55 FR
-------
46486
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
25454), and was used as distance to the
nearest resident for that rulemaking. In
the same risk assessment, EPA
identified the receptor distance of 1000
ft (approximately 300 m) as the median
distance in a random sample of
distances to the nearest residence. For
the probabilistic analysis, we assume
the receptors live either 50, 75, 100, 200,
300, 500, or 1000 rn from the waste
management unit. For air pathway
analyses, we always assume that the
receptors (including cattle) are located
along the centerline of the area most
greatly impacted by air releases from the
waste management units. However, at
distances of a few hundred meters from
the waste management unit, the air
concentrations within about a 100 meter
lateral distance do not vary appreciably.
For deterministic analyses we assume
that a receptor well is located 102 m
(high end) or 430 m (central tendency)
• from the waste management unit,, and
that the receptor well is located on
centerline of the contaminant plume
(high end) or halfway between the
centerline and the edge of the
contaminant plume (central tendency).
The 102 m distances is the 10th
percentile value in the distribution of
distances derived from EPA's 1988
survey of Solid Waste (Municipal)
Landfill Facilities (DPRA 19938). The
430 m value is the 50th percentile value
in that same distribution. For the Monte
Carlo analysis, the distance from the
waste management unit to the receptor
well is based on the complete
distribution of distances to receptor well
reported by the survey respondents, and
ranges from 0.02 m (the location of the
closest reported well was 0 m) to 1604
m (the maximum distance for which
EPA requested receptor well
Information was 1 mile). For the Monte
Carlo analysis we assume that the
receptor well is located anywhere
within the contaminant plume.
The Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination provides a complete
discussion of the values of additional
parameters that define the
characteristics of each receptor, such as
the amounts of contaminated food and
water they ingest, their inhalation rates,
and how long they live near the waste
management unit.
d. How Did EPA Predict What
Contaminant Concentrations Are at the
Points Where Receptors Are Exposed?
EPA conducts contaminant fate and
transport modeling and indirect
exposure modeling to determine what
the concentrations of contaminants will
be in the media (for example,
groundwater, air, soil, food items) that
the receptor comes into contact with.
These concentrations are called
"exposure point concentrations" (that
is, they are the contaminant
concentrations at the point where the
receptor is exposed to the
contaminants). There are a number of
computer-based models and sets of
equations that EPA uses to predict
exposure point concentrations. In the
following sections we briefly discuss
these models and equations and their
application in the risk analyses.
i. Partitioning Model
For the landfill and the land treatment
unit, EPA uses a series of "partitioning"
equations to determine how much
contaminant mass is retained in the
waste management unit and how much
is released into the environment. These
equations are based upon equations
presented in a series of articles by Jury
et al. (Jury et al. 1983, 1984, and 19909).
EPA used the partitioning equations to
estimate the mass of a contaminant that
will be lost from the land treatment unit
due to volatilization into the air,
contaminant leaching into the
subsurface, runoff from the land
treatment unit, and degradation. For the
landfill scenarios, EPA used the
partitioning equations to determine how
much of the contaminant mass would be
lost due to volatilization into the air;
EPA assumed that the remainder of the
mass would be available to leach into
the subsurface. We assumed that
volatilization losses could occur prior to
the landfill being covered with daily
cover or daily waste addition, through
the daily cover or daily waste addition,
and through the cap that is placed on
the landfill after closure. For the
landfill, we used toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP) analytical
results (rather than the partitioning
equations) as the predictor of leachate
• DPRA, 1993. Parameter Values for Developing
NiUonwlde Regulations with the EPA's Composite
Model for Landfills (EPACML). EPA Contract
Number 68-WO-0029. July.
"Jury. W.A., W.F. Spencer, and W. J. Farmer.
1983. Behavior assessment model for trace organics
in soil: i. model description. J. Environ. Qual.
12(4):558-564.
Jury, W.A.. W. J. Farmer, and W.F. Spencer. 1984.
Behavior assessment model for trace organics in
soil: ii. chemical classification and parameter
sensitivity. J. Environ. Qual. 13(4):567-572.
Jury, W.A., D. Russo, G. Streile, and H.E. Abd.
1990. Evaluation of volatilization by organic
chemicals residing below the soil surface. Water
Resources Research. 26(1):13-20.
concentration. The TCLP is an
analytical procedure that "leaches" a
waste sample in a way that mimics the
leaching of waste in a municipal
landfill. Thus, TCLP results are a proxy
for the concentrations of contaminants
that would be generafed in leachate if
the waste were placed in a municipal
landfill.
ii. Tank Emissions Model
EPA modeled emissions from aerated
biological wastewater treatment tanks
using the CHEMDAT8 model (EPA
1994b ]°). We used the emissions
estimates in conjunction with the air
dispersion modeling results (see Section
D.l.d.iii) to estimate constituent-specific
air concentrations and deposition rates.
CHEMDAT8 accounts for most of the
competing removal pathways that might
limit air emissions, including
adsorption, biodegradation, and
hydrolysis. Chemicals that sorb to solids
or decompose due to either
biodegradation or hydrolysis have lower
potential for emission to the air.
CHEMDAT8 is considered to provide
reasonable to slightly high estimates of
air emissions.
CHEMDAT8 requires that the user
specify parameters relating to tank
characteristics, waste characteristics,
contaminant physical and chemical
properties, and location-specific
meteorological conditions (for example,
windspeed and temperature). The tank
characterization data required by the
model include both tank physical
parameters (for example, tank
dimensions) and tank operating
parameters (for example, the number of
aerators in the tank). In the absence of
site-specific data, we developed tank
dimensions based on facility-reported
wastewater generation rates, an assumed
wastewater depth in the tank of 15 feet,
and a retention time in the tank of two
days. We selected operating parameters
that we believe represent typical
operating conditions of an aerated tank.
The Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination provides a complete list
of the parameters used in the
CHEMDAT8 model.
iii. Air Dispersion and Deposition
Model
We used EPA's Industrial Source
Complex Short Term model (version 3;
'°EPA. 1994b. CHEMDAT8 User's Guide, EPA-
453/C-94-080B. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, November. This model
is publicly available from EPA's Web page at http:/
/www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software.html.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 16,4/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46487
ISCST3 '') to estimate the dispersion
and deposition of vapors emitted from
the wastewater treatment tank, the
municipal landfill, the onsite industrial
landfill, and the land treatment unit.
EPA also used ISCST3 to estimate the"
dispersion and deposition of particulate
emissions from the land treatment unit.
For the land treatment unit, EPA used
equations documented in EPA's
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42)" (EPA 1985) ™ to
estimate particulate emissions resulting
from wind erosion and tilling activities.
Vapor emissions from the landfill and
the land treatment unit were estimated
using the partitioning models discussed
in Section III.D.l.d.i. Vapor emissions
from the wastewater treatment tank
were estimated using the CHEMDAT8
model discussed in Section III.D. 1 .d.ii.
ISCST3 was used to estimate the air
concentration of vapors, wet deposition
of vapors, the air concentration of
particulates, wet deposition of
particulates, and dry deposition of
particulates. We calculate dry
deposition of vapors using the air
concentration of vapors and a
contaminant deposition velocity.
iv. Overland Transport Model
The Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) is an erosion model originally
designed to estimate long-term average
soil erosion losses to a nearby surface
water body from an agricultural field
having uniform slope, soil type,
vegetative cover, and erosion-control
practices. We used a modified form of
the USLE to estimate the mass of soil
lost per year per unit area from the land
treatment unit and deposited directly
onto the adjacent receptor site
(agricultural field, residential lot, home
garden) and into a nearby stream.
Because the basic USLE equation
estimates only soil erosion to surface
water bodies, EPA assumes the receptor
location is located between the land
treatment unit and the surface water
" EPA. 1995. User's Guide for the Industrial
Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models (Draft)
(Revised). Volume I. EPA-454/B-95-003a. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions,
Monitoring and Analysis Division. Research
Triangle Park, NC. The ISCST3 model and
meteorological preprocessor. PCRAMMET. and
related user's guides can be accessed and
downloaded through the Internet from the Support
Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM) web
page (http://www.epa.gov/scram001). The SCRAM
is part of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network
OTN).
12EPA. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. AP-42, Fifth Edition. Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions
Inventory Group, Research Triangle Park. NC. AP-
42 can be downloaded through the Internet at http:/
/www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42.html.
body. The area including the land
treatment unit, the receptor site, and the
intervening area is considered for the
purposes of the analysis to be an
independent, discrete drainage subbasin
that is at steady-state. We estimate the
soil erosion load from the subbasin to
the surface water body using a distance-
based sediment delivery ratio, and
consider that the sediment not reaching
the surface water body is deposited
evenly over the area of the subbasin.
Using mass balance equations, EPA
estimates contaminant contributions to
the surface water body and the receptor
soil. "Mass balance equations" are
equations that honor the law of
conservation of mass, that is, the mass
of a contaminant that is present at the
beginning of the analysis (for example,
the mass of a contaminant in a waste
placed in a waste management unit) is
equal to the mass of the contaminant
present at the end of the analysis. Even
though at the end of the analysis the
contaminant mass may be partitioned
into a number of environmental
"compartments" (for example, the waste
management unit, the soil, and the
surface water body), there is in total no
more or no less mass than was present
at the start of the analysis.
Contaminated particles are
transported from the land treatment unit
to receptor sites via air deposition as
well as runoff/erosion. We applied mass
balance for each area of interest (for
example, buffer area between source
and receptor site, receptor site, or
surrounding area). Consequently, the
respective air deposition value for each
area of interest is included in the
evaluation of the mass balance. We
considered that the air deposition over
the entire subbasin area is uniform and
equal to the air deposition modeled for
the receptor site.
v. Groundwater Model
We used EPA's Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products (EPACMTP; EPA 1996a,
1996b, 1996c, 1997 o) to model the
subsurface fate and transport of
13 EPA. 1996a. EPA's Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) Background Document. Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, DC.
EPA. 1996b. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) Background Document for the Finite
Source Methodology. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
EPA. 1996c. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) Background Document for Metals.
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1997. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) .User's Guide. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
contaminants that leach from the waste
management units (the land treatment
unit or the landfill) and migrate to a
residential drinking water well or
discharge from groundwater to surface
water.
Precipitation that migrates through
the waste management unit generates
leachate, which infiltrates the bottom of
the waste management unit and
migrates into the unsaturated zone. The
contaminants dissolved in the leachate
subsequently are transported in the
aqueous phase through the unsaturated
zone to the underlying saturated zone
and then downgradient to a receptor
(drinking water) well or surface water
body located at a specified distance
from the boundary of the waste
management unit. EPACMTP accounts
for the following processes affecting
contaminant fate and transport:
advection, hydrodynamic dispersion,
equilibrium linear or nonlinear sorption
by the soil and aquifer solids (both in
the unsaturated and saturated zones),
and contaminant hydrolysis. In the
event that the hydrolysis daughter
products are toxic and their chemical
properties are known, the model also
accounts for the formation and
subsequent fate and transport of the
daughter products.
The landfill analysis employed two
simplifying assumptions. First, we
assumed that contaminant leaching
from the landfill does not occur until
after the landfill closes (that is, after 30
years). EPA made this assumption
because of complexities associated with
linking the output of the landfill
partitioning equations (discussed in
Section III.D.l.d.i.) and the groundwater
model, EPACMTP. Second, we assumed
that there are no contaminant losses due
to mechanisms other than leaching after
the landfill has been closed (that is, after
30 years). This effectively over-estimates
the total mass of volatile contaminants
that would leach to groundwater
because it does not allow contaminant
loss due to volatilization from the
landfill to deplete the total contaminant
mass available for leaching from the
landfill in the years after closure. EPA
determined that if volatile constituents
caused significant risk via the
groundwater pathway, we would have
to re-evaluate our methodology for
conducting the landfill analysis. This
situation did not occur.
vi. Surface Water Model
EPA assumed that fish are exposed to
waste constituents in surface water.
Specifically, we assumed that fish are
exposed to contaminants dissolved in
the water column, contaminants sorbed
to suspended solids in the water
-------
46488
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
column, and contaminants associated
with the bed sediment in the surface
water body. The method used to
estimate how management of
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters and
wastewater treatment sludges impacts
surface water is based on the
methodology presented in Addendum to
Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
Associated with Indirect Exposure to
Combustor Emissions (EPA 1993) '4. The
model accounts for six ways in which
contaminants may enter the surface
water body: (1) contaminants may be
sorbed to eroded soils that enter the
surface water body, (2) contaminants
may be dissolved in runoff that enters
the surface water body, (3) contaminants
may be bound to airborne particles that
are deposited on the surface water body,
(4) vapor phase contaminants in air may
be deposited on the surface water body
in precipitation (that is, wet deposition
of vapor phase contaminants), (5) vapor
phase contaminants in air may enter the
surface water body through direct
diffusion from the air, and (6)
contaminants in groundwater may
discharge into the surface water body.
The model also accounts for processes
that remove contaminants from the
surface water body. These include: (1)
volatilization of contaminants that are
dissolved in surface water and (2) burial
of contaminants in the sediment at the
bottom of the surface water body. The
model assumes that the impact to the
water body is uniform, which is more
realistic for smaller surface water bodies
than for larger ones. The model
estimates the concentrations of
contaminants in the water column and
bed sediment. We used the water
column or bed sediment concentrations
and bioconcentration factors (BCFs),
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), or
biota-sediment accumulation factors
(BSAFs) to estimate contaminant
concentrations in fish tissue.
vli, Indirect Exposure Equations
EPA uses a series of "indirect
exposure equations" to quantify the
concentrations of contaminants that
pass indirectly from contaminated
environmental media to the receptor.
For example, contaminants that are
transported in air may be deposited on
plants or onto the soil where they may
accumulate in forage, grain, silage or
soil that is consumed by beef cattle and
dairy cattle. Individuals may then ingest
contaminated beef and dairy products.
Similarly, contaminants may be
transported in groundwater to domestic
groundwater wells where the
groundwater is extracted and used for
showering. The water vapor generated
in the shower may be inhaled by the
receptor. The indirect exposure
equations allow EPA to calculate
exposure point concentrations for these
pathways and routes of exposure. The
indirect exposure equations used by
EPA to conduct the chlorinated
aliphatic wastewater, EDC/VCM sludge,
and methyl chloride sludge risk
assessments are presented in the Risk
Assessment Technical Background
Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatics Listing Determination.
e. How Did EPA Quantify Contaminant
Exposure and Toxicity?
Exposure is the condition that occurs
when a contaminant comes into contact
with the outer boundary of the body,
such as the skin, mouth and nostrils.
Once EPA establishes the
concentrations of contaminants at the
points of exposure, EPA can estimate
the magnitude of each receptor's
exposure, or the contaminant dose. Dose
is the amount of the contaminant that
crosses the outer boundary of the body
and is available for absorption at
internal exchange boundaries (lungs,
gut. skin; EPA 1992IS). For example, for
exposure to a carcinogen through
ingestion of contaminated drinking
water, dose is a function of the
concentration of the contaminant in
drinking water (the exposure point
concentration), as well as certain
"exposure factors," such as how much
drinking water the receptor consumes
each day (the intake rate), the number
of years the receptor is exposed to
contaminated drinking water (the
exposure duration), how often the
receptor is exposed to contaminated
drinking water (the exposure
frequency), the body weight of the
receptor, and the period of time over
which the dose is averaged.
EPA's primary source of exposure
factors is the "Exposure Factors
Handbook"published by EPA in August
1997 (EPA 1997a>6). For probabilistic
risk analyses, EPA used the
distributions of exposure factor values
provided in the Exposure Factors
Handbook to develop PDFs for exposure
factors. The one situation where EPA
does not develop an expression of dose
is the case where we use Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) " to estimate
noncancer hazard for the inhalation
exposure route. In this situation, EPA
calculates noncancer hazard from
concentration of the contaminant in air
and the RfC, without considering
exposure factors (inhalation rate, body
weight) other than those inherent in the
RfC.
We express the toxicity of
contaminants as health benchmarks.
Health benchmarks include cancer slope
factors (CSFs, EPA's measure of cancer
potency)'8 for oral exposure
carcinogenic contaminants; reference
doses (RfDs, EPA's acceptable
contaminant dose via ingestion) >» for
oral exposure to noncarcinogenic
contaminants; inhalation CSFs for
inhalation exposure to carcinogenic
contaminants; and RfCs for inhalation
exposure to noncarcinogenic
contaminants. EPA derived inhalation
CSFs from Unit Risk Factors (URFs) for
inhalation exposure to carcinogens. EPA
uses Toxicity Equivalency Factors
(TEFs) to express the toxicity of specific
dioxin congeners in terms of the toxicity
of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD) (see Section III. D.l.g.ii.
for an explanation of TEFs). Health
benchmark values are available from a
number of sources. For the chlorinated
aliphatics wastewater, EDC/VCM
sludge, and methyl chloride sludge risk
assessments, EPA established an order
of preference for the sources of health
benchmarks. The order of preference is
as follows (from most preferred to least
preferred): (1) the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) online
database of verified health benchmarks
(http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
index.html) 2°; (2) the Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST;
14 EPA, 1993, Addendum to Methodology for
Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect
Exposure to Combustor Emissions. EPA/600/AP-
93003. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Washington. DC.
is 57 FR 22888. Final Guidelines for Exposure
Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
May 29. 1992.
16EPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook,
Volumes I. n, and III. Office of Research and
Development, Washington. D.C.. EPA/600/P-95/
002Fa. b, c. August 1997, www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/
ord/webpubs/exposure/index.html.
"Very simply, an RfC is EPA's acceptable
concentration in air for a contaminant that causes
non-cancer health effects. An RfC is an estimate
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to
the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects
during a lifetime.
18 A cancer slope factor is the slope of the dose-
response curve in the low-dose region. When low-
dose linearity cannot be assumed, the slope factor
is the slope of the straight line from 0 dose (and
0 excess risk) to the dose at 1% excess risk. An
upper bound on this slope is usually used instead
of the slope itself. The units of the slope factor
usually are expressed as l/(mg/kg-day).
19 An RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily
exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a
lifetime.
20 EPA. 1998. Integrated Risk Information System.
Online database. (IRIS) Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Cincinnati, OH.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 16i/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46489
EPA 1997b)2'; (3) EPA's National Center
for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
provisional values, and (3) benchmarks
developed by the California
Environmental Protection Agency
(CALEPA)22. The specific health
benchmarks used in the analysis are
presented in Appendix C of the
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Risk
Assessment.
f. What Are the Risks From Exposure to
Chlorinated Aliphatics Wastewaters,
and EDC/VCM and Methyl Chloride
Sludges?
The following sections discuss EPA's
estimates of individual and population
risk for chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters, EDC/VCM sludges, and
methyl chloride sludges.
i. What Are the Individual Risks?
EPA combined estimates of dose and
estimates of toxicity (the health
benchmarks) to calculate individual
incremental lifetime carcinogenic risk
estimates and hazard quotients for the
21 EPA. 1997b. Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables: Annual Update. (HEAST) Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington,
D.CJuly.
22 California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA). 1997. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines: Technical Support
Document for Determining Cancer Potency Factors.
Draft for Public Comment. Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA,
www.oehha.org/ra guidance/.
potential contaminants of concern in
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters, EDC/
VCM sludge, and methyl chloride
sludge. Complete results of these
calculations are provided in the Risk
Assessment Technical Background
Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatics Listing Determination. EPA
typically considers a decision to list a
waste when carcinogenic risks are
1x10~5 or greater or when the
noncancer HQ is 1 or greater. None of
the contaminants generated noncancer
hazards with an HQ greater than 1, nor
did the sum of the contaminant HQs
exceed 1. In summing carcinogenic risk
estimates and noncancer hazard
quotients, EPA does not sum those risks
or hazards that could not occur within
the lifetime of an individual. For
example, if estimated risks due to
nongroundwater pathways occur during
the operating or post-closure life of the
unit (that is, due to releases to air and
runoff/erosion) and risk via the
groundwater pathways are not projected
to occur for hundreds, or even
thousands, of years due to long times
required for contaminant migration,
then these two pathway risks would not
be added together.
The following sections present
separately our deterministic and
probabilistic estimates of individual risk
for:
• Wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic chemicals,
• Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of EDC/VCM, and
• Wastewater treatment sludges from
• the production of methyl chloride.
Chlorinated Aliphatic Wastewaters
Table III-l summarizes the significant
(greater than lxlO~5 risk estimates for
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters
managed in onsite aerated biological
wastewater treatment tanks.. The highest
deterministic risk estimate, 2xlO~5,
occurs for the farmer. The risk is
attributable to the farmer's ingestion of
dioxins, which in Table III-l are
expressed as the 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
toxicity "equivalent (TEQ). The farmer's
high end deterministic risk falls slightly
below the 90th percentile probabilistic
risk estimate (the 80th percentile risk
estimate is IxlO"5). Table IH-2
summarizes our deterministic estimates
of risk due to the direct inhalation of
chloroform. The high end chloroform
risks are 3xlO~6 for the farmer and
2xlO~6 for all other receptors. The
chloroform deterministic risk estimates
for the adult receptors are roughly equal
to the 97.5th percentile probabilistic
risk estimates. Although the chloroform
risks are not greater than lxlO~5, they
are additive to the risks that EPA
estimated for dioxins because they
would occur within the same timeframe.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
46490
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
Table III-l. Summary of Excess Lifetime Dioxin Cancer Risk (expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ) Attributable to Management of Chlorinated Aliphatic Wastewaters
in an Aerated Biological Treatment Tank
Table III-l A. Deterministic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Child of Fanner
Home Gardener
Adult Resident/Fisher
Child of Resident
HE
2E-05
7E-06
2E-08
2E-09
7E-09
CT
4E-07
3E-07
1E-09
1E-11
4E-11
High End Parameters
Exposure Duration and Contaminant Concentration
Contaminant Concentration and Waste Quantity
Exposure Duration and Contaminant Concentration
Contaminant Concentration and
Meteorological Location
HE = High End; CT = Central Tendency
Table Ill-IB. Probabilistic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Child of Farmer
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Percentile
50th
2E-07
90th
5E-05
95th
1E-04
97.5th
3E-04
100th
2E-02
2E-07
2E-07
2E-07
4E-05
4E-05
4E-05
1E-04
1E-04
1E-04
2E-04
2E-04
2E-04
8E-03
9E-03
1E-02
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46491
Table III-2. Summary of Excess Lifetime Chloroform Cancer Risk
Attributable to Management of Chlorinated Aliphatic Wastewaters
in an Aerated Biological Treatment Tank
Table III-2-A: Deterministic Results
Receptor
Farmer
Child of Farmer / Child Resident
Home Gardener/Fisher/Adult Resident
HE
3E-06
2E-06
2E-06
CT
8E-08
8E-08
8E-08
High End Parameters
Exposure Duration and
Distance To Receptor
Contaminant concentration and
Distance to Receptor
Table III-2B. Probabilistic Results
' < * "•
Receptor I " '
Farmer
Adult Resident/Home Gardener/Fisher
Child Resident
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Child of Farmer
Age 1-5
Age 6-11 . |
Age 12-18 |
! ,
t
50th
3E-08
2E-08
•
3E-08
3E-08 i
;
2E-08
6E-08 I
4E-08 j
3E-08 i
-
90th
6E-07
5E-07
6E-07
6E-07
4E-07
1E-06 !
i
8E-07 !
6E-07
Percent!!*
95th
1E-06
1E-06
1E-06
1E-06
8E-07
2E-06
2E-06
1E-06
i
97.5th
2E-06
2E-06
2E-06
2E-06
1E-06
4E-06
3E-06
2E-06
s
f 100th
| 6E-05
I 5E-05
6E-05
5E-05
4E-05
6E-05
5E-05
4E-05
-------
46492
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
EDC/VCMSludges
Tables III-3 and III-4 summarize the
significant (greater than lxlO-s) risk
estimates for EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges managed in an onsite
land treatment unit. In all cases, we
estimated that the highest risk occurs for
the fanner. Table III-3 presents dioxin
(expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ) risk
estimates for the land treatment unit
nongroundwater pathways. The high
end deterministic risk estimate for the
farmer is 2xlO~4, which also
corresponds to the 95th percentile
probabilistic risk estimate. Table III-4
presents arsenic risk estimates for the
land treatment unit groundwater
pathways. The high end deterministic
risk estimate for the farmer is lxlO~5,
which falls between the 97.5th percentile
probabilistic risk estimate (6xlO~6) and
the 100th percentile probabilistic risk
estimate (5x10"5). EPA estimates that
the groundwater pathway risks in Table
III-4 would occur approximately 1500
years in the future, whereas the dioxin
nongroundwater pathway risks in Table
III-3 would occur during the assumed
operating life of land treatment unit.
Table III-5 summarizes the significant
risk estimates for EDC/VCM sludges
managed in an offsite municipal
landfill. The risk estimates presented in
Table HI-5 are arsenic groundwater
pathway risks. The high end
deterministic-risk estimate for the
farmer is 3xlO~5, which falls between
the 97.5th percentile (IxlQ-s) and 100th
percentile (3x10 ~4) probabilistic risk
estimates. We estimate that the arsenic
risks attributable to the landfill
(presented in Table III-5) would occur
thousands of years in the future.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46493
Table IH-3. Summary of Excess Lifetime Dioxin (expressed as 23,7,8-TCDD TEQ)
Cancer Risk Attributable to Management of EDC/VCM Sludge
in An Onsite Land Treatment Unit
Table III-3A. Deterministic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Child of Farmer
Home Gardener
Fisher
Adult Resident
Child of Resident
HE
2E-04
8E-OS
2E-06
2E-05
2E-06
5E-06
CT
4E-06
3E-06
6E-08
6E-07
5E-08
1E-07
High End Parameters
Exposure Duration and Contaminant Concentration
Contaminant Concentration and Beef Intake
Exposure Duration and Contaminant Concentration
Contaminant Concentration and Soil Intake
HE = High End; CT = Central Tendency
Table IH-3B. Probabilistic Risk Results
Receptor
Fanner
Home Gardener
Resident
Fisher
Child of Resident
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Child of Farmer
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Percentile
50tb
7E-06
5E-08
3E-08
2E-07
90th
1E-04
2E-06
1E-06
3E-06
95th
2E-04
2E-06
2E-06
8E-06
97.5th
4E-04
4E-06
2E-06
2E-05
100th
2E-03
2E-05
7E-06
4E-04
1E-07
5E-08
3E-08
2E-06
1E-06
8E-07
4E-06
2E-06
1E-06
6E-06
2E-06
1E-06
1E-04
6E-06
4E-06
9E-06
7E-06
5E-06
1E-04
9E-05
7E-05
2E-04
2E-04
1E-04
3E-04
2E-04
2E-04
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
-------
46494 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday. August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
Table ITE-4. Summary of Excess Lifetime Arsenic Cancer Risk Attributable to
Management of EDC/VCM Sludge
in An Onsite Land Treatment Unit
Table 1H-4A. Deterministic Risk Results
Receptor
Fanner
Child of Fanner/Child of Resident
Adult Resident/Gardener/Fisher
HE
IE-OS
3E-06
6E-06
CT
8E-07
6E-07
7E-07
High End Parameters
Leachate concentration and Exposure
Duration
HE = High End; CT = Central Tendency
Time for Peak concentration to reach receptor is approximately 1500 years
Table III-4B. Probabilistic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Adult Resident/Gardener/Fisher
Child Resident
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Farm Child
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Percentile
50th
9E-08
7E-08
90th
2E-06
1E-06
95th
4E-06
3E-06
97.5th
6E-06
5E-06
100th
5E-05
3E-05
6E-08
5E-08
4E-08
1E-06
1E-06
9E-07
2E-06
2E-06
2E-06
4E-06
3E-06
3E-06
5E-05
4E-05
4E-05
1E-07
8E-08
6E-08
2E-06
2E-06
1E-06
4E-06
3E-06
2E-06
6E-06
4E-06
4E-06
4E-05
2E-05
2E-05
-------
Federal Regisfer/VoI. 64, No. 164/Wednesday. August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46495
Table III-4. Summary of Excess Lifetime Arsenic Cancer Risk Attributable to
Management of EDC/VCM Sludge
in An Onsite Land Treatment Unit
Table III-4A. Deterministic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Child of Farmer/Child of Resident
Adult Resident/Gardener/Fisher
HE
1E-05
3E-06
6E-06
CT
8E-07
6E-07
7E-07
High End Parameters
Leachate concentration and Exposure
Duration
HE = High End; CT = Central Tendency
Time^for Peak concentration to reach receptor is approximately ] 500 years
Table III-4B. Probabilistic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Adult Resident/Gardener/Fisher
Child Resident
Age 1-5
Age6-ll
Age 12-18
Farm Child
Age 1-5
Age 6-1 1
Age 12-18
Percentile
50th
9E-08
7E-08
90th
2E-06
1E-06
95th
4E-06
3E-06
97.5th
6E-06
5E-06
100th
5E-05
3E-05
6E-08
5E-08
4E-08
1E-06
1E-06
9E-07
2E-06
2E-06
2E-06
4E-06
3E-06
3E-06
5E-05
4E-05
4E-05
1E-07
8E-08
6E-08
2E-06
2E-06
1E-06
4E-06
3E-06
2E-06
6E-06
4E-06
4E-06
4E-05
2E-05
2E-05
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
46496
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
Methyl Chloride Sludges
EPA conducted a deterministic
analysis to estimate nongroundwater
(air) pathway risks associated with
management of methyl chloride sludges
in an onsite landfill. All
nongroundwater pathway carcinogenic
risks were less than 1 x lO"8, and all
noncancer HQs were less than 0.0001.
For groundwater pathways, EPA
performed a screening analysis that
maximizes estimates of risk or hazard to
human receptors. EPA calculated the
carcinogenic risk for an adult who
ingests (drinks) 1.4 liters of leachate
from the landfill for 350 days per year
for 58 years. EPA also calculated the
noncancer hazard for a child who
ingests 1.4 liters of leachate from the
landfill for 350 days per year for 9 years.
None of the noncancer HQs was greater
than 1, Arsenic was the only carcinogen
with risk in excess of 1 x 10~s.
Specifically, an adult's risk due to
ingesting leachate from methyl chloride
sludges for 58 years was 5x10~5 due to
arsenic. EPA discusses our evaluation of
this risk in Section III.EAb.
ii. What are the Population Risks?
EPA expects that the population risks
resulting from management of
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters in
tanks and EDC/VCM sludges in onsite
land treatment units and landfills are
not significant. With regard to
groundwater pathway risks. EPA
believes that the number of domestic
drinking water wells (thus the
population) potentially affected by
groundwater contaminated with arsenic
originating from the landfill and the
land treatment unit would be very
small. Furthermore, we estimate that the
arsenic concentrations predicted in
receptor (drinking water) wells will
result in risks only slightly above
1X 10~5 for that very small number of
people.
For nongroundwater pathways, EPA
performed a screening evaluation of
population risk for the waste
management scenario and pathway that
resulted in the greatest individual risk
estimate of any pathway evaluated in
the chlorinated aliphatics risk
assessment. Specifically, EPA evaluated
risk associated with ingestion of beef
and dairy products contaminated with
dioxins derived from the onsite EDC/
VCM land treatment unit. As presented
previously, under the land treatment
unit scenario the farmer's total
individual excess lifetime cancer risk
from ingestion of beef and dairy was
2 x 10 - * for high end exposures and
3x 10~6 for central tendency exposures.
Although the individual risk estimates
for the farmer exposed to dioxins from
EDC/VCM sludge managed in a land
treatment unit are an order of magnitude
greater than those for the farmer
exposed to dioxins from chlorinated
aliphatics wastewaters managed in
tanks, is possible that population risks
resulting from releases from chlorinated
aliphatics wastewaters would exceed
those resulting from releases from EDC/
VCM sludges. This might occur because
there is only one land treatment unit
that is used to manage EDC/VCM
sludge, and we expect that there may be
many aerated biological wastewater
treatment tanks used to manage
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to assume that the
population risks for the land treatment
unit likely would be greater than those
for the wastewater tanks because there
would need to be at least 10 wastewater
treatment tanks with surrounding cattle
populations similar to that of the land
treatment unit to produce a population
risk estimate equivalent to that of the
land treatment unit.
Results of the population risk analysis
for the land treatment unit indicate that
2 x10~4 excess cancer cases would be
expected annually in a population of
1,410 individuals ingesting beef
produced from cattle raised within 2
kilometers of the land treatment unit
over a 40-year operational life for the
land treatment unit (dairy cattle are not
raised in the county where the land
treatment unit is located, thus we did
not evaluate ingestion of dairy products
in the population risk analysis). The
average individual risk to the
population consuming beef from within
the 2-kilometer radius is 2x 10 ~7. We
calculated the population potentially
affected by a release from the land
treatment unit (1,410 individuals) from
the total estimated quantity of
contaminated beef and average beef
ingestion rates (that is, we calculated
how many people would be required to
consume all of the contaminated beef
assuming typical rates of beef ingestion).
It is possible that the contaminated beef
would be distributed more widely
throughout the population, such that the
total number of people ingesting the
contaminated beef would be greater
than 1,410. However, the population
risk estimate would not change because
population risk is a function of the
number of people who are exposed (that
is, consume contaminated beef) and
each person's individual risk (which is
a function of the amount of
contaminated beef a person consumes).
Consequently, as the number of people
who are exposed increases, the
individual risk must decrease
proportionally because there is only a
finite amount of contaminated beef, and
the overall population risk remains the
same. The Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination provides a description of
the procedure used to estimate
population risks.
EPA did not estimate population risks
for the other receptors for whom we
calculated individual risk estimates
(residents, children, gardeners, and
fishers). Because the high end risk for
the land treatment unit scenario was
driven by the ingestion of beef and dairy
products, the population risks for non-
farmer receptors are expected to be
considerably lower than 2x 1Q~4.
Although the population risks
attributable to the management of
chlorinated aliphatics wastes are
expected to be very small, EPA does not
believe it is appropriate to allow
contamination from waste management
activities to cause substantial risk to
nearby residents simply because there
are few individuals in the immediate
vicinity of the waste management units.
40 CFR 261.11 clearly states that wastes
are to be listed if they are "capable of
posing a substantial present or potential
hazard." It does not state that a large
number of people must be affected.
However, population risk may be a
factor that the Agency could consider
under 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) (xi) ("other
factors as may be appropriate").
EPA's Guidance for Risk
Characterization (EPA 1995) states that
when small populations are exposed,
population risk estimates may be very
small, however, "in such situations,
individual risk estimates will usually be
a more meaningful parameter for
decision-makers." Consequently, EPA's
decision to list wastes has been based
primarily on the concern over risks to
those individual's who are significantly
exposed, even if there are relatively few
such individuals. EPA, however,
requests comment on whether it would
be appropriate to give weight to
population risk in deciding whether to
list these chlorinated aliphatic wastes as
hazardous. EPA further invites comment
on the effect of this approach on the
Agency's goals with respect to
environmental justice in rural areas.
g. What Is the Toxicity of COCs
Identified by EPA?
The two contaminants for which EPA
calculated significant risks are dioxins
(expressed as the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ)
and arsenic. The following sections
discuss the ways that these
contaminants affect human health.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 164 /Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46497
i. Arsenic
Arsenic is a naturally occurring
element in the earth's crust that usually
exists as an inorganic or organic
compound, rather than in a free state.
Arsenic that exists in compounds with
elements such as oxygen, chlorine, and
sulfur is referred to as inorganic arsenic;
arsenic combined with carbon is
referred to as organic arsenic. Organic
forms of arsenic are less toxic than
inorganic forms.
There is clear evidence that chronic
exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans
increases the risk of cancer, and EPA
classifies inorganic arsenic as a Group
A—Known Human Carcinogen. Studies
report that inhalation of arsenic results
in an increased risk of lung cancer. In
addition, ingestion of arsenic has been
associated with an increased risk of
nonmelanoma skin cancer and bladder,
liver, kidney, and lung cancer. No
information is available on the risk of
cancer in humans from dermal exposure
to arsenic (EPA 1998).
ii. Dioxins
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD) belongs to the class of
compounds, chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans,
that are referred to as dioxins. EPA
issued a draft Health Assessment
Document for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Related
Compounds in 1994. This document is
a three-volume series consisting of a
complete reassessment of the toxic
effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (EPA 1994a,
b 23). The document was reviewed by
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)
but has not yet been issued in final
form.
EPA has classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a
Group B2—Probable Human Carcinogen
(EPA 1997b). An increase in lung cancer
risks was observed among Japanese
males exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a
result of an oil poisoning accident.
Human studies have also found an
association between 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
soft-tissue sarcomas, lymphomas, and
stomach carcinomas, although for
malignant lymphomas, the increase in
risk is not consistent. The increase in
risk is of borderline significance for
highly exposed groups and is less
among groups exposed to lower levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD (EPA 1994b). In animal
23EPA. 1994a. Health Assessment Document for
2.3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dtaxin (TCDD) and
Related Compounds. Volume K praft). Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.,
www.epa.gov/ord/health.
EPA. 1994b. Health Assessment Document for
2,3,7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dloxin (TCDD) and
Related Compounds. Volume III. (Draft). Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C..
www.epa.gov/ord/health.
tests, TCDD is one of the most potent
carcinogens ever evaluated.
Although EPA has not developed an
RfD or an RfC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
noncarcinogenic health effects have
been reported for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The
major noncarcinogenic effect from
exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD is chloracne,
a severe acne-like condition that
develops within months of first
exposure to high levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
For many individuals, the condition
disappears after discontinuation of
exposure, for others it may remain for
years. There are limited human data to
suggest the doses at which chloracne is
likely to occur (EPA 1994a, b).
Epidemiological studies report
conflicting evidence on the
immunotoxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in,
humans. Some studies suggest evidence
of immunotoxicity, such as alterations
in lymphocyte populations, cell surface
markers, or lymphocyte proliferative
response (ATSDR 1997c24). However,
studies have not reported changes in the
immune system directly related to
2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure (EPA 1994a, b).
An association has been reported
between levels of male reproductive
hormones and 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure.
Decreased testosterone levels were
detected in several human studies, and
animal data are available to support
these findings. Other effects noted in
human studies include an association
between 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure and the
following:
• An increased risk of diabetes and an
elevated prevalence of abnormal fasting
serum glucose levels
• The induction of cytochrome P-450
1A1, an enzyme involved in
biotransformation reactions
• Elevation of gamma glutamyl
transferase, a liver enzyme
• A possible increased risk of
endbmetriosis, a disease of the female
reproductive system (EPA 1994a, b).
Animal studies report reproductive
and developmental effects from
exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. These studies
suggest that altered development may be
among the most sensitive endpoints of
2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure. Developmental
toxicity has been reported to occur in
several animal species at lower levels
than male and female reproductive
toxicity effects. 2,3,7,8-TCDD appears to
affect a large number of critical
developmental effects at specific
developmental stages. These changes
can lead to increases in fetal mortality,
disruption of organ system structure,
and irreversible impairment of organ
function. Developmental toxicity from
2,3,7,8-TCDD has been seen in fish,
birds, and mammals (EPA 1994a, b).
EPA assigned 17 dioxin and furan
congeners individual toxicity
equivalency factors (TEFs). TEFs are
estimates of the toxicity of dioxin-like
compounds relative to the toxicity of
TCDD, which is assigned a TEF of 1.0.
We used the TEFs identified as the I-
TEFs (International-TEFs) to conduct
the chlorinated aliphatics risk
assessment because, until very recently,
this is the TEF scheme EPA scientists
have recommended and used for the last
10 years (EPA 1989) 25 as.
Documentation supporting the use of
the TEEs has been placed in the
rulemaking record.
The I-TEFs are presented in Table III-
6. The I-TEFs are based on a limited
data base of in w'voand in vitro toxicity
testing (EPA 1989). The World Health
Organization (WHO) recently reviewed
the I-TEFs (Van den Berg et al. 1998)27,
and determined that three of the I-TEFs
those for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
(pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), OCDD
(octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), and
OCDF (octachlorodibenzofuran),
required modification (Table III-6). EPA
is in the process of adopting these
modifications, and consequently
reviewed the impact that the revised
(WHO-) TEFs would have on the results
of the chlorinated aliphatics risk
assessment. 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD was not
detected in dedicated chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters, dedicated EDC/
VCM sludges, or methyl chloride
sludges. Consequently, the difference in
the I-TEF and the WHO-TEF for
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD has no impact on the
results of the risk analyses presented in
this section. Because of the TEF
differences for OCDD and OCDF,
however, the decision to use either the
I-TEFs or the WHO-TEFs potentially
may result in large differences in the
calculated TCDD TEQ concentrations
for a given chlorinated aliphatics waste
sample. Nevertheless, because OCDD
and OCDF contribute very little to the
actual risk attributable to dioxin
compounds, the decision to use either
24 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry). 1997c. Toxicological Profile for
2.3.7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. U.S. Public
Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Atlanta. GA.
25 EPA. 1989. Interim Procedures for Estimating
Risks Associated with Exposure to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Furans (CDDs
and CDFs) and 1989 Update. EPA/625/3-89/016.
Risk Assessment Forum. March.
26 Proposed Rule, "Addition of Dioxin and
Dioxin-Like Compounds; Modification of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Listing; Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-
Know," 62 FR 24887, (May 7. 1997).
27 Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency
Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans
and Wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives
v.106. n.12. pp. 775-792. December.
-------
46498
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
the 1-TEFs or the WHO-TEFs has
negligible impact to the overall risk
results. The Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination provides separate risk
results for each of the dioxin congeners
detected in the wastewaters and sludges
evaluated.
TABLE III-6. TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY
FACTORS (TEFs) FOR DIOXIN COM-
POUNDS
Compound
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9-OCDD ....
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8.9-OCDF ....
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD,
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
2,3,7,8-TCOF
1,2,3.4,7,8,9-HpCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3.6.7,8-HxCOD
2,3,4,6.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4.6,7.8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
I-TEF
1
0.001
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1
05
0.1
0.01
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.1
WHO-
TEF
same
0.0001
same
same
0.0001
same
1
same
same
same
same
same
same
same
same
same
same
h. What Is the Uncertainty in the
Human Health Risk Results?
EPA typically classifies the major
areas of uncertainty in risk assessments
as parameter uncertainty, scenario
uncertainty, and model uncertainty.
This section identifies the primary
sources of each of these types of
uncertainty in the chlorinated aliphatics
risk assessment, and qualitatively
describes how each may influence the
results of the risk assessment.
Many of the parameters that we used
to quantify contaminant fate and
transport and contaminant exposure and
dose either were not measured or could
not be measured precisely and/or
accurately. Some of the most important
and sensitive parameters in our analyses
include those that describe waste
composition; waste management
practices; site characteristics (for
example, hydrogeological,
topographical, meteorological, and soils
data); the physiologic and behavioral
exposure characteristics of the
receptors; the physical, chemical, and
biochemical properties of the
contaminants; and toxicological effects.
We believe that the primary sources of
parameter uncertainty include the
following:
• The risk analyses were based on a
limited set of waste sample data. It is
possible that these data do not represent the
true distribution of contaminant
concentrations in the waste categories
evaluated, resulting in either an
overestimation or underestimation of the
actual risk to receptors.
• EPA obtained little site-specific
information regarding waste management
units for the chlorinated aliphatics industry,
necessitating that we make a number of
assumptions regarding waste management in
off-site landfills, the land treatment unit, and
wastewater tanks. Many of the facilities
reported using offsite nonhazardous landfills
to dispose of EDC/VCM sludges. We assumed
that these landfills are municipal landfills,
and modeled typical municipal landfills
based on available data. Our major
assumptions about the municipal landfills
that have the effect of decreasing our risk
estimates are that the landfills have daily
covers and run-on/run-off controls. Our
major assumptions about the municipal
landfills that have the effect of increasing our
risk estimates are that the landfills are not
lined and have no leachate collection
systems. For the land treatment unit, we
assumed that no run-on/run-off controls were
present to mitigate risk. We assumed that the
industry's wastewater treatment tanks are
uncovered (which increases our risk
estimates), are aerated (which increases our
risk estimates), employ biological treatment
techniques (which decreases our risk
estimates), have structural integrity (which
decreases our risk estimates), and have spill
and overflow controls (which decreases our
risk estimates).
• We typically used regional databases to
obtain the parameter values necessary to
model contaminant fate and transport.
Because the data that we used are not
specific to the facilities at which the actual
wastes are managed, the data represent our
best estimates of actual site conditions. Use
of these databases in lieu of site-specific data
may result in either overestimates or
underestimates of risk.
• Sources of uncertainty in toxicological
benchmarks include one or more of the
following: extrapolation from laboratory
animal data to humans, variability of
response within the human population,
extrapolation of responses at high
experimental doses under controlled
conditions to low doses under highly
variable environmental conditions, and
adequacy of the database (number of studies
available, toxic endpoints evaluated,
exposure routes evaluated, sample sizes,
length of study, etc.). Toxicological
benchmarks are designed to be conservative
(that is, overestimate risk) because of the
uncertainties and challenges associated with
condensing toxicity data into a single
quantitative expression. Therefore, use of the
current toxicological benchmarks most likely
overestimated risk for the pathways
evaluated.
• EPA estimated the risk of developing
cancer from the estimated lifetime average
daily dose and the slope of the dose-response
curve. A cancer slope factor is derived from
either human or animal data and is taken as
the upper bound on the slope of the dose-
response curve in the low-dose region,
generally assumed to be linear, expressed as
a lifetime excess cancer risk per unit
exposure. However, individuals exposed to
carcinogens in the first few years of life may
be at increased risk of developing cancer. For
this reason, EPA recognizes that significant
uncertainties and unknowns exist regarding
the estimation of lifetime, cancer risks in
children. We also note that the analysis of
cancer risks in children has not been
externally peer reviewed.
We expect that the various sources of
parameter uncertainty in our risk
assessment counterbalance'each other,
such that parameter uncertainty will not
result in a significant overall increase or
decrease in risk.
Scenario uncertainty results from the
assumptions we make regarding how
receptors become exposed to
contaminants. This uncertainty occurs
because of the difficulty and general
impracticality of making actual
measurements of a receptor's exposure.
Exposure modeling relies heavily on
default assumptions regarding
population activity patterns, mobility,
dietary habits, body weights, and other
factors. Because the risk estimates
presented in today's notice are for
hypothetical chronic exposures and are
designed to provide a realistic range of
potential receptor exposure scenarios,
we develop predictions of long-term
average exposures for each receptor.
Although it is possible to study various
populations to determine their exposure
parameters (for example, age-specific
soil ingestion rates or intake rates for
food) or to assess past exposures
(epidemiological studies) or current
exposures, risk assessment is about
prediction. Therefore, long-term
exposure monitoring in this context is
infeasible. The double-high end
deterministic approach coupled with
the probabilistic approach is designed to
provide reasonable estimates of
potential long-term exposures for
various receptors. The Exposure Factors
Handbook provides the current state-of-
the-science regarding exposure
modeling and assumptions and was
used in the risk assessment. To the
extent that actual exposure scenarios
vary from the assumptions we used,
risks could be underestimated or
overestimated. Although there could be
individuals living near a waste disposal
site who have higher exposures than
those presented, it is more likely that
actual exposures for most of these
individuals would fall within the
predicted range, and, moreover, would
be similar to those predicted for the
central tendency or 50th percentile.
Models and their mathematical
expressions are simplifications of reality
that are used to approximate real-world
conditions and processes, and their
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46499
relationships. Models do not include all
parameters or equations necessary to
express reality because of the inherent
complexity of the natural environment,
and the lack of sufficient data to
describe the natural environment.
Consequently, models are based on
numerous assumptions and
simplifications, and reflect an
incomplete understanding of natural
processes. We selected the models used
in this risk assessment, described in
Section III.D.l.d, based on science,
policy, and professional judgment. We
selected the wastewater emissions
model, the air dispersion and deposition
models, the indirect exposure equations,
and the groundwater model because
they provide the information needed for
this analysis and because we generally
consider them to be state-of-the-science.
Even though the models used in the risk
analysis are used widely and have been
accepted for numerous applications,
they each retain significant sources of
uncertainty that as a whole could result
in either an overestimation or
underestimation of risk.
One of the sources of uncertainty is
our assumption that vapor emissions of
dioxins from chlorinated aliphatics
wastewaters and wastewater treatment
sludges do not appreciably sorb to
particulate matter in the ambient air in
approximately 1.2 minutes, the average
the time required for emissions from the
waste management units to reach a
receptor located 300 meters away (our
central tendency distance to receptor).
Sorption of dioxins onto particles in air
would remove dioxins from the vapor
phase, thereby reducing the vapor-phase
diffusion of dioxins into plants. As a
result, our calculated dioxin
concentrations in plants, and in animals
consuming plants (particularly grasses),
are higher than they would be if we
assumed that some fraction of the vapor
phase dioxin irreversibly partitions onto
particles in the ambient air. However,
given the uncertainties regarding rates
of dioxin partitioning, magnitude of
partitioning, and other factors
potentially influencing dioxin sorption
onto particles (such as temperature,
humidity, and particle size, type and
density), we believe our assumption that
dioxins remain as vapors during their
transport from the waste management
unit source to the receptor location is
appropriate. Because we understand
that our assumption results in increased
risk estimates, we are soliciting public
comment on this issue. We also charged
peer reviewers with providing comment
on the issue during the peer review
process, discussed in Section III.D.3.,
below.
2. What Are the Potential Risks to
Ecological Receptors?
EPA conducted an ecological risk
screening analysis for the tank scenario
for chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters,
the land treatment unit and landfill
waste management scenarios for EDC/
VCM sludges, and for the landfill waste
management scenario for methyl
chloride sludges. The purpose of this
analysis was to identify whether there is
potential for adverse ecological effects
resulting from the management of
chlorinated aliphatics wastewaters,
EDC/VCM sludges, and methyl chloride
sludges. The screening analysis
compares the modeled media
concentrations to protective media
concentrations in the form of a hazard
quotient. When the hazard quotient
exceeds 1, there is potential for adverse
effects. If the hazard quotient is less
than 1, we do not expect adverse effects
for a particular ecological receptor. The
amount by which the hazard quotient
exceeds 1 suggests the potential for
adverse ecological effects; however, the
screening results do not demonstrate
actual ecological effects, nor do they
indicate whether those effects will have
significant implications for ecosystems
and their components.
For the screening analysis, EPA
applied a methodology designed to
evaluate the potential for adverse
ecological effects for selected receptors
in generalized terrestrial and freshwater
aquatic systems. The ecological risk
screening analysis focused on a limited
set of constituents of concern that were
modeled for the human health risk
analysis. For the selected ecological
receptors, we developed protective
contaminant concentrations in soil,
sediment, and surface water that are
based on conservative assumptions
regarding exposure pathways and
dietary preferences. The analysis
included the following steps: (1) we
developed chemical stressor
concentration limits (CSCLs)2S; (2) we
compared the CSCLs to exposure point
concentrations and calculated hazard
quotients; and (3) we characterized key
uncertainties and their impact on
hazard quotients. We describe the
results of this process in detail in the
Risk Assessment Technical Background
Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatics Listing Determination.
Based on the results of the analysis,
we do not anticipate significant risk for
the ecological receptors evaluated under
either the high end or central tendency
28 Chemical stressor concentration limits are the
containment concentrations in environmental
media that are presumed to cause de minimis
effects to ecological receptors.
chlorinated aliphatic wastewater tank,
EDC/VCM landfill, or methyl chloride
landfill scenarios. However, there is
indication of potential significant risk to
ecological receptors under both the high
end and central tendency EDC/VCM
land treatment unit scenarios. These
results support our conclusions for the
human health risk analyses for EDC/
VCM and methyl chloride sludges, that
is, that there are risks posed by the
management of EDC/VCM sludges in
land treatment units, but not by the
management of EDC/VCM sludges or
methyl chloride sludges in landfills.
Although we did not explicitly consider
risks to threatened or endangered
species, the CSCLs are protective media
concentrations based on Agency-wide
standards (e.g., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria) and no observed adverse effects
levels. The protective nature of the
CSCLs implies some degree of
protection for species already
considered to be under stress. The
ecological risk screening results are
described in detail in the Risk
Assessment Technical Background
Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatics Listing Determination.
3. Did EPA'Conduct a Peer Review of
the Risk Assessment?
The Agency has submitted the risk
assessment to three independent experts
for peer review. Their comments have
been received and are in the docket for
today's proposed rule. Due to the time
constraints for proposal of this rule, the
Agency has not yet reviewed and
addressed those comments. Both the
peer review comments and the public
comments will be addressed in the final
rulemaking.
E. Waste-Specific Listing Determination
Rationales
This section presents the rationale for
today's proposed listing determinations
for each of the identified categories of
wastewaters and wastewater treatment
sludges from the chlorinated aliphatic
industry. EPA considered the listing
criteria set put in 40 CFR 261.11, as
incorporated into the risk assessments
presented in Section III.D. above, as
well as any other information relevant
to the criteria, in making each of the
listing determinations presented in this
section. The criteria provided in 40 CFR
261.11 include eleven factors for
determining "substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment." As previously
discussed at the beginning of Section
III.D., nine of these factors relate to the
risk assessments (constituent toxicity,
concentration, waste quantity, migration
potential, persistence, degradation
-------
46500
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
potential, bioaccumulation potential.
plausible mismanagement, and other
regulatory actions). Damage incidents
(261.11 (a) (3) (ix)) are investigated, and
those that can be attributed to the
wastes being evaluated are identified
and considered in our evaluation.
The following sections presents the
rationale for each of the proposed listing
determinations for wastes generated by
the chlorinated aliphatics industry. Our
rationale includes the results of our
consideration of each of the factors
listed above, the results of our risk
assessment and other factors as may be
appropriate.
1. Chlorinated Aliphatics Wastewaters
a. Wastewaters From the Production of
Chlorinated Aliphatics
As explained previously in Section
I III.A, 1., the Agency segregated
wastewaters from the chlorinated
aliphatics industry into two waste
groupings. Based upon current waste
management practices, we grouped all
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters,
except for those wastewaters generated
from the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process,
into a single waste category for the
listing determination investigation. We
decided to study these wastewaters
collectively because most chlorinated
aliphatic manufacturers commingle
wastewaters generated by individual
processes prior to treating the
wastewaters in a common wastewater
treatment system.29 In addition, many
process wastewaters generated from the
production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons contain similar
constituents of concern.
EPA is proposing to list as hazardous
process wastewaters generated from the
production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons (other than those
wastewaters generated from the
production of vinyl chloride monomer
using mercuric chloride catalyst in an
acetylene-based process, discussed later
in Section m.E. 1 .b of this preamble).
The wastewaters meet the criteria set
out at 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) for listing a
waste as hazardous and are capable of
posing a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the
environment when mismanaged. As
already described in the risk assessment
results in Section III.D. 1 .f. of this
preamble, we identified risks of concern
associated with air releases of dioxins
from wastewater treatment systems. The
results of our risk analysis, which
**See Appendix D to Listing Background
Document for the Chlorinated Aliphatic Listing
Determination.
explicitly considers the factors listed in
40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3)(i)-(x). shows
potential risks of concern for the farmer
and child of farmer receptors, where the
contaminants of concern are dioxins.
The risk assessment results were
presented previously in Table III-l of
Section III. D.I.f.
i. What Information Led EPA To
Propose To List as Hazardous Process
Wastewaters From the Production of
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons?
Responses to the 1996 RCRA Section
3007 chlorinated aliphatic industry
survey indicated that approximately
11.5 million metric tons of chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters are generated
annually. Survey responses and other
publicly-available information also
indicate that virtually all chlorinated
aliphatic manufacturers treat these
wastewaters in on-site, tank-based
wasteWater treatment systems prior to
direct discharge of these wastewaters in
accordance with facility-specific NPDES
permits. Other wastewater management
practices identified include discharge
off-site to either publicly-or privately-
owned treatment works (POTW,
PrOTW), and storage and treatment in
tanks prior to disposal in on-site
underground injection wells. None of
the facilities that responded to the
questionnaire indicated that chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters currently are
managed in surface impoundments.
The Agency evaluated air pathway
(vapor emissions) risks associated with
the management of chlorinated
aliphatics in wastewater treatment
tanks. Our analysis of air emissions
from the treatment of wastewaters was
limited to an evaluation of air emissions
from tank-based systems because the
results of the RCRA Section 3007 survey
showed that the chlorinated aliphatics
industry manages wastewaters
exclusively in tanks. Surface
impoundments currently are not being
used by this industry for the treatment
of wastewaters, and based upon a
review of industry trends, we anticipate
that this industry will not use surface
impoundments in the future. First, all of
our data indicate that surface
impoundments are no longer used by
the chlorinated aliphatics
manufacturers. In the 1992 RCRA 3007
survey responses, 5 facilities indicated
they were using surface impoundments
in the treatment of wastewater. In the
1997 RCRA 3007 survey update, only
two facilities indicated they were using
surface impoundments. We contacted
the five facilities to confirm whether or
not surface impoundments were being
used, and learned that all of the
impoundments had closed. Second, we
do not believe it is likely that
established tank-based wastewater
treatment systems would be abandoned
for surface impoundments-based
systems, given that chlorinated aliphatic
manufacturers have made the decision ,
to convert to tank-based systems outside
of regulations and after having
considered other variables (e.g., liability
concerns) and weighing all risks and
benefits of tank-based systems. Further,
impoundment-based systems are land
intensive and land is valuable,
particularly in industrial areas. Once a
facility has reclaimed land previously
used for surface impoundments, the
facility is likely to then use that land for
higher value operations. Therefore, we
did not-view surface impoundments as
a plausible management for wastewaters
within this industry.
Given that wastewaters are managed
in aerated biological treatment tanks,
the emissions pathway of most concern
is air emissions. Although such tanks
often are open and may facilitate air
releases, wastewater treatment tanks do
restrict or eliminate the possibility of
releases to groundwater via leaching.
Tanks used to store and treat
wastewaters generally are equipped
with overflow and spill controls and are
managed in compliance with structural
integrity requirements that restrict the
physical migration of wastes from the
unit into the surrounding soil. However,
given that a majority of the tanks used
to treat chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters are designed to allow for
aeration of the wastewater, these units
may not completely control releases due
to vapor emissions. Therefore, EPA
determined that contaminant transport
via air releases from tank-based systems
was the most logical source of potential
risk from managing these wastewaters.
EPA collected 41 samples of
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters
generated at 15 facilities. From the
samples and analytical results we
selected data for our risk analysis that
represent wastewaters at the point
where they are commingled prior to
treatment. Since it is common for
wastewaters to be combined prior to
treatment in on-site wastewater
treatment facilities, these commingled
wastewaters are most representative of
the wastewaters that actually are
managed in tanks. Further, because the
RCRA Section 3007 survey responses
indicated that some facilities may
commingle chlorinated aliphatic
process wastewater with non-
chlorinated aliphatic (e.g., petroleum
refinery) process wastewater prior to
treatment, we conducted our risk
assessment using only waste
characterization and volume data
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules
46501
representing "dedicated" wastewaters.
We used data from these facilities to
ensure that the results of our risk
assessment would reflect only risks
associated with the management of
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters.
We also centered our analysis on an
evaluation of chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters not currently defined as
hazardous waste, and that are managed
in aerated, uncovered biological
treatment tanks. While not every facility
currently uses biological treatment, this
was the predominant practice observed
during facility site visits and indicated
in the RCRA Section 3007 survey. The
risk analysis assumed that biological
treatment occurs in aerated, uncovered
tanks, because these conditions are
typical for biological treatment in tanks
and were confirmed to be occurring at
some chlorinated aliphatic facilities
treating non-hazardous, dedicated
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters. Also,
because aeration increases air
emissions, this scenario is expected to
result in the highest risk estimates
(compared with non-aerated and/or
covered tanks). Based upon survey
response information and follow up
inquiries with facility personnel,
biological treatment in uncovered,
aerated tanks was considered to be a
plausible management scenario for
wastewaters in the chlorinated
aliphatics industry.
The risks associated with vapor
emissions of dioxin, as presented
previously in Table III-l in Section
III.D. l.f., are significant for two
receptors, the farmer and the farmer's
child, and for one exposure route, the
consumption of beef and dairy products.
The high-end cancer risk for the farmer
is 2E-05 and the central tendency risk
is 4E-07. As explained previously, this
risk is attributed to a local farmer's
ingestion of dioxin due to his
consumption of fruits, vegetables, beef
and dairy products, all of which are .
grown or raised in an agricultural field
located near a wastewater treatment unit
used to treat chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters, as well as the farmer's
incidental ingestion of soil from the
agricultural field (see Section III.D.l.c).
The high-end cancer risk for the
farmer's child is 7E-06 and the central
tendency risk is 3E-07. EPA also ran a
Monte Carlo risk assessment on the air
releases from these tanks. Probabilistic
risk assessment results showed a risk of
1E-4 at the 95th percentile for the
farmer, and for the child of farmer. This
confirms the reasonableness of the
deterministic analysis and the fact that
regulation would be necessary to reduce
the risk from the tank emissions to
protect the farmers. At the 50th
percentile, the probabilistic risk was
2E-7 for the farmer and the child of
farmer.
As described in Section III.D.l.f. of
this preamble, the high-end parameters
used in the risk assessment for dioxin
emissions from wastewater treatment
tanks were waste concentration and
exposure duration. These results are
based upon a concentration of dioxin in
wastewaters associated with the highest
concentration of dioxin we found for the
wastewater samples used in the
analysis. Further discussion of the
assumptions and parameters used in the
risk assessment is provided in Section
III.D. of this preamble and in the Risk
Assessment Technical Background
Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatics Listing Determination that is
in the docket for today's proposed rule.
Our analyses also snowed marginal
risks of concern for the farmer, child of
farmer, home gardener, adult and child
resident, and fisher, from direct
inhalation of chloroform. The high-end
cancer risk for the farmer from direct
inhalation of chloroform is 3E-06. In
addition, the high end cancer risk to the
child of farmer, child resident, adult
resident, home gardener, and the fisher
from direct inhalation of chloroform is
2E-06. The central tendency risk from
chloroform inhalation for the farmer,
child of farmer, child resident, home
gardener, fisher and adult resident is
8E-08.
EPA is confident that the constituents
of most concern, dioxins and
chloroform, were identified. In addition,
we are confident that the assumptions
and parameter values used in our risk
modeling reflect "high-end" or
"reasonable worse case" circumstances.
Risks are unlikely to be significantly
higher than shown by our modeling
results. In Section III.D.l.h. of today's
preamble, we describe in more detail
sources of potential uncertainty in the
risk results that may result in under- or
over-estimations of risk.
Based on an analysis of the risks
associated with current management
practices, EPA is proposing to list
wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons as
hazardous waste (EPA Hazardous Waste
Number K173.) EPA's proposal to list
this waste is consistent with the
guidance the Agency has used for
determining that a waste is hazardous
(see 59 FR 66077), i.e., the risks
associated with management of
wastewaters in aerated biological
treatment tanks due to vapor emissions
of dioxins are above the 1E-5 listing
benchmark. This guidance also provides
that EPA can consider additional factors
in cases where risk assessment results
indicate a risk level of between 1E-4
and 1E-6, as is the case here. These
additional factors include: certainty of
waste characterization; certainty in risk
assessment methodology; coverage by
other regulatory programs; waste
volume; evidence of co-occurrence of
hazardous constituents; damage cases
showing actual impact to human health
or the environment; and presence of
toxicants of unknown or unquantifiable
risk.
With regard to certainty of waste
characterization, as explained in Section
III.D., the Agency collected and
analyzed 41 samples of wastewaters
generated from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic chemicals, six of
which were collected at the influent
("headworks") of the wastewater
treatment system. Given that we used
these six "dedicated" samples in our
risk assessment, we are certain that our
analysis evaluated without question the
risks attributable to the wastewaters of
concern.
With respect to certainty in risk
assessment methodology, we note that
there is discussion of uncertainty in the
risk assessment methodology in section
III.D. l.h. of today's preamble. As
mentioned in that section, we selected
the models we used because we
generally consider them to be state-of-
the-science, and because they are used
widely and have been accepted for
numerous applications. However, as
mentioned, they each retain significant
sources of uncertainty that as a whole
could result in either an overestimation
or underestimation of risk. Should the
Agency determine, based upon public
comment or as a result of the peer
review of the risk assessment
methodology, that the wastewater risk
assessment has overestimated the risks
such that a decision to list this residual
is not warranted, the Agency may
ultimately decide against listing this
waste.
We considered coverage by other
regulatory programs in making our
proposed listing determination for
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters. In
fact, as discussed further below, our
decision to propose to list these
wastewaters and to propose technical
standards to address air emissions from
treatment tanks managing these
wastewaters, is directly related to the
fact that current regulatory programs do
not appear to adequately address the
type of air releases from these units that
showed risk in our analysis.
Waste volume is part of our risk level
calculations. As explained in section
III.D., risk is projected based on the
volume of waste managed under each
modeled waste management scenario.
-------
46502
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
We note that there is a significant
volume of chlorinated aliphatic
wastewater generated annually (11.5
million metric tons). Our risk
assessment methodology also accounts
for the co-occurrence of hazardous
constituents in any particular waste.
Section IlI.D.l.b. discusses the number
of potential constituents of potential
concern identified in each wastestream.
A more detailed discussion of the
constituents of potential concern
detected in each wastestream analyzed
is provided in the Risk Assessment
Technical Background Document for the
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination for this rule, which is
available in the docket for today's rule.
With regard to the remaining factor in
§ 261.11 (a) (3), no actual damage
incidents have been observed
(§ 261.11 (a) (3) (ix)). However, the risk
levels indicated, large waste volumes,
certainty of waste characterization and
risk assessment, coverage by other
regulatory programs, and accounting for
co-occurrence of constituents in the
waste, outweigh the lack of observed
damages. This is because the potential
risks associated with this wastestream
would be long term. Such risks are very
difficult to directly attribute to any
particular cause and can result even in
the absence of observable releases. Our
failure to observe damages incidents
does not mean they have not occurred
or that risks are not being'imposed upon
surrounding populations. RCRA is
designed to be a prospectively-
protective statute and the Agency need
not wait for actual damages to be
observed.
As discussed previously, the risk
assessment addresses nine of the listing
criteria in 40 CFR 261.11. EPA believes
th? risks resulting from our analysis
represent plausible management of
these wastes (§ 261.11 (a) (3) (vii)) using
reasonable assumptions for treatment of
wastewaters in tanks. In addition, the
risk analysis was developed using actual
analytical data. However, the Agency
still recognizes that sources of
uncertainty could be contributing to an
overestimation of risk. The Agency
points out that risk modeling results
show risks at significant levels only in
cases where sensitive input parameters
are assumed to represent high-end
circumstances.
Finally, the Agency did not model
wastewaters that are already defined as
hazardous wastes (i.e., wastes mixed
with or derived-frpm other existing
listed wastes, or exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste),
because we assume these wastes are
already, and will continue to be.
properly handled as hazardous. On-site
injection of wastewaters to a permitted
UIC well also was not modeled.
Although information obtained from the
RCRA Section 3007 questionnaire and
other publicly available information
indicate that some chlorinated aliphatic
manufacturing facilities manage
wastewaters via underground injection,
the majority of these wastewaters
currently are managed as hazardous
wastes and injected into Class I
permitted hazardous waste UIC wells in
accordance with approved no-migration
petitions. Only one facility manages
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters as
non-hazardous waste and injects the
wastewaters in a permitted UIC well.
Although we have proposed to list
this wastestream, we recognize that our
estimates of the risks associated with
this wastestream are within the range in
which the Agency has stated it may
consider other factors in deciding
whether to list a waste. EPA invites
comment as to whether there are other
factors EPA should consider that would
further support a final decision to list
this waste or that would support a
conclusion that EPA should not list this
waste. EPA has, for example, asked for
comment earlier in section D.l.f.ii.
regarding whether to consider
population risk.
ii. What is the Scope of Today's
Proposed Listing Determination for
Chlorinated Aliphatic Wastewaters?
The scope of today's proposed listing
includes all wastewaters generated by
chlorinated aliphatic production
processes, except for wastewaters
generated from the production of vinyl
chloride monomer using mercuric
chloride catalyst in an acetylene-based
process (VCM-A process). These
wastewaters were evaluated separately
(see section III.E.l.b.). The listing
description for chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters is as follows:
K173 Wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
except wastewaters generated from the
production of vinyl chloride monomer
using mercuric chloride catalyst in an
acetylene-based process. This listing
includes wastewaters from the
production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons having carbon chain
lengths ranging from one to and
including five, with varying amounts
and positions of chlorine substitution.
iii. What Is the Proposed Regulatory
Status of Sludges Derived From the
Treatment of Wastewaters Covered by
the Proposed Listing Determination?
The Agency is proposing to amend
the current RCRA regulations so that
wastewater treatment sludges generated
from the treatment of wastewaters
proposed to be listed as hazardous
waste K173 will not be classified as
hazardous waste as a result of the
"derived-from" rule (40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(i)). The proposed
amendment to the derived from rule
will exempt sludges'derived from the
processing or management of proposed
K173, as long as the wastes would not
otherwise be defined as hazardous
waste, absent the proposed K173 listing.
As presented elsewhere in today's
proposed rule, EPA has studied
wastewater treatment sludges from the
chlorinated aliphatics industry and
made independent hazardous waste
listing determinations for several
categories of sludges. These
independent evaluations of the potential
risks associated with wastewater
treatment sludges derived from today's
proposed K173 wastewaters supercede
any presumed risk imparted by
application of the derived-from rule in
this instance. These risk evaluations
logically should take precedent over the
application of the derived-from rule,
which presumes risk absent any
information on toxicity of the treatment
residual. The Agency points out,
however, that sludges and other
residuals generated as a result of
managing chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters that carry waste codes
other than K173, and residuals that
otherwise are listed hazardous wastes
(or exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste) remain hazardous wastes.
EPA is today proposing to add a new
paragraph (E) to the derived-from
regulations at 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) to
make clear that wastewater treatment
sludges derived-from treating K173
wastewaters will not be hazardous
waste via the derived-from rule.
iv. What Comments Is EPA Specifically
Requesting on the Proposed Listing of
Chlorinated Aliphatic Wastewaters?
The Agency requests comments on
the proposed listing of wastewaters from
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons, specifically, how would
specific areas of potential uncertainty
justify a decision to list or not list these
wastewaters as hazardous.
v. How Does the Agency Propose To
Address the Risks Associated With
Chlorinated Aliphatic Wastewaters
Affected by the Proposed Listing?
Owners and operators of wastewater
treatment units, as defined in 40 CFR
260.10, are not required to obtain a
RCRA permit or comply with the
management standards of 40 CFR Parts
264 (permitted facilities) and 265
(interim status facilities) when
managing hazardous wastes in such
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46503
units (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) and
265.1(c)(10)). Section 260.10 defines a
wastewater treatment unit as a device
which (1) is a part of a wastewater
treatment facility that is subject to
regulation under §402 or §307 (b) of the
Clean Water Act; (2) receives and treats
or stores an influent wastewater that is
a hazardous waste, generates and
accumulates a wastewater treatment
sludge that is a hazardous waste, or
treats or stores a wastewater treatment
sludge that is a hazardous waste; and (3)
meets the definition of a tank or tank
system.
The results of the Agency's risk
assessment for chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters shows significant risks due
to air emissions of dioxins from
uncovered and aerated biological
treatment tanks. The Agency's proposed
listing determination for these
wastewaters alone will not address the
risk pathway of concern, due to the
regulatory exemption for wastewater
treatment units. To address the risks
associated with the management of
proposed K173 chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters, the Agency is proposing to
require that wastewater treatment units
used to treat chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters comply with specific
requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265, subpart CC (Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface
Impoundments, and Containers). The
Agency's objective is to require air
emission controls for wastewater
treatment tanks managing these
wastewaters to prevent the release of
dioxin vapor emissions to the
environment. These proposed
requirements would be enforceable
requirements of RCRA subtitle C.
By this limited proposal to change the
exemption for wastewater treatment
tanks that are used to treat chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters, which is based
only on a risk assessment of certain
kinds of tanks used to treat these
specific wastewaters, EPA is not
reopening any other aspect of the
wastewater treatment unit exemption.
What Type of Requirements is EPA
Proposing To Prevent Air Releases From
These Tanks?
EPA considered simply requiring that
the tanks be "covered" to prevent air
releases of dioxins from K173
wastewaters. However, it became
apparent that such a simplified
approach might not provide adequate
guidance to the regulated community on
how to ensure they are complying with
this type of performance standard. The
Agency determined that the existing
requirements for controlling air
emissions from hazardous waste tanks,
in subpart CC of 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265, could be used with some
modifications to meet the goal of
controlling air emissions from tanks
managing proposed K173 wastewaters.
Currently, the 40 CFR 264/265
subpart CC requirements address
volatile organic (VO) emissions from
hazardous waste managed in tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers.
Therefore, many of the provisions in
subpart CC (e.g., the VO concentration
threshold of 500 parts per million by
weight for determining applicability of
the Subpart CC requirements) are not
appropriate for dioxin emissions.
However, other provisions (namely, the
technical standards for covering tanks
and controlling emissions in Sections
264.1084 and 265.1085) are appropriate
for controlling air emissions from
wastewater treatment tanks managing
K173 wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to amend the subpart CC
requirements (described in more detail
below) so that specific technical
standards already in subpart CC for tank
emissions apply to tanks managing
K173 wastewaters. (The Agency notes
that the standards being proposed today,
if finalized, will apply irrespective of
the VOC content of the wastewater.) We
also recognize that dioxin levels vary
among generators, and thus are
proposing a trigger level for dioxins
below which compliance with subpart
CC is not required. This is because our
analytical data indicate that there is a
range of dioxin levels in the chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters.30 In particular,
two samples contained TCDD TEQ
levels that were four orders of
magnitude lower than both the
maximum and average TCDD TEQ
concentrations.
How Did EPA Develop the 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ Limit for Wastewaters?
EPA's first step in establishing a
concentration limit for dioxins was to
determine whether we should set the
limit as a 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (TCDD
TEQ) concentration, or as a set of
individual limits for each of the specific
dioxin congeners. We decided to set the
limit as a 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ
concentration. In making this decision,
we considered the analytical results
from the six dedicated chlorinated
aliphatics headworks wastewater
samples collected during the record
sampling effort (see Section III.D.l.b.).
We determined that wastewaters from
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
chemicals do not carry a distinct
30 See Appendix B of "Listing Background
Document for the Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing
Determination."
congener "fingerprint," that is, certain
congeners are not consistently more
prevalent in samples of chlorinated
aliphatics wastewaters than other
congeners. Because the congener
composition of chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters is not consistent or distinct,
setting limits on a congener-specific
basis likely would be overly-restrictive
for some facilities. Specifically, the limit
set for a given congener would need to
be protective in cases where a number
of different congeners contribute to the
wastewater's dioxin toxicity or risk
(thereby requiring that lower limits be
set for each congener to ensure that the
combined emissions of each congener
would not generate unacceptable risk).
Such limits might be overly restrictive
for those wastewaters with a dioxin
composition that is dominated by a
much smaller number of congeners.
Moreover, setting the dioxin limit as a
TCDD TEQ is consistent with the
approach we have taken with other
regulations, such as the Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System, 40
CFR Part 132, Appendix F.
After considering options for setting
the TCDD TEQ limit, we chose to base
the TCDD TEQ limit on the lowest
TCDD TEQ concentration measured in a
dedicated wastewater sample for which
a high end deterministic risk estimate is
1 x 10~5. This concentration is 0.6 ng/
L, calculated using the TEFs developed
by the World Health Organization, and
corresponding to the TCDD TEQ
concentration for EPA's sample no. PL-
02. (The TCDD TEQ concentration based
on the I-TEFs is 0.7 ng/L. See section
III.D.l.g.ii. for an explanation of the
TEFs). The high end deterministic risk
estimate was based on the evaluation of
a farmer scenario (see section III.D. 1 .f.)
in which the exposure duration of the
farmer was set at its high end value,
48.3 years. For the purpose of
establishing the TCDD TEQ limit, we
did not set any additional values at high
end. We used the "single high end"
approach to account for sources of
uncertainty in the risk analysis and our
understanding that not all of the
underlying assumptions of the analysis
may be relevant to any one chlorinated
aliphatics facility. For example, not all
facilities may operate the type of aerated
biological treatment tank that was
modeled, grazing of cattle may not occur
in the vicinity of all facilities on the
centerline of the contaminant plume
(the farmer's risk primarily is due to the
ingestion of contaminated beef and
dairy products). For reference, the adult
resident's "single high end" risk is 1 x
10-9 when the wastewater concentration
-------
46504
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
is 0.6 ng/L (based on meteorological
location as a high end parameter).
"The 1 x ld~5 risk result for the farmer
Is based on predicted long-term average
exposures assuming a wastewater TCDD
TEQ concentration of 0.6 ng/L. as well
as certain other environmental and
exposure factors. This means that over
tjje long term, the receptor is protected
at the 1 x 10~5 level when, on average,
t£e TCDP TEQ concentration in the
wastewater is 0.6 ng/L. That is, it is
implicit in the analysis that even if there
are excursions of the wastewater TCDD
TEQ concentration above 0.6 ng/L, an
individual is still protected at the 1 x
10 ~* risk level if on average the
wistewater TCDD TEQ concentration is
0.6 ng/L. Today EPA is proposing to set
the TCDD TEQ limit for wastewaters at
1 ng/L. Setting the limit at 1 ng/L
accounts for the fact that we believe
facilities who comply with the
requirement that the TCDD TEQ
concentrations of their wastewaters not
exceed 1 ng/L will on average maintain
wastewater TCDD TEQ concentrations
of approximately 0.6 ng/L or below.
EPA is proposing that wastewater
treatment tanks managing proposed
K173 wastewaters, where the TCDD
TEQ concentration in the wastewater is
greater than or equal to 1 ng/L, comply
with specific air emission control
regulations, as described in more detail
below.
It is important to note that the 1 ng/
L trigger level described here for
implementing the proposed tank cover
requirement is not a concentration
below which the wastewater does not
meet the K173 listing. This proposed
listing follows what can be described as
the traditional approach EPA has taken
for hazardous waste listings (i.e., if a
particular facility's waste meets the
listing description, it is listed regardless
of the concentration of constituents or
waste management practice employed).
While we are proposing to list
wastewaters following this traditional
approach, today's rule does establish a
concentration level for wastewaters that
reflect the Agency's concern for dioxin
managed in tanks within this industry.
We seek comment on the alternative of
using this level as criteria for the listing
itself. The Agency could finalize a
concentration based listing based on the
1 ng/L trigger level instead of the
traditional listing proposed today. The
Agency also seeks comment on whether
this concentration-based listing
approach should be implemented in the
same manner as is described in this
notice (i.e., where the I ng/L
concentration is a trigger for requiring
tank covers), or alternatively, whether it
would be more appropriate to apply the
implementation approaches described
in the July 23, 1999 rulemaking for the
dyes and pigments industry (placed in
the docket for today's rulemaking for
convenience).
How Will These Air Emission Controls
Be Implemented?
As described below, we are proposing
that generators of K173 who manage
these wastes in tanks comply with
certain air emission control
requirements, including covering their
tanks, unless the results of testing the
wastewater influent to the tank indicate
that the dioxin concentrations are below
the 1 ng/L trigger level. Our proposed
approach consists of the following
elements:
• Each wastewater treatment tank
managing K173 that is not compliant with 40
CFR sections 264.1084/265.1085 of subpart
CC must be assessed to determine whether
dioxin levels in the influent to the tank
exceed the trigger level.
• For the purposes of this listing, the
headworks of the wastewater treatment
system is assumed to be at a location directly
after steam stripping. If a facility does not
utilize steam stripping, the wastewater
treatment system headworks is assumed to be
the first tank in which wastewaters are
combined, accumulated or treated after
leaving the chlorinated aliphatics production
process.
• Tanks that are fully compliant with
sections 264.1084/265.1085 of 40 CFR
subpart CC would not be subject to waste
analysis, record keeping and notification
requirements proposed in today's rule to be
added to 40 CFR 265.1080(f)(l)-(5),
described below.
• Once the facility has established that
TCDD TEQ levels do not exceed the trigger
level for a specific tank, the facility can
assume that the TCDD TEQ levels for all
downstream tanks also are below the trigger
level.
• The facility must develop a waste
analysis plan prior to sampling and analysis
to ensure that the measurements are
sufficiently sensitive, accurate and precise to
demonstrate compliance, as described further
below. We suggest that the waste analysis
plan be developed in accordance with
Agency guidance.31
• The initial assessment must be
conducted by the effective date of the rule.
31 Chapter Nine of "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (SW-
846) addresses the development and
implementation of a scientifically credible sampling
plan. Chapter One of SW-846 describes the basic
elements to be included in a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP). as well as information
describing basic quality assurance (QA) and quality
control (QC) procedures. Chapter Two of SW-846
aids the analyst in choosing the appropriate
methods for samples, based upon sample matrix
and the analytes to be determined. Other
appropriate sources may also be used, including
those issued by recognized national voluntary
standards setting organizations, e.g., ASTM, etc.,
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPASW-
846.3.4A.html
If the trigger level is exceeded, compliance
with the applicable sections of 40 CFR 264/
265 subpart CC must be accomplished within
one year of the effective date. Alternatively,
the facility may implement process changes
to reduce the TCDD TEQ level below the
trigger level, and repeat the initial assessment
to demonstrate that levels are now below the
trigger level, within the same one year time
frame.
• If it is determined that the TCDD TEQ
concentration measured during the initial
assessment is below the trigger level, re-
assessment would be required '(1) as a result
of any process changes that would impact
dioxin wastewater levels, and (2) annually.
• If the trigger level is not exceeded, the
facility must submit a one-time notification
and certification.
• The facility must maintain records on
site.
Sampling and Analysis
In designing the sampling program,
the facility must consider any expected
fluctuations in concentrations over time.
The sample design should be described
in the waste analysis plan, which must
be retained in the facility's files. The
sample design must be adequate to
determine that the level of TCDD TEQ
in the wastewater is above or below the
1 ng/L at a 95 percent upper confidence
limit around the mean. This approach is
being used in the comparable fuels final
rule (June 19, 1998; 63 FR 33782). See
also Guidance for Data Quality
Assessment—Practical Methods for Data
Analysis, EPA QA/G-9, January 1998,
EPA/600/R-96/084. Under this
approach, EPA is not specifying a
specific number of samples, because the
number of samples required to
demonstrate that the wastewater dioxin
concentration is below 1 ng/L at the 95
percent upper confidence limit depends
on how close the actual concentration is
to the regulatory limit and on the
variability of the waste. EPA is
proposing that the samples used to
demonstrate compliance be grab
samples collected within a time period
that will accurately account for
potential variability in the wastestream,
including potential variabilities
associated with batch and continuous
processes. If properly stored, the
holding time for unprocessed aqueous
samples of dioxins/furans (which can be
found in the Sample Collection,
Handling and Preservation section of
Method 8290) allows for multiple
samples to be collected and be available
should additional analysis be required
to achieve the data quality objective of
determining compliance with the 1 ng/
L limit at a 95% upper confidence limit
around the mean.
EPA also is proposing an alternative
sample design criteria. The alternative
approach is to set a maximum
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46505
quantitation value as an alternative to
the use of the 95% upper confidence
limit around the mean. Under this
approach, the Agency is proposing that
the analytical quantitation limits should
be sufficient to calculate a meaningful
TCDD TEQ for comparison to the 1
ng/L trigger level. Our experience with
this matrix is that quantitation at or
below 0.05 ng/L should be routinely
achievable, therefore we are proposing
that the selected analytical method
achieve a precision of at least 30 percent
relative standard deviation at a
calibration level of 0.05 ng/L and a
recovery of greater than or equal to 70
percent32 (we note that if isotope-
dilution methods are used, recovery is
not an issue, since this method is self-
correcting for recovery.) Under this
approach, EPA is specifying that a
minimum of four grab samples be
collected within a 24-hour time period.
The Agency notes that although we are
considering setting a lower calibration
standard for the measurement method
as an alternative to the 95 percent upper
confidence limit around the mean
standard, the regulatory language
included with today's proposal reflects
only the preferred option.
Generators may not use process
knowledge to determine whether or not
the 1 ng/L TCDD TEQ trigger level has
been exceeded for the first tanks in the
wastewater treatment system where
constituent concentrations are likely to
be highest. However, once the facility
has established that the trigger level is
not exceeded in the influent to a given
tank, the facility may use process
knowledge to determine that dioxin
levels in wastewaters managed in
subsequent downstream tanks also will
not exceed the trigger level.
We are proposing that the generator
maintain documentation of the: (1)
detailed standard operating procedures
(SOPs) for the sampling and analysis
protocols that were employed; (2)
sensitivity and bias of the measurement
process; (3) precision of the analytical
results for each batch of waste tested;
and (4) analytical results.
It is the responsibility of the generator
to ensure that the sampling and analysis
is unbiased, precise, and representative
of the tank influent. To show that a tank
is not subject to the specific Subpart CC
requirements applicable to K173
32 Recent recovery is from an EPA Memorandum
from Barnes Johnson, Director of the Economics,
Methods, and Risk Assessment Division, to James
Berlow, Director of the Hazardous Waste
Minimization and Management Division, regarding
the Office of Solid Waste's (OSW) standing policy
on the Appropriate Selection and Performance of
Analytical Methods for Waste Matrices Considered
to be "DifFicult-to-Analyze." January 31.1996.
wastewaters, a generator must
demonstrate that: (1) the maximum
TCDD TEQ in the tank influent does not
exceed the 1 ng/L trigger level; and (2)
the analysis could have detected the
presence of the CDD/CDF congeners at
or below the trigger level.
We are not requiring the use of SW-
846 methods to comply with these
requirements. We are proposing .to allow
the use of alternative methods to those
included in SW-846, so long as the
selected methods meet the following
performance based criteria.
The Agency will consider the analysis
adequate to demonstrate that the trigger
level of 1 ng/L is not exceeded if an
analysis in which TCDD (as a surrogate
for all of the CDD/CDF congeners)
spiked at the trigger level indicates that
the analyte is present at that level
within analytical method performance
limits (e.g., sensitivity, bias and
precision). To determine the
performance limits for a method, EPA
recommends following the quality
control (QC) guidance provided in
Chapters One and Two of SW-846, and
the additional QC guidance provided in
Method 8290.
respond to any comments submitted
regarding the exemption.
b. How Is EPA Proposing to Regulate
VCM-A Wastewaters?
EPA is proposing not to list as
hazardous wastewaters generated from
the production of VCM using mercuric
chloride catalyst in an acetylene-based
process. This wastestream already is
defined as hazardous waste due to the
fact that it exhibits the toxicity
characteristic.
vi. What Comments Is EPA Specifically
Requesting on the Proposed Approach
for Controlling Dioxin Air Emissions?
The Agency requests comment on the
proposal to add air emission control
requirements for tanks used to manage
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters. In
addition, the Agency requests comment
on whether the technical standards in
264.1084/265.1085 will address the
risks associated with vapor emissions
from these units. EPA requests comment
on the proposed 1 ng/L TCDD TEQ
concentration limit in wastewater that
triggers application of the air emission
control requirements, and on the testing
and recordkeeping requirements for
implementing this standard.
Specifically, EPA is requesting comment
on comparing the regulatory limit to a
sample mean at the 95% upper
confidence limit, versus a maximum
sample value with the sensitivity (as
demonstrated by the lower calibration
standard), precision, and recovery
(unless using the isotope-dilution
method) described in today's proposal.
In addition, we request comment on
whether or not there are other types of
standards and/or other factors the
Agency should consider in setting
standards for wastewater treatment
units used to manage chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters. The Agency is
not reconsidering or requesting
comment on the wastewater treatment
unit exemption and does not intend to
i. What Information Led EPA To
Propose Not to List as Hazardous
Wastewaters From the VCM-A Process?
EPA knows of only one facility in the
United States that operates an acetylene-
based VCM production process, which
uses mercuric chloride catalysts in the
production of VCM. The management of
spent mercuric chloride catalyst used in
the VCM-A production process results
in the generation of a wastewater
containing mercuric chloride, as well as
vinyl chloride. The wastewater
treatment system is operated in a batch
process fashion in tanks, and is
designed to convert the mercuric
chloride present in the process
wastewaters to an much less soluble
mercuric sulfide. The mercuric sulfide
is precipitated during the treatment
process, dewatered, and collected for
off-site disposal. The remaining
wastewaters are discharged directly
under an NPDES permit. Due to the fact
that this wastewater is managed in a
single, dedicated wastewater treatment
system associated with a unique
production process, and the presence of
mercury in relatively high
concentrations (which is not found in
other chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters), the Agency decided to
consider this wastestream separately in
our investigation of the wastes
generated by the chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons manufacturing industry.
According to the RCRA Section 3007
survey response, the facility generates
and discharges approximately 22,200
metric tons (5.86 million gallons) of
wastewater from the VCM-A process
each year. The identified constituents of
concern in this wastestream include
mercury and vinyl chloride. In addition,
dioxins are present in these
wastewaters. EPA analyzed one sample
of this wastewater in 1996 in support of
this listing determination. The
analytical results showed the
wastewaters contained 8.60 mg/L
mercury, and 0.680 mg/L vinyl chloride.
The analytical results for the split
sample taken by the facility were 6.78
mg/L mercury, and 1.38 mg/L vinyl
chloride. The results exceed the toxicity.
-------
46506
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
characteristic regulatory levels of 0.2
mg/L for mercury and 0.2 mg/L for vinyl
chloride, Dioxins also were detected in
trje VCM-A wastewaters, however, the
concentration was several orders of
magnitude lower than levels found in
other wastewaters generated from other
chlorinated aliphatic manufacturing
processes (i.e., 0.0022 ng/LTEQ/TCDD).
Based upon EPA's one record sample,
this wastestream already is identified as
a hazardous waste due to the fact that
the waste exhibits the toxicity
characteristic (TC). The constituents of
significant concern in the VCM-A
wastewaters (i.e., mercury and vinyl
chloride) already are regulated under
the TC, therefore, the TC adequately
defines this wastestream as hazardous.
Further, the facility's dedicated
wastewater treatment system was
designed and optimized expressly for
the removal of mercury from mercuric
chloride catalysts to comply with the
Clean Water Act. In addition, given the
fact that EPA's record sample was over
40 times above the TC limit for mercury,
it is highly probable that these
wasetwaters routinely contain levels of
mercury which cause this wastestream
to be defined as characteristically
hazardous waste. As mentioned
previously, the criteria in 40 CFR 261.11
(a) (3) for evaluating whether or not a
solid waste Is a hazardous waste
provide that EPA should consider how
the waste (and potential risk) is affected
by other regulatory programs (i.e.,
261.11 (a) (3) (x)). In the case of the VCM-
A wastewaters, EPA notes that our
decision to propose not to list this
wastewater as hazardous is based in
large part on the fact that the waste
already is defined as a hazardous waste
because it exhibits the toxicity
characteristic. We have, accordingly,
determined that there is no regulatory
benefit in listing this wastewater as
hazardous, particularly when
considering that the volume of
Wastewater generated by the single
facility using the acetylene-based VCM
production process is relatively small
(22,200 metric tons annually) compared
to the volumes of wastewaters generated
in other chlorinated aliphatic
wastewater treatment systems (11.5
million metric tons annually).
In addition, any risks associated with
the management and disposal (i.e.,
direct discharge) of the wastewaters are
addressed by other environmental
regulations. With respect to the
discharge of the wastewater, the facility
treats and discharges die wastewater in
compliance with the conditions of a
NPDES permit. Regarding any air
emissions of vinyl chloride from these
wastewaters, vinyl chloride is a
hazardous air pollutant, therefore the
facility is subject to the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements
specific to vinyl chloride emissions (40
CFR Section 61.65), as well as the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP for the
synthetic and organic chemical
manufacturing industry sector (40 CFR
Part 63, subpart G) (59 FR 19468, April
22, 1994). For these reasons, the Agency
is proposing not to list VCM-A
wastewaters as hazardous waste.
Sludges generated by the wastewater
treatment process are disposed of in an
off-site hazardous waste (subtitle C)
landfill. EPA conducted a separate
investigation of these sludges. The
results of this investigation and our
listing determination for the VCM-A
wastewater treatment sludges are
summarized in section III.E.3. further
below.
2. EDC/VCM Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
a. How Is EPA Proposing To Regulate
EDC/VCM Wastewater Treatment
Sludges?
EPA is proposing to list as hazardous
sludges generated from treating
wastewaters associated with the
manufacture of ethylene dichloride
(EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer
(VCM). This wastestream meets the
criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) for
listing a waste as hazardous and is
capable of posing a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health or
the environment when managed in land
treatment units. The Agency identified
risks of concern associated with one
management practice, on-site land
treatment. In our risk assessment of
these wastes, the exposed individuals of
concern were the farmer, child of
farmer, and the fisher receptors. The
contaminants of concern are dioxin and
arsenic.
As discussed in section III.D. 1 above,
our analyses identified health risks from
the land treatment of the EDC/VCM
wastewater treatment sludges due to
airborne releases and subsequent
deposition and food chain
contamination from dioxin. Surface
erosion due to runoff also contributes to
risk from dioxin. Marginal risks from
arsenic were identified for the land
treatment unit groundwater ingestion
exposure pathway. We also modeled a
landfill management scenario; our risk
assessment showed no significant risk
from dioxin. and only marginal risk
from arsenic associated with the
groundwater pathway.
b. What Information Led EPA To
Propose To List as Hazardous EDC/VCM
Wastewater Treatment Sludges?
The results of the RCRA Section 3007
chlorinated aliphatic industry survey
show that approximately 104,606 metric
tons of wastewater treatment sludge is
generated from the treatment of
wastewaters at chlorinated aliphatic
plants that manufacture VCM and/or
EDC. One facility accounts for 74
percent of the total volume -of
wastewater treatment sludge
generated.33 Of the total volume of
wastewater treatment sludges generated
at plants manufacturing EDC/VCM and
identified through the survey, 6,757
metric tons (6 percent) currently are
already'defined as hazardous waste.
EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges are generated at 12 facilities.
The Agency notes that these sludges are
not always generated from treating
wastewaters produced exclusively from
EDC and/or VCM manufacturing
processes. Rather, sludges are
sometimes generated in wastewater
treatment systems that treat wastewaters
from manufacturing processes
producing a variety of chlorinated
aliphatic and non-chlorinated aliphatic
products. Wastewaters from multiple
processes are combined prior to
wastewater treatment. The Agency
points out that the listing determination
proposed today for EDC/VCM
wastewater treatment sludges affects the
total quantity of the sludges generated
by a wastewater treatment system that
accepts influent from any process
manufacturing EDC and/or VCM. EPA
has made this clear by including sludges
from commingled EDC/VCM wastewater
and other wastewater within the scope
of the listing, although EPA believes this
would have been the correct
interpretation of the listing even absent
the clarifying language.
The management scenarios selected
for risk assessment were chosen based
upon the waste management practices
known to be practiced by the
chlorinated aliphatic industry for non-
hazardous sludges. Based on survey
results, these practices are:
• On-site land treatment (one
facility),
• On-site disposal in a non-hazardous
landfill (two facilities),
• On-site co-disposal in a hazardous
waste landfill (one facility), and
• Off-site disposal in a subtitle D
landfill (7 facilities).
As explained earlier, EPA modeled
risks from two management scenarios,
33 Only one (1) percent of the wastewaters at this
facility are generated from the manufacturing of
EDC/VCM.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25. 1999/Proposed Rules
46507
an off-site non-hazardous municipal
landfill, and a land treatment unit. The
management practices of most concern
(landfills and land treatment) were
assessed for this waste. Other non-
hazardous waste management practices
currently are not used by industry and
would not serve as an appropriate basis
for listing the waste as hazardous, In the
case of the management practices
employed by this industry, we are
confident that the risk estimates from
modeling an off-site non-hazardous
waste landfill scenario also are
representative of the potential risks
associated with the management of
EDC/VCM wastewater treatment sludges
in on-site landfills. This is because
information provided in facility
responses to the RCRA Section 3007
questionnaire indicate that EDC/VCM
wastewater treatment sludges are co-
• disposed with other industrial non-
hazardous wastes in on-site landfills,
therefore these units can be treated as
off-site landfills (that receive a variety of
wastestreams) rather than as monofills
(that receive only one type of waste)
with regard to the risk modeling
approach employed.
Land treatment The Agency's risk
assessment of EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludge showed risks of
concern for the land treatment
management scenario. The contaminant
of greatest concern is dioxin. The
exposure routes of concern are airborne
releases and surface erosion from runoff
which result in contamination of food
products from nearby agricultural
operations. The sludges present a
hazard due to the fact that land
treatment units are not covered and due
to the potential absence of runoff
controls. Land treatment results in a
high-end cancer risk for the farmer of
2E-4 and a central tendency risk of 4E-
6. EPA also performed a Monte Carlo
analysis, and the results showed a risk
for the farmer of 1E-4 at the 90th
percentile, and 7E-6 at the 50th
percentile. The high-end deterministic
risk falls within the risk range for which
there is a presumption for listing the
waste as hazardous, consistent with
guidance the Agency has used for
determining that a waste is hazardous
(see 59 FR at 66077), i.e., the risks
associated with management of EDC/
VCM sludge in a land treatment unit are
1E-4 or higher, and well above the 1E-
5 listing benchmark. The probabilistic
results confirm that the high-end
deterministic risk (2E-4) is above the
90th percentile result (1E-4). The 1992
guidance (memorandum from the then
Deputy Administrator F. Henry Habicht
"Guidance on Risk Characterization for
Risk Managers and Risk Assessors")
states that "[t]he 'high end' of the risk
distribution, [generally the, area of
concern for risk managers] is
conceptually above the 90th percentile
of the. actual (either measured or
estimated) distribution. This conceptual
range is not meant to precisely define
the limits of this descriptor, but should
be used by the assessor as a target range
for characterizing 'high-end risk'."
Therefore, a high-end estimate that falls
Within the range (above the 90th
percentile but still realistically on the
distribution) is a reasonable basis for a
decision. Therefore, EDC/VCM sludges
managed in a land treatment unit pose
risks that support a proposed listing
determination for these wastes.
As discussed previously, the risk
assessment addresses nine of the listing
criteria in 40 CFR 261.11. EPA believes
the risks resulting from our analysis
represent plausible management of
EDC/VCM sludges (261.11 (a) (3) (vii))
using reasonable assumptions for
management in land treatment units. In
addition, the risk analysis was
developed using actual analytical data.
Of lesser concern, but still within our
discretionary risk range, are the
potential health effects associated with
arsenic in EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges that are managed in
land treatment units. We found that
arsenic presents some risk from
potential releases to groundwater from
the land treatment Unit. For the arsenic
groundwater pathway, land treatment
results in a high-end cancer risk of 1E-
05 and a central tendency risk of 8E-07.
However, the predicted time period for
the peak arsenic concentration to reach
a receptor well is 1,500 years. In
addition, our modeled leachate
concentrations for arsenic result in
predicted receptor well concentrations
of 0.5 ppb (high end) and 0.2 ppb
(central tendency). By comparison, the
average background concentration of
arsenic in rain derived from terrestrial
air masses is 0.46 ppb.34 Therefore, EPA
does not believe that the risk from
arsenic in this waste is significant, as
discussed below.
Even though the high-end cancer risk
from arsenic is within the general action
level risk range (i.e., 1E-04 to 1E-06),
the central tendency risk falls outside
this range. Another factor that the
Agency considered when evaluating the
potential risks from arsenic in this
wastestream is the significant period of
MAndreae, M.O. 1980. Arsenic in Rain and the
Atmospheric Mass Balance of Arsenic. Journal of
Geophysical Research, v.85, pp. 4512-4518, as cited
in Welch, A.H., M.S. Lico. and J.L. Hughes. 1988.
Arsenic in Ground Water of the Western United
States. Ground Water, v.26, n.3, pp. 333-347.
time it is predicted to take for the
concentration of arsenic in a receptor
well to reach the peak concentration
level (i.e., 1,500 years). Given these
factors, the Agency concludes that the
risk posed from potential releases of
arsenic in this wastestream when
managed in land treatment units is
marginal, and in itself does not warrant
listing the waste as hazardous. The
Agency therefore is proposing to list
EDC/VCM wastewater treatment sludges
based solely on the presence of dioxin
and the potential risk associated with
dioxin when this waste is managed in
land treatment units. As outlined in the
preamble to the Agency's proposed
listing determination for wastes
generated by the Dyes and Pigments
Industry, listing determinations for
wastestreams for which risks are
calculated to be 1E-04 or higher are
considered to pose a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health and
the environment and are listed as
hazardous.
Landfill. The Agency's risk
assessment showed no significant risks
associated with dioxin, and only
marginal risk associated with potential
groundwater releases of arsenic in the
off-site landfill scenario. The risk
assessment showed a high-end cancer
risk from arsenic of 3E-05 and a central
tendency risk of 9E-07. However, these
risks levels are associated with a peak
arsenic concentration in a receptor well
that is predicted to occur only after a
period of 8,800 years. Predicted high
end arsenic concentration at a receptor
well is 1.4 ppb and the central tendency
arsenic concentration in a receptor well
is 0.2 ppb. This level of arsenic
contamination is very close to average
background exposure levels for arsenic.
As mentioned above, the current
average background concentration of
arsenic in rain derived from terrestrial
air masses is 0.46 ppb. Average
background exposure to inorganic
arsenic is 14 ug/day from food, and 5 to
7 ug/L from water. EPA's modeling
results indicate that the disposal of
EDC/VCM sludge in an unlined landfill
could (over a period of 8,800 years)
increase the concentration of arsenic in
groundwater in a downgradient well
(102 meters from the landfill) by only
1.4 ug/L and would add approximately
2 ug/day of arsenic to the average daily
exposure level (about 20 ug/day) for the
highly exposed individual. Actual
potential level of risk would be lower
than those predicted by our modeling
efforts, if the sludges are disposed in
lined landfills.
Given that the Agency's risk
assessment indicates potential risk
within our discretionary range
-------
46508
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
associated with a peak arsenic
concentration in a receptor well that is
predicted to occur only after a period of
8,800 years, and given the absence of
significant risk from any other
constituents of concern, EPA concludes
that EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges So not pose a significant risk
when managed in landfills.
Based upon the Agency's findings that
EDC/VCM wastewater treatment sludges
pose significant risks when managed in
land treatment units but pose no
significant risks when managed in
landfills, the Agency is proposing a
"contingent management listing" for
this waste. EPA is proposing to list EDC/
VCM wastewater treatment sludges as
hazardous, unless the sludges are
managed in landfills. Again, the Agency
is proposing this listing determination
based upon the fact that our risk
assessment results for the land
treatment unit scenario indicate a level
of risk of 2E-04, well above the 1E-5
risk level the Agency uses as guidance
in making listing determinations.
c. Why Is EPA Proposing a Contingent
Management Approach as Most
Appropriate for EDC/VCM Wastewater
Treatment Sludges?
The Agency's analysis of the risks
associated with EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges shows that one of the
current waste management practices
(land treatment) results in significant
risk while the other primary
management practice (disposal in
subtitle D landfill) shows little risk.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
list EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges as EPA Hazardous Waste
Number K174, unless the sludges are
managed In a subtitle C or subtitle D
landfill. The Agency believes that
allowing the waste to continue to be
managed under a low risk management
scenario (i.e., subtitle D landfilling)
outside of the subtitle C system achieves
protection of human health and the
environment, and that little additional
benefit would be gained by requiring
that all EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges be managed in accordance with
RCRA subtitle C management standards.
Given the Agency's finding that no
significant risks are posed from
managing EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges in a landfill, the
Agency sees no reason to include
sludges managed in this manner in the
scope of the hazardous waste listing.
Additionally (and after consideration of
the predicted risk differential between
land treatment and landfilling), because
only one facility identified in the RCRA
Section 3007 Survey employs land
treatment for these wastes, this practice
is somewhat anomalous compared with
land disposal. It does not make sense to
apply a traditional listing approach (i.e.,
list all wastes regardless of management.
practice) based upon a practice
occurring at one facility, especially if a
more tailored listing can prevent this
risk.
A contingent management listing
approach is within EPA's statutory
authority. See Military Toxics Projects.
EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The
Agency believes that making a listing
determination that is tailored to specific
waste management practices is
particularly appropriate under these
circumstances, where the management
practices identified are clear and very
easily distinguished (such as the
difference between land treatment and
land disposal), and the differences in
risk presented by these practices are
clearly defined. In the case of EDC/VCM
wastewater treatment sludges, EPA
believes that an opportunity exists to
establish a conditional management
listing for these sludges that will reduce
the risks associated with unsafe waste
management practices, while not
imposing significant incremental costs
upon generators managing the wastes in
a manner that does not pose significant
risk. While disposal of EDC/VCM
wastewater treatment sludges in land
treatment units is projected to pose
significant risks, the disposal of these
sludges in landfills does not result in
significant risks. This arises because the
constituent of most concern, dioxin/
TCDD, is relatively immobile in
groundwater. However, risks from this
constituent can be significant if the
waste is managed in a manner that does
not control for airborne releases or
surface erosion from runoff, both of
which are better controlled at landfills.
Therefore, EPA believes a contingent
management listing for this waste is a
preferable and permissible alternative to
simply listing all EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges as hazardous wastes.
The Agency's proposed listing
description for EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges that will define this
waste as hazardous unless the waste is
managed in a landfill is as follows:
K174 Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of ethylene clichloride or
vinyl chloride monomer, unless the
sludges meet the following conditions:
(i) they are disposed~of in a subtitle C or
D landfill licensed or permitted by the
state or federal government; (ii) they are
not otherwise placed on the land prior to
final disposal; and (iii) the generator
maintains documentation demonstrating
that the waste was either disposed of in
an on-site landfill or consigned to a
transporter or disposal facility that
provided a written commitment to
dispose of the waste in an off-site
landfill. Respondents in any action
brought to enforce the requirements of
subtitle C must, upon a showing by the
government that the respondent
managed wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of vinyl chloride
monomer or ethylene dichloride,
demonstrate that they meet the terms of
the exclusion set forth above. In doing
so, they must provide appropriate
documentation (e.g., contracts between
the generator and the landfill owner/
operator, invoices documenting delivery
of waste to landfill, etc.) that the terms
of the exclusion were met.
d. How Will This Contingent
Management Listing Be Implemented?
Under this proposed listing, EDC/
VCM wastewater treatment sludges will
be hazardous wastes if managed by any
method except disposal in a landfill.
EPA has a clear interest in ensuring that
these sludges are in fact disposed in a
landfill, or else they would be listed
hazardous waste at the point of
generation. The Agency also has an
interest in making sure that accurate
records are kept to facilitate
enforcement.
The Agency notes that based on the
RCRA Section 3007 questionnaire •
results (which surveyed the universe of
chlorinated aliphatics production
facilities in the United States), the
predominant management practice used
for these wastes is disposal in a landfill,
while one facility currently uses a land
treatment facility. It is difficult for EPA
to foresee a change in this well-
established management practice.
Therefore the Agency believes it is
unlikely that these sludges will be sent
to any type of facility other than a
landfill, particularly if the approach
proposed in today's rule is promulgated.
Generators who choose to manage these
sludges at non-landfill facilities must
define their sludges as listed hazardous
waste at the point of generation and
manage them accordingly.
The Agency also is restricting the
placement of EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges on the ground prior to.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 19991 Proposed Rules
46509
their being disposed in a landfill (e.g.,
storage in waste piles, spills). EPA
wants to ensure that these wastes,
which are clearly capable of presenting
unacceptable risk if improperly
managed, are managed only in the
manner found to be protective of human
health and the environment.
Generators, and other parties involved
in the management of EDC/VCM
wastewater treatment sludges, claiming
that their wastes fall outside the scope
of the hazardous waste listing must be
able to demonstrate that sludges
excluded from the listing description
are being managed in accordance with
all of the conditions for being excluded
from the listing. This means that parties
claiming the waste falls outside the
scope of subtitle C must be able to
demonstrate that (1) previously
generated and managed waste (which is
being claimed as not meeting the K174
listing) was disposed of in a landfill;
and (2) waste currently being managed
is not being stored, or otherwise
managed, on the land (e.g., landfarms,
waste piles) as well as demonstrate that
the waste will be disposed of in a
landfill (e.g., have a contract in place
with a landfill owner/operator that
specifies intent to manage EDC/VCM
sludges at the landfill facility). To
further clarify how today's proposed
approach would be implemented, below
we describe these two distinct situations
where a listing determination will be
made under this proposed approach.
i. EDC/VCM Sludges Sent Off-Site
Under the proposed contingent
management listing for K174, EDC/VCM
sludges that already have been shipped
from the generator facility to a subtitle
C or subtitle D landfill were never a
listed hazardous waste. In this instance,
should a question arise as to the status
of sludges previous shipped off-site, the
implementing agency would look to
indications such as contracts between
the generator and the landfill owner/
operator, invoices showing waste was
delivered to a specific landfill, and
other documents that clearly show the
waste was transferred to a subtitle C or
subtitle D landfill.
ii. EDC/VCM Sludges at Generator Site
In this situation, determining whether
or not an EDC/VCM sludge meets the
proposed K174 listing would be done in
a prospective manner, not unlike many
of the existing regulatory exclusions
from the definition of solid waste
(where determinations of whether or not
a material is a waste are often based
upon how the waste will be managed,
i.e., recycled. See, for example,
requirements at 40 CFR 261.2, Table 1,
and 261.4(b)). Under the existing
generator requirements in 40 CFR Part
262, generators of solid w,aste;,must
determine whether the waste is a listed
hazardous waste (40 CFR 262.11 (b)).
Determinations made by generators
regarding whether their EDC/VCM
sludges are listed (where these sludges
have not yet been disposed of off site in
an appropriate landfill) will be made by
virtue of where the waste will be sent.
In situations where the implementing
agency is questioning any claims by the
generator of the non-listed status of
sludges being stored on site, the
generator should be able to show that
there is an agreement already in place
with a transporter and/or landfill
indicating that these sludges will be
delivered to a landfill. It is the EPA's
experience that wastes cannot usually
be shipped to a commercial landfill
without first establishing a relationship
with that landfill, where factors such as
the amount of waste, the frequency of
shipments, the physical and chemical
make up of the waste, etc., are agreed
upon before the waste ever arrives at the
landfill.
In the case of generators who manage
EDC/VCM in on-site landfills, the
Agency requests comment on the types
of records or documentation that may be
used to verify or document that the
waste is managed in the on-site landfill
and not managed in a land treatment
unit.
The Agency notes that it is not our
intent to condition the regulatory status
of the waste upon a recordkeeping or
paperwork requirement. The Agency
believes that the ability to demonstrate
the commitment to dispose of the waste
in a landfill is necessary to ensure the
waste falls outside the scope of the
listing. We do not believe that any
specific recordkeeping requirement
(e.g., the completion and retention of a
specific form) is necessary to make this
demonstration. We believe that
documentation of previous landfilling of
the waste and a demonstration of a
commitment to dispose of currently
generated waste in a landfill may be
made by several means. EPA is
requesting comment on the types of
records and/or documentation normally
kept by generators and/or disposal
facility owner/operators that may be
used to make such demonstrations (see
section III.E.2.f, below).
EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges that are not listed hazardous
waste due to contingent management
will be considered nonhazardous from
their point of generation. As a result,
such sludges will not be subject to
RCRA subtitle C management
requirements for generation, transport.
or disposal (including the land disposal
restrictions), if the waste is destined for
disposal in a landfill (and the generator
can demonstrate such intention).
Of course, if the waste is not disposed
of in such a unit, then the exemption
would no longer apply and the waste
would have to be managed in
compliance with subtitle C management
requirements, from the point of
generation. In other words, if the
Agency finds that the waste is disposed
of in a unit other than a subtitle C or D
landfill, the Agency may cite the
generator of the waste as being out of
compliance with all applicable subtitle
C management requirements. The
Agency also points out that should EDC/
VCM wastewater treatment sludges meet
the listing description for another
hazardous waste listing, or if the
wastewater treatment sludges exhibit
one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste, the sludges must be
managed as hazardous wastes and are
not exempt from regulation under
today's listing determination, regardless
of how the sludges are managed.
e. What Specific Comments Is EPA
Requesting on Implementation of the
Contingent Management Listing
Approach?
The Agency requests comments on
this proposed contingent management
listing approach, and may make changes
to the implementation approach based
on comments received. EPA notes that
this contingent management approach
necessitates that the Agency have the
ability to confirm whether or not wastes
claimed to fall outside the scope of the
listing description are disposed of in a
landfill as required by the proposed
listing determination. As a result, some
type of documentation or demonstration
that the waste actually is disposed of in
a landfill (or will be disposed of this
way) is appropriate.
EPA is proposing that generators be
able to provide documentation that
waste previously generated (for which
the claim is made that the waste is not
K174) was disposed in an on-site
landfill or transported to and received
by an off-site landfill. In addition, a
generator must be able to demonstrate
that waste currently present at the
generator's facility will be disposed in
an on-site or off-site landfill, and that
the waste will not be stored, or
otherwise managed, on the land prior to
disposal in a landfill. Appropriate types
of documentation that may fulfill these
requirements may include: contracts
between a generator and a landfill
owner/operator, invoices documenting
that the waste was transported to and
received by a landfill facility, bills of
-------
46510
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
lading or other shipping papers that
clearly indicate the type and quantity of
waste shipped off-site, the date of
shipment, the name and address of the
landfill receiving the waste, and the
date the waste was received by the
landfill.
EPA requests comment on the type of
records, documentation, and
demonstrations that may be adequate for
determining compliance with the
contingent management listing. EPA
requests comment on what type of
internal records may be kept by solid
waste generators that may demonstrate
intended management of the waste and
Whether such records are adequate for
demonstrating compliance with the
contingent management conditions for
exclusion from the hazardous waste
listing. EPA also requests comment on
its proposal that waste that does not
meet the terms of the conditional listing
is hazardous from the point of
generation.
3. VCM-A Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
a. Is EPA Proposing To Regulate VCM-
A Wastewater Treatment Sludges?
Yes, EPA is proposing to list as
hazardous wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process
(VCM-A). The sludge is generated at
one facility as a result of treating water
running off an area where spent
mercury catalysts are removed from the
VCM-A production process. The
Agency has concluded that the waste
meets the listing criteria in 40 CFR
261.11 (a) (3) and is capable of posing a
Substantial present or potential hazard
to human health and the environment if
i[ii|smanaged. For reasons explained in
more detail below, EPA is proposing
two alternative approaches for listing
this waste as hazardous. The Agency is
requesting comment on both proposed
approaches.
b, What Information Led EPA To
Propose To List as Hazardous VCM-A
Wastewater Treatment Sludges?
i. Background
As previously described in today's
proposed rule, the manufacture of vinyl
chloride monomer in an acetylene-based
process using mercuric chloride
catalysts generates non-process
wastewaters as a result of precipitation
runoff in the production area, as well as
from using water to remove spent
catalyst from the reactors. Because of its
high mercuric chloride content, this
wastewater is collected and treated in a
dedicated non-biological treatment
system that uses sodium sulfide to
convert the mercuric chloride to
mercuric sulfide, which precipitates as
a sludge and is dewatered to form a
filter cake. This treatment system is
operated in a batch-process fashion, and
treated effluent is discharged under the
facility's NPDES permit. EPA knows of
only one facility in the United States
that operates an acetylene-based VCM
production process. According to the
facility's response to the RCRA Section
3007 survey, this waste was sent to a
permitted hazardous waste landfill for
disposal in 1996. Other information
provided by the facility in response to
a separate RCRA Section 3007 request
from EPA indicates this waste was sent
to the same permitted hazardous waste
landfill from 1990 to 1994 as well. The
facility generates approximately 120
metric tons of VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludge per year.
ii. Analytical Results
EPA analyzed one sample of this
sludge in 1996 in support of this listing
determination. The analytical results
showed the sludge contained 9,200 mg/
kg total mercury, and 0.26 mg/L in
leachate using TCLP. The results for a
split sample analyzed by the facility
were 17,700 ppm total mercury, and the
TCLP result was 0.654 mg/L. These
results indicate a very high total
mercury concentration (approximately
one to two percent of the waste is
mercury), and the TCLP results exceed
the regulatory level for the mercury
toxicity characteristic of 0.2 mg/L. Data
generated by EPA in support of a
treatability study on this particular
waste showed a total mercury
concentration (in aliquots of a single
sample) ranging from approximately
3,000 to 9,000 mg/kg, and TCLP results
were all below the regulatory limit.35
Other data available to EPA from the
facility indicate that approximately 20
percent of the tested samples exceed the
regulatory level for mercury36.
iii. Assessment of Potential Risk
EPA's quantitative analysis of the
potential groundwater risks posed by
this waste assumes waste disposal in an
unlined landfill. The Agency is making
35 Paul Bishop, Renee A. Rauche. Linda A. Rieser,
Markram T. Suidan, and Jain Zhang; "Stabilization
and Testing of Mercury Containing Wastes," Draft.
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. University of Cincinnati. March 31,
1999. Please note that this is a draft EPA document
not yet peer reviewed. Also, data within the report
is still undergoing QA/QC review, and the text,
data, and conclusions in the report may change
before the document is finalized.
36 Summary of Mercury TCLP Data on VCM-A
Sludge from Borden Chemicals and Plastics. EPA
July 1999.
use of previously conducted
groundwater modeling and risk analyses
for the proposed Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (60 FR 66344,
December 21, 1995) that resulted in an
estimated dilution and attenuation
factor (DAF) for mercury of 40. Using
this DAF and the mercury leachate
concentration of the VCM-A sludge
analyzed by EPA (0.26 mg/L), the
expected concentration of mercury at a
modeled receptor well (after a release to
groundwater from an unlined landfill)
exceeds the maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for mercury (0.002 mg/L) by
a factor of three. Using the mercury
leachate concentration from the
facility's split sample (0.654 mg/L), the
mercury MCL would be exceeded at a
modeled receptor well by a factor of
eight.
EPA is unable to quantitatively assess
the potential risk this waste poses when
disposed in a subtitle C landfill without
prior treatment. However, we
qualitatively considered the risk
associated with such a management
scenario. There is considerable
uncertainty about the performance of
engineered landfills. In the near term,
especially at regulated subtitle C
landfills, there are quality assurance
controls to reduce the likelihood of
significant material, installation, or
facility operation errors that could
degrade performance of the engineered
systems. In addition, such landfills have
ground water monitoring and leachate
management controls to further reduce
the chances of significant ground water
risk. However, in the long-term, there is
considerable uncertainty as to how well
engineered systems will operate and
whether there will continue to be long-
term care and maintenance after the
regulatory post-closure period ends.
EPA can only qualitatively consider the
potential long-term risk of wastes in
subtitle C landfills. However, we
considered the above mentioned
uncertainties, along with the
quantitative estimates of potential risk
in unlined landfills, when assessing the
potential risks of managing untreated
wastes in a subtitle C landfill, such as
VCM-A sludges that contain persistent
constituents such as mercury.
iv. Rationale for Proposed Hazardous
Waste Listing Determination
EPA is proposing two rationales to
"list" this waste as hazardous, both of
which lead the Agency to conclude we
should propose to list this wastestream
as hazardous waste. First, EPA believes
it is plausible that this waste may be
mismanaged and disposed of in an
unlined and uncovered landfill and that
it is capable of posing a substantial
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46531
hazard if so managed. Second, based
upon information EPA has, including
information on liner performance and
the mobility of mercury under certain
pH conditions, EPA believes that even
when disposed of in a landfill that is
compliant with Subtitle C landfill
standards, this waste is likely to leach
significant quantities and
concentrations of mercury that long-
term degradation of the landfill's
leachate control systems (especially
after post-closure care has ended) would
plausibly cause an unacceptable release
of mercury into groundwater and has
the potential to pose a substantial
hazard when this waste is so managed
without improved prior treatment. EPA
requests comment on the basis for the
rationales described above, both for the
disposal scenario in an unlined landfill,
and the disposal scenario in a landfill
compliant with subtitle C landfill
standards.
The Agency's analysis of potential
risk indicates that disposal of the VCM-
A sludge in an unlined landfill may
result in risks due to the migration of
mercury in groundwater to a receptor
well in concentrations that exceed the
MCL for this constituent. The Agency
notes that the single facility generating
this waste reports managing the waste
by disposing of it in a subtitle C landfill
for certain years. Therefore, a simple
conclusion may be to dismiss the
potential risk for the groundwater
pathway (assuming it continues to go to
a subtitle C landfill) due to the presence
of a landfill liner and leachate
collection. In addition, (as mentioned
previously) the mercury in the waste is
in the form of mercuric sulfide, which
generally is found to be a relatively
insoluble form of mercury (indicated by
only a relatively small percentage of the
total mercury content of the waste
leaching under the TCLP). However,
data recently collected by the Agency
and preliminary results from the
analysis of this waste indicate that this
waste may not behave in the same
manner (in terms of the mobility of
mercury in sulfidic form) in all
environments. As discussed briefly
below (and further in the Land Disposal
Restrictions, Section V.F.), available
data indicate that although the mercury
in the VCM-A sludge remains relatively
immobile at pH levels of 6 or lower,
higher pH conditions will result in
mercury mobilizing to the aqueous
phase.37
Using data from a collected sample of
the VCM-A wastewater treatment
sludge,; constant pH leaching -tests were
conducted on the waste sample to
determine the effect pH has on the
stability of the waste. The preliminary
results of the constant pH leaching tests
showed that mercury leachate
concentrations were lower in samples
leached at a pH of 6.0 or lower (e.g.,
0.00582 mg/L at pH=6 after 24 hours),
compared with concentrations at higher
pH conditions. The same sample
leached at pH of 10 produced a
significantly higher mercury leachate
concentration of 1.63 mg/L after 24
hours.38
Information obtained by EPA on the
pH levels of actual leachate collected
from the landfill cell in which the
VCM-A wastewater treatment sludge
currently is disposed show that the pH
is greater than 9.39 If this pH value is
indeed indicative of the disposal
environment for this waste, then based
upon the pH relationship identified in
the preliminary results of constant pH
leach tests described above, one would
predict that the mercury would be
significantly mobilized under the
disposal environment actually being
used for this waste.
In summary, although the waste is
disposed in a subtitle C landfill, the fact
that the mercury in the waste may
mobilize at pH levels greater than 6
means that the leach test results may
under predict concentrations in
leachate. In case of significant leachate
contamination, the landfill liner may be
the only guard against the release of
mercury to the environment (due to the
fact that the waste is not stable in this
landfill disposal scenario). Should the
liner fail, mercury present in the
leachate would be released to the
environment.
EPA acknowledges that a liner/
leachate collection system in a subtitle
C unit serves to contain and remove
waste leachate and provides important
environmental protection. However,
EPA recognizes that there is inherent
uncertainty in such systems, and it
believes that the purpose of the RCRA
hazardous waste treatment requirements
(as expressed by Congress) is to reduce
the uncertainty inherent in engineered
containment approaches. EPA believes
that waste containment systems will
tend to degrade with time. Eventually,
synthetic liners will degrade and
leachate collection systems will cease
operation. As put forth in the proposed
37 H. Lawrence Clever. Susan A. Johnson, and M.
elizabeth Derrick, The Solubility of Mercury and
Some Sparingly Soluble Mercury Salts in Water and
Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions. J. Phys. Chem. Ref.
Data. Vol. 14, No. 3. 1985. page 652.
38 Paul Bishop, op. tit., p. 14.
39 E-mail communication to John Austin, U.S.
EPA, from Mitch Hahn, Waste Management
Corporation, April 14, 1999.
Liner and Leak Detection Rule (52 FR
20218,-May 29. 1987), no liner can be
expected to remain impervious forever.
Properly installed double liner and
leachate collection systems, together
with final covers placed at closure, will
substantially reduce" releases during the
operating life and post-closure care
period. However, these technologies
may not always reduce the longer-term
risk for landfills to acceptable levels for
persistent, mobile, and highly toxic
compounds. This is because the
containment system may not prevent
leachate release from the landfill
indefinitely, for example after the post-
closure period, when active
maintenance of the cap and leachate
collection system may be reduced or
may end. The Agency has found that
treatment of the waste under the LDR
standards of RCRA subtitle C will
significantly reduce potential risks from
the disposal of this waste over the long
term. This is particularly important for
a constituent such as mercury, that is
persistent and does not degrade.
Treatment in accordance with
prescribed BOAT can reduce the
possibility that leachable mercury is
available for release to the environment.
Again, a liner/leachate collection system
in a subtitle C unit is expected to
contain waste leachate and lessen the
risk while such a system is intact.
However, even assuming a low
probability of failure, because the TCLP
may be significantly under predicting
leachability for this waste in this
subtitle C disposal scenario, there may
still be a release of mercury that results
in an exceedance of the MCL. While
there are uncertainties in this
assessment, it still illustrates that the
mercury concentrations in the receptor
well may be close to, and could even be
higher than the MCL. Given the well-
documented toxicity and persistence of
mercury, the potential for greater
mobility of mercury from this particular
waste in a subtitle C landfill (than
predicted by the TCLP), and the
uncertainties associated with
engineered landfills over the long-
term—as reflected in statutory language
regarding treatment requirements—EPA
believes that the disposal of this waste,
untreated, in a subtitle C landfill may
not be protective and therefore may
warrant listing the waste as hazardous.
In EPA's view, it may violate
Congressional intent to allow a waste
that the Agency otherwise would list as
hazardous (absent the fact that the waste
is managed untreated in a Subtitle C
landfill) to be disposed in a hazardous
waste landfill under conditions that
may result in the hazardous constituents
-------
46512
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
in the waste leaching from the waste
(due to the high pH of the landfill
Environment). Congress clearly
expressed its intent that the Agency is
not to place excessive reliance or
confidence in landfill design and liners
for problematic wastes. In the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. Congress
explicitly added as one of the
"findings" to RCRA that "land disposal
facilities are not capable of assuring
Ipng-term containment of certain
hazardous wastes" and that "reliance on
land disposal should be minimized or
eliminated."40 As a result of this
finding, and others, Congress added the
land disposal restriction program to
RCRA, which significantly restricts land
disposal of hazardous wastes and
provided in section 3004 (m) the
mandate that EPA develop treatment
standards for "diminishing the toxicity
Of wastes or substantially reducing the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized." In addition, the legislative
history to RCRA section 3004(m) states
that this section "makes Congressional
intent clear that land disposal without
prior treatment of these wastes with
significant concentrations of highly
persistent, bioaccumulative constituents
is not protective of human health and
the environment." (130 Cong. Rec. S
9178; daily ed. July 25, 1984). Were we
to propose a no list determination for
this waste based solely upon the fact
that this waste currently is disposed in
a subtitle C landfill—ignoring the high
levels of total mercury in the waste, its
potential for leaching (at high pH), and
the likely benefits of treatment—we
would be bypassing Congressional
intent that wastes be treated to reduce
toxicity and/or migration of hazardous
constituents before final disposal.
EPA views the statute and legislative
history as sufficient justification to
evaluate in a listing determination all
risks of land disposal, including in
appropriate cases problems that might
be associated with voluntary disposal of
untreated wastes in permitted subtitle C
facilities. This is particularly true where
risks presented by a waste will be high
if releases occur, if the waste is highly
persistent, and treatment of the waste
under subtitle C would significantly
reduce these risks. In the case of the
VCM-A wastewater treatment sludges,
the potential risks presented by the high
content of mercury in the waste if a
release should occur, warrants the
imposition of treatment standards in
•WRCRA section 1002{b)(7). 42 U.S.C. 6902(b)(7).
accordance with Congress's intent.
Although the generator currently sends
VCM-A wastewater treatment sludges to
a lined subtitle C landfill facility, we
believe that substantial risks are
plausible, given the possibility of
eventual landfill degradation or failure.
The estimated risks due to migration
from an unlined landfill provide an
indication of the potential risks that will
occur if mercury is released from the
lined landfill due to failure of the unit
to contain the waste leachate over time.
Absent a hazardous waste listing, the
Agency has no mechanism for requiring
that the waste be treated prior to
disposal to ensure that the mercury in
the waste does not leach from the waste
to the surrounding environment (and
hence provide some protection of
human health and the environment in
the event of a liner failure).
Furthermore, the Agency has little
assurance that the waste will continue
to be managed in a subtitle C landfill.
Listing a waste as hazardous provides
a level of certainty with regard to the
management and stewardship of a waste
as well. Given the quantity of mercury
contained in the VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludge and the potential
solubility of this large quantity of
mercury, the Agency tentatively
concludes that it is appropriate that the
waste be managed in accordance with
the "cradle-to-grave" management
system established under RCRA Subtitle
C. By listing this waste as hazardous,
EPA and the general public are afforded
a greater level of certainty with respect
to the manner in which the waste must
be managed. It will have to be
accumulated and stored in closed
containers, sent off-site for treatment
and disposal within a relatively short
time of the time it was generated,
transported by a registered hazardous
waste transporter and accompanied by a
manifest, and treated and disposed at
facilities permitted to handle hazardous
wastes.
The Agency bases its listing
determinations on an evaluation of risks
from plausible management practices.
For the reasons just described, EPA
believes that disposal of untreated
VCM-A sludge in a subtitle C landfill
represents one plausible management
scenario and that this scenario could
lead to significant problems. Equally
important, the Agency questions
whether the current waste management
practices are the only practices that will
be employed by the facility in the
future. That is, the Agency believes
other management practices are
plausible. First, information available to
the Agency documents only that the
facility has sent VCM-A wastewa'ter
treatment sludges to a subtitle C landfill
for disposal for some periods after 1990.
Specifically, information provided by
the facility in response to a specific
RCRA Section 3007 request from EPA
indicates this waste was sent to a
subtitle C landfill from 1990 to 1994;
and according to the facility's response
to the RCRA Section 3007 survey, this
waste was sent to a permitted hazardous
waste landfill for disposal in 1996. In
addition, we have no information with
regard to the disposal of the waste prior
to 1990. The Agency does know that the
facility had as many as 800 drums of the
mercuric sulfide sludge stored on site in
1985; however the Agency has no
information with regard to the ultimate
management of the waste.41 Given the
fact that the Agency does not have a
complete record of how the VCM-A
sludge was managed in the past, the
Agency believes that it is reasonable to
assume that the VCM-A sludge may be
managed in an non-subtitle C landfill in
the future.
Therefore, for the purposes of
assessing potential risk, the Agency
believes a plausible mismanagement
scenario'can also include an unlined
landfill, the scenario in which the
Agency's risk analysis indicates a
potential for the concentration of
mercury at a modeled receptor well to
be as much as eight times higher than
the MCL for mercury (based upon the
TCLP results and a DAF of 40).
Our assessment includes predicted
exceedances of the MCL (based upon
the record sample EPA collected)
assuming disposal in an unlined
landfill; and a qualitative consideration
of the possible risks when disposed in
a subtitle C landfill without better
treatment. Although risk analyses
provide one of the principal bases for a
listing determination, estimates of risk
levels do not represent the sole basis for
a listing determination. Other factors
generally are considered in making a
listing decision. In fact, the Agency's
listing decision policy uses a "weight-
of-evidence" approach in which
calculated risk information is a single
key factor. Available risk values are
assessed with all other data available to
determine whether a waste is or is not
a hazardous waste (see the discussion of
EPA's hazardous waste listing
determination policy in the proposed
listing for wastes generated by the dye
and pigment industries at 59 FR 66073,
December 22, 1994). In our decision to
propose to list this sludge as hazardous,
41 "Reclassification Petition" submitted to
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,
Hazardous Waste Division, by Borden Chemical,
September. 1987, p. III-2.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164 /Wednesday, August 25, 1999 /Proposed Rules
46513
the Agency considered several factors,
including the extensive documentation
on the toxicity of mercury, as well as the
other criteria listed in 261.11 (a) (3) to
arrive at a listing determination, as
further summarized below.
Mercury has been identified by
several different governmental agencies,
including EPA, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), as a significant
human toxicant. Each of these Agency's
has developed regulations, guidelines,
and/or standards to protect people from
the serious potential health effects of
exposure to mercury. In addition, it also
is well documented that mercury is
persistent in the environment, does not
degrade, and bioaccumulates in
wildlife, particularly fish. Agency
studies, including the recently
published Mercury Study Report to
Congress42 have documented the
neurotoxicity of mercury and the
potential adverse human health and
environmental effects that may result
from the release of mercury to the
environment. In addition, ATSDR has
published a toxicological profile for
mercury which examines, summarizes
and interprets toxicological information
and epidemiological evaluations on
mercury.43 Research conducted by both
EPA and ATSDR provides
documentation of the highly toxic
effects of human exposure to mercury.
Human consumption of highly-
contaminated food can produce overt
mercury neurotoxicity. Neurotoxic
effects from mercury contamination
range from subtle decrements in motor
skills and sensory ability at
comparatively low doses to tremors,
inability to walk, convulsions and death
at extremely high exposures. Human
consumption offish or grain
contaminated with high levels of
mercury can result in permanent
damage to the brain, kidneys and
developing fetuses. Adverse effects of
mercury on fish include death, reduced
reproductive success, impaired growth
and development and behavioral
abnormalities. Exposure to mercury also
can cause adverse effects in plants, birds
and mammals. The extent and
availability of toxicity assessments for
mercury is relatively extensive (see
EPA's "Mercury Study Report to
Congress" and/or EPA's "Action Plan
for Mercury")aA. Certainty with regard
to the potential risks to human health
and the environment from exposure to
mercury is well documented. Mercury
presents significant human health
threats when released to the
environment.
Wastewater treatment sludges from
the VCM-A process using mercuric
chloride catalyst contain significant
levels of total mercury. As mentioned
previously, approximately 120 metric
tons of the sludge, containing about one
percent (or 1 MT) of mercury, is
generated per year at a single facility.
One metric ton of mercury is
approximately 20 times as much
mercury as is received typically by a
single municipal solid waste landfill
from all sources in one year. EPA also
notes that in this particular case, we
believe the mercury is likely to be
significantly leachable at pH levels of a
typical hazardous waste landfill. The
Agency considers this quantity of
potentially leachable mercury generated
from a-single facility and disposed of
off-site to be significant. As outlined in
the Draft EPA Action Plan for
Mercury45, and EPA's Waste
Minimization National Plan41*, it is
important to the protection of human
health and the environment that all
anthropogenic sources of mercury
emissions to the environment be
minimized. Given the inherent risks
associated with mercury, EPA believes
it is necessary to ensure, to the greatest
extent possible, that wastes containing
significant quantities of mercury are
safely managed and to guard against
potential mismanagement.
Upon consideration of the factors
enumerated in 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) and
those summarized in the 1994 Dyes and
Pigments Proposed Rule for making a
hazardous waste listing determination,
EPA made the following conclusions
with respect to this waste. In terms of
waste characterization, data available on
this waste indicate with relative
consistency that the waste contains a
significant amount of total mercury,
regardless of variation in pH and
leachable mercury. Furthermore, in this
particular case, we believe that the
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997),
EPA-452-R-97-003-009.
43 "Toxicological Profile for Mercury," ATSDR,
April. 1999; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/press/
ma990419.html.
44 "Mercury Study Report to Congress." volumes
I-VIII, EPA-452/R-97-003, December 1997: and
EPA Action Plan for Mercury (Atttachment 1 to "An
Agency-Wide Multi-media Strategy for Priority PBT
Pollutants"), http://www.epa.gov/ttnuatwl/
112nmerc/mercury.html.
45 Attachment to A Multimedia Strategy for
Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Pollutants, November 16, 1998, EPA 742/
D98/001, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/
pbtstrat.htm.
46 Waste Minimization National Plan. US EPA
1994, EPA530-R-94-045, http://www.epa.gov/ •
rgytgrnj/specinit/p2/volprog/wm.htm.
mercury is likely to be more leachable
than the TCLP test indicates. It is well
documented that mercury is a human
toxicant. Mercury is persistent in the
environment, does not degrade, and
bioaccumulates in wildlife, particularly
fish. These conclusions correspond to
the listing factors at 40 CFR Sections
261.11 (a) (3) (i), (iv), (v), and (vi),
respectively.
After considering the listing factors in
261.11 (a) (3), and in particular the
factors at 261.11 (a)(3) (i)-(vi) (which
include potential risks to groundwater
from unregulated disposal of this waste,
the fact that mercury is a human
toxicant, is persistent in the
environment, does not degrade,
bioaccumulates in wildlife, and is
present in very high concentrations in
this waste), as well as several of the
"additional factors" listed in the 1994
Proposed Rule for Wastes Generated by
the Dyes and Pigments Industry, and
taking into account the Agency's overall
goals to reduce releases of mercury to
the environment, EPA is proposing to
list this waste as hazardous. The
proposed listing description is shown
below.
K175 Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process.
The proposed listing of VCM-A
wastewater treatment sludges, which
contain substantial amounts of total
mercury is, in effect, an extension of the
Agency's policy with regard to mercury
emissions. The Agency believes that
listing these wastewater treatment
sludges as hazardous will provide
incentive for the facility to find ways to
reduce the overall quantity of mercury-
containing VCM-A sludges generated.
EPA believes there may be opportunities
for this type of reduction through
improved catalyst handling practices.
Improved handling practices may result
in a reduction in the amount mercuric
chloride released in and around the
VCM-A process area where it becomes
available for introduction to the
wastewater treatment system. In turn,
this reduction would result in an overall
decrease in the amount of mercury
available for potential release to the
environment.
Once a waste is listed as a hazardous
waste, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal unless it is treated in
compliance with treatment standards
established under the RCRA land
disposal restrictions standards program.
The mercuric sulfide sludge generated
from the VCM-A production process is
unique in that this waste contains a very
high amount of total mercury, and the
-------
46514
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
mercury Is present in the waste in a
relatively insoluble form as measured
Using the TCLP. However, the
preliminary findings of the EPA/ORD
study described above suggest that
variability in the pH of the waste as
generated, and higher pH conditions
potentially encountered in the disposal
unit where this waste is managed, can
affect the stability of the VCM-A sludge
when disposed in a subtitle C landfill.
The Agency, therefore, is proposing
specific LDR treatment standards for
this waste to minimize the potential
release of mercury to die environment
from this waste. A discussion of the
proposed BDAT treatment standards for
newly listed VCM-A wastes is provided
later in this notice.
c. What Alternative Is EPA Considering
for a Proposed Listing Determination?
i. Summary of Alternative Listing
Option
The alternative listing option EPA is
proposing today is to list the VCM-A
wastewater treatment sludges as
hazardous waste, unless the waste is
disposed in a subtitle C landfill. In
addition, under this alternative option,
VCM-A wastewater treatment sludges
that exhibit the toxicity characteristic
for mercury will be listed as hazardous.
In other words, this waste will not meet
the proposed K175 listing description,
and therefore will not be listed
hazardous waste from the point of
generation, so long as it is disposed in
a subtitle C landfill, and it does not
exhibit the TC for mercury.
it. Rationale for Alternative Listing
Option
As described earlier, EPA believes
that the VCM-A sludge meets the
criteria for being listed as a hazardous
waste, principally due to the high
concentration of mercury, a highly toxic
constituent, in this waste. Available
information indicates that the direct
disposal of untreated VCM-A sludge in
a subtitle C landfill may result in a
marked increase in the mobility of
mercury, and that, should the liner
system ultimately degrade, this mercury
can be released to groundwater and
potentially reach a receptor well in
concentrations at the MCL. Also, the
Agency believes that disposal of these
wastes in an unlined landfill is a
plausible mismanagement scenario,
which would result in exceedances of
the MCL by up to a factor of eight. The
Agency is seeking comment on these
tentative conclusions and diis proposed
listing determination. Should the
Agency receive data or other
information on the conclusions drawn
by the Agency with regard to the
management of the waste and the
behavior of this waste in the
environment, particularly with regard to
the potential for the mercury in the
waste to leach under conditions of high
pH levels, the Agency will consider
alternative approaches. For example, if
direct disposal of untreated VCM-A
sludge in a subtitle C landfill can be
shown to be protective without further
treatment of this waste, due to the
relative insolubility of mercuric sulfide
or expected long-term performance of
subtitle C systems, EPA will consider a
conditional listing of VCM-A. Such an
conditional listing would specify that
the wastewater treatment sludges are
listed only if the waste is not disposed
in a subtitle C landfill, or put another
way, the sludges would not be listed
hazardous waste from the point of
generation if they are disposed in a
subtitle C landfill.
As mentioned above, this alternative
regulatory approach is based upon the
presumption that disposal of untreated
VCM-A sludge in a subtitle C landfill is
protective. However, the Agency also is
concerned that this waste can
sometimes fail the TC for mercury (as
discussed earlier, approximately 20
percent of the time based upon EPA and
facility data). The existing treatment
standards that otherwise would apply to
this waste if it was characteristically
hazardous for mercury include
incineration (Le., D009 high mercury/
organic subcategory requires either
incineration or mercury recovery),
which may not be the most
environmentally-sound manner in
which to treat the waste prior to
disposal. This is discussed in more
detail in the LDR portion of today's rule
(Section V). Because of this concern,
this alternative option is structured in a
fashion that allows the treatment
standards being proposed today for
K175 to apply in lieu of the existing
standards for D009 for those VCM-A
wastes that exhibit the characteristic for
mercury.
EPA requests comment on this
proposed alternative listing approach.
Also, EPA requests comment on
whether it may be more appropriate to
simply list the VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludge unless it is sent to a
subtitle C landfill, and propose
alternative LDR treatment standards that
would apply to VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludges that exhibit the TC for
mercury. We note that the Agency
presently is revisiting the IMERC
standard as part of a comprehensive re-
evaluation of the LDR treatment
standards for mercury-bearing wastes
(see May'28, 1999 ANPRM; 64 FR
28958). To the extent time allows, the
Agency will consider relevant issues
raised in the ANPRM in developing this
final listing determination. However,
because of the different schedules of
these two actions and the consent
decree deadline for finalizing today's
proposed rule, we will not necessarily
be able to consider any comments
submitted to the ANPRM in finalizing
today's rule.
The Agency's proposed alternative
listing description for VCM-A
wastewater treatment sludges that will
define this waste as hazardous only
under certain conditions is as follows:
K175 Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based process,
unless: i) the sludges are disposed in a
subtitle C landfill, and ii) the sludges do
not fail the toxicity characteristic for
mercury in 40 CFR 261.24, and iii) the
generator maintains documentation
demonstrating that the waste was
disposed of in a subtitle C landfill or
consigned to a transporter or disposal
facility that provided a written
commitment to dispose of the waste in
a subtitle C landfill. Respondents in any
action brought to enforce the
requirements of subtitle C must, upon a
showing by the government that the
respondent managed wastewater
treatment sludges from the production of
vinyl chloride monomer using mercuric
chloride catalyst in an acetylene-based
process, demonstrate that they meet the
terms of the exclusion set forth above. In
doing so, they must provide appropriate
documentation (e.g., contracts between
the generator and the landfill owner/
operator, invoices documenting delivery
of waste to landfill, analytical results or
other information showing the waste
does not fail the toxicity characteristic
for mercury, etc.) that the terms of the
exclusion were met.
The Agency requests comment on this
alternative listing approach for VCM-A
sludge. As already mentioned, EPA
might choose this alternative regulatory
approach if it decides direct disposal of
untreated VCM-A sludge is protective
without further treatment of this waste,
due to the relative insolubility of
mercuric sulfide, and the groundwater
protections a lined landfill does
provide.
d. What Is the Status of Landfill
Leachate From Previously Disposed
Wastes?
Leachate derived from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of listed hazardous
wastes is classified as a hazardous waste
by virtue of the "derived-from" rule in
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). The Agency has
been clear in the past that hazardous
waste listings apply to wastes disposed .
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46515
of prior to the effective date of a listing,
even if the landfill ceases disposal of the
waste when the waste becomes
hazardous. See 53 FT? 31147, August 17,
1988. We also have a well-established
interpretation that listings likewise
apply to leachate derived from the
disposal of listed hazardous wastes,
including leachate derived from wastes
disposed before a listing effective date
which meet the listing description. We
are not reopening any of these issues
with this proposed rulemaking.
Of course, as set out in detail in the
August 1988 notice, this does not mean
that landfills holding wastes that are
listed now as hazardous become subject
to subtitle C regulation. However,
previously disposed wastes now
meeting a listing description, including ,
residues such as leachate that are
derived from such wastes, and that are
managed actively do become subject to
subtitle C regulation. See 53 FR 31149,
August 17, 1988. In many, indeed most
circumstances, active management of
leachate would be exempt from subtitle
C regulation because the usual pattern
of management is discharge either to
POTWs via the sewer system, where
leachate mixes with domestic sewage
and is excluded from RCRA jurisdiction
(see RCRA Section 1004(27) and 40 CFR
261.4(a)(l)), or to navigable waters, also
excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see
RCRA Section 1004(27) and 40 CFR
261.4(a)(2)). In addition, management of
leachate in wastewater treatment tanks
prior to discharge under the CWA is
exempt from RCRA regulation (40 CFR
264.1(g)(6)).
If actively managed, landfill leachate
and gas condensate derived from the
newly-listed VCM-A waste proposed for
listing in today's notice could be
classified as K175. In such
circumstances, we would be concerned
about the potential disruption in current
leachate management that could occur,
and the possibility of redundant
regulation. Recently, this issue was
raised to the Agency in the context of
the petroleum refinery waste listings.
See 63 FR 42173, August 6, 1998. A
commenter expressed concern that,
because some of the commenter's non-
hazardous waste landfills received
newly-listing petroleum wastes prior to
the effective date of the listing decision,
the leachate that is collected and
managed from these landfills would be
classified as hazardous. The commenter
argued that this could lead to vastly
increased treatment and disposal costs
without necessarily any environmental
benefit. After examining and seeking
comment on this issue, we published a
final rule that temporarily defers
regulation of landfill leachate and gas
condensate derived from certain listed
petroleum refining wastes (K169-K172)
that were disposed before, but not after,
the new lisiings became Iffeclive,
provided certain conditions are met. See
64 FR6806, February 11, 1999.
At the time this issue was brought to
the Agency's attention in the context of
the petroleum refinery waste listings,
EPA's Office of Water had recently
proposed national effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards
for wastewater discharges—most
notably, leachate—from certain types of
landfills. See 63 FR 6426, February 6,
1998. In support of this proposal, EPA
conducted a study of the volume and
chemical composition of wastewaters
generated by both subtitle C (hazardous
' waste) and subtitle D (non-hazardous
waste) landfills, including treatment
technologies and management practices
currently in use. EPA proposed effluent
limitations (for nine pollutants in the
Non-Hazardous Subcategory) for direct
dischargers. See 63 FR 6463. Most
pertinent to finalizing the temporary
deferral for the petroleum refining
wastes, EPA did not propose
pretreatment standards for subtitle D
landfill wastewaters sent to POTWs
because the Agency's information
indicated that such standards were not
required.
The conditions included in the
temporary deferral published on
February 11, 1999 are that the leachate
is subject to regulation under the Clean
Water Act, and the leachate cannot be
stored in surface impoundments after
February 13, 2001. See 40 CFR
261.4(b)(15). We believed that it was
appropriate to temporarily defer the
application of the new waste codes to
such leachate in order to avoid
disruption of ongoing leachate
management activities while the Agency
decides how to integrate the RCRA and
CWA regulations consistent with RCRA
Section 1006(b)(l). We believe that the
same fact pattern fully discussed in the
February 11, 1999 rulemaking applies in
this situation as well. As such, we
would be concerned about forcing
pretreatment of leachate even though
pretreatment is neither required by the
CWA, nor needed. Therefore, we are
proposing to temporarily defer the
regulation of landfill leachate and gas
condensate derived from the VCM-A
wastes, with the same conditions as
described in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15) for
petroleum wastes. We believe the issue
of whether disruptions can be
minimized through integration of CWA
and RCRA rules will be more amenable
to resolution once the CWA rulemaking
is completed.
e. What Specific Comments Is EPA
Requesting on the Agency's Proposed
Listing of VCM-A Wastewater
Treatment Sludges?
The Agency requests comments on
the proposed listing of all VCM-A
wastewater treatment sludges as well as
the proposed conditional listing for this
waste. In addition, the Agency requests
comment on alternative management
practices that may either be in use or
may be appropriate for this.wastestream,
other than the disposal of these sludges '
in subtitle C landfills.
We also request any available
information on whether or not the
VCM-A wastes were previously
disposed in non-hazardous landfills.
Even if-we do not receive any
information that previously disposed
VCM-A wastes will result in generation
of hazardous landfill leachate and gas
condensate, we may still choose to
promulgate the temporary deferral for
landfill leachate and gas condensate
from this waste. This is because
someone may discover this problem
later (after the effective date of the
listing), so, by having a temporary
deferral in place, it would be possible to
avoid disruption of ongoing leachate
management activities while we further
examine this issue and await the CWA
final rule.
4. Methyl Chloride Wastewater
Treatment Sludges
a. How Is EPA Proposing To Regulate
Methyl Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges?
EPA is proposing not to list as
hazardous sludges from the treatment of
wastewaters generated from methyl
chloride production processes. This
wastestream does not meet the criteria
set out at 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) for listing
a waste as hazardous. It does not pose
a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment.
The Agency identified limited risks to
consumers of groundwater.
b. What Information Led EPA To
Propose Not To List as Hazardous
Methyl Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges?
EPA identified only one facility that
generates sludges from the treatment of
wastewaters generated from the
production of methyl chloride and does
not currently manage the waste as
hazardous. The results of the RCRA
Section 3007 survey for the chlorinated
aliphatics industry show that this
facility generates less than 800 metric
tons of this sludge each year and
disposes of the sludge in an on-site
landfill along with other wastes from
-------
46516
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
the facility. The landfill is lined and has
a leachate collection system.
In conducting the risk assessment for
this sludge, EPA considered one
management scenario, disposal in an
on-site landfill. The Agency analyzed
potential risks from methyl chloride
wastewater treatment sludge by
modeling a non-groundwater pathway.
The Agency's analysis of potential risks
due to volatile emissions from the
landfill resulted in negligible risks to
individuals in the surrounding area. The
Agency also conducted a bounding (i.e.,
worst case) risk analysis to estimate
potential risks to groundwater
consumers. This analysis used the
leachate concentration measured from a
sample of the facility's methyl chloride
wastewater treatment sludge, and
assumed the direct ingestion of this
leachate by an adult for a period of 58
years. This bounding analysis resulted
in a risk of 5E-5 for one constituent,
arsenic.
The Agency views the arsenic risk
results from the bounding analysis as
marginal. Assuming a landfill DAF of
only 5 (a reasonable assumption for an
unlined landfill), the predicted risk
becomes 1E-5, which is the typical level
identified by EPA as posing sufficient
risk to require the waste to be listed as
hazardous(see 59 FR 66072, 66077).
However, for this particular facility,
EPA believes that the actual risk from
this waste will be much lower than the
risk level predicted by the bounding
analysis given that the landfill currently
used by the single facility generating
this waste is lined with a 24-inch clay
liner and has a leachate collection
system.
The Agency believes that the
management practice of most concern
(on-site landfill) was assessed, given
that it is the only management practice
used by the single facility generating the
waste. Given that the landfill is located
on site and has significant remaining
capacity, the Agency sees no reason to
assume that the facility will not
continue to manage its wastewater
treatment sludges from the production
of methyl chloride in this manner.
Based on an analysis of potential risks
associated with current management
practices, EPA is proposing not to list as
hazardous wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of methyl chloride.
The Agency found no significant risks
arising from the on-site landfill
management scenario. The only possible
concern arises from the marginal risk
associated with arsenic, which falls at
the risk level generally identified by
EPA for listing a waste as hazardous,
when assuming a DAF of 5. The Agency
believes this assumption is reasonable
for an unlined landfill, and likely
results in an overestimate of risk for the
management practice identified by EPA
(i.e., an on-site landfill that operates
with a clay liner and leachate collection
at a single facility).
The Agency requests comments on
the approach taken to determine a no-
list proposal for hazardous wastewater
treatment sludges from methyl chloride
manufacturing.
5. Allyl Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
a. How Is EPA Proposing To Regulate
Allyl Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges?
EPA is proposing not to list as
hazardous sludges generated from
treating wastewaters associated with the
manufacture of allyl chloride. This
wastestream does not meet the criteria
set out at 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3) for listing
a waste as hazardous. It does not pose
a substantial present or potential threat
to human health or the environment.
The Agency has identified no risks of
concern associated with the current
management of the waste.
b. What Information Led EPA To
Propose To Not List as Hazardous Allyl
Chloride Wastewater Treatment
Sludges?
Wastewater treatment sludges from
allyl chloride production are generated
at a single facility. The sludges are
generated from the facility's centralized
wastewater treatment system. This
wastewater treatment system is a non-
dedicated system in that wastewaters
from the facility's multiple production
processes are discharged to the single
system for combined treatment.
Wastewaters from the production of
allyl chloride contribute less than two
percent to the system's total sludge
loading. According to the RCRA Section
3007 survey response, the sludge
generated from the facility's wastewater
treatment system is incinerated on site
in a non-hazardous waste incinerator.
During the investigations undertaken
in support of the listing determinations,
EPA collected one sample of this sludge.
Two duplicate TCLP analyses were
performed using the sample collected.
The sample also was analyzed for total
concentrations of dioxins and furans.
The TCLP analyses indicated the
presence of no TCLP constituents above
regulatory levels. The total arsenic
concentration in the waste was 11.7 mg/
kg, while the total dioxin (TEQ/TCDD)
concentration was 11.79 ng/kg.
The Agency does not anticipate any
significant risk from the incineration of
allyl chloride wastewater treatment
sludge in a non-hazardous waste
incinerator, since both the total arsenic
level47 and the total dioxin level48
detected in the sludge are well within
the range of background levels of those
constituents in soils.
The Agency did not-conduct an
analysis of risk associated with other
management practices, based upon the
fact the waste is generated by a single
facility and currently is not managed in
a manner other than non-hazardous
waste incineration.
Given that wastewater treatment
sludges from allyl chloride production
are generated by a single facility, that
the sludge generated is the product of a
facility-wide non-dedicated (i.e., not
process-specific) wastewater treatment
systemrand that no significant risks are
posed by the waste attributable to the
allyl chloride production process, the
Agency is proposing not to list this
waste as hazardous.
The Agency requests comments on
the approach taken to determine to
propose not to list as hazardous
wastewater treatment sludges from allyl
chloride manufacturing.
F. Constituents Proposed for Addition to
Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261
Two of the constituents of concern
that are present in the chlorinated
aliphatic wastewaters (K173) and the
EDC/VCM wastewater treatment sludges
(K174) proposed to be listed as
hazardous waste do not currently
appear on the list of hazardous
constituents at 40 CFR part 261,
appendix VIII. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to add these two constituents,
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) and
octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF), to
appendix VIII. OCDD and OCDF are
members of the large family of
polychlorinated dioxins and furans.
Certain of these compounds, most
notably, 2,3,7,8 TCDD, have been shown
to be extremely toxic.
As discussed in section III.D of
today's proposed rule, the Agency's risk
assessment found significant risks
associated with the presence of dioxins
"Alkhatib. Eid, and O'Connor, Timothy,
"Background Levels of Priority Pollutant Metals in
Soil. American Environmental Laboratory, Vol. 10.
No. 3. April. 1998.
Hunter. Philip M., "Air-Force Wide Background
Concentrations of Inorganics Occurring in Ground
Water and Soil," Proceedings from the Fourteenth
Annual Waste Testing and Quality Assurance
Symposium. Pp. 73-77, 1998.
Welch, Alan H., Lico, Michael S., and Hughes,
Jennifer L., "Arsenic In Ground Water of the
Western United States." Ground Water. Vol. 26, No.
3. May/June, 1988.
48 See Table 4-4 of "Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the Chlorinated
Aliphatlcs Listing Determination," EPA, June 25,
1999.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 164 /Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules 46517
in both chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters and EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges. In the case of our
analysis of risk for both categories of
waste, the dioxin/furan concentrations
were measured on a TCDD TEQ basis.
As previously discussed in today's
proposed rule, TCDD TEQ
concentrations are calculated by
multiplying each 2,3,7,8 congener by
the appropriate TEF, and then summing
the resultant concentrations to come up
with a TCDD TEQ value. OCDD and
OCDF are part of this calculation.
Available data indicate that 2,3,7,8-
substituted congeners of chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofurans
have toxic effects similar to 2,3,7,8,-
TCDD. Data available from in vivo and
in vitro studies reveal a strong structure-
activity relationship, in which the
2,3,7,8-substituted congeners are much
. more biologically active than other
congeners. Both OCDD and OCDF are
2,3,7,8-substituted congeners. Available
data also show that the relative
responses of different PCDDs and PCDFs
are generally consistent across a variety
of toxicity end points.49 In regard to
OCDD specifically, test animals
exhibited initial signs of "dioxin
toxicity" in a subchronic study of mice
exposed to OCDD at low levels.50
EPA also points out that the oral slope
factors for OCDD and OCDF (calculated
by multiplying the cancer slope factor
for 2,3,7,8 TCDD by the TEFs for OCDD
and OCDF, which are both 0.000151) are
relatively high (15/(mg/kg)/day)
compared to the oral slope factor of
other hazardous constituents currently
listed in appendix VIII to 40 CFR 261
(e.g., arsenic has an oral slope factor of
1.5/(mg/kg)/day).
Therefore, we have concluded that,
based upon sufficient evidence to show
that OCDD and OCDF are hazardous
constituents and based upon the fact
that OCDD and OCDF are the only
congeners that make up TCDD TEQ that
are not currently listed in appendix VIII,
OCDD and OCDF should be added to
appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261. The
Agency requests comment on its
proposal to add OCDD and OCDF to the
49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989
Update to the Interim Procedures for Estimating
Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans
(CDDs and CDFs). Washington. D.C.: Risk
Assessment Forum, March, 1989. EPA/625/3-89/
016.
s°Couture, L.A., M.R. Elwell. and L.S. Birnbaum.
"Dioxin-like Effects Observed in Male Rats
Following Exposure to Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(OCDD) during a 13-week Study." Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 93, Pp 31-46, 1988.
51 Using the toxicity equivalency factor (TEF)
developed by the World Health Organization, see
section III.D.l.g.ii of today's proposed rule for
discussion of TEFs.
list of hazardous constituents in
appendix VIII to 40 CFR 261.
IV. Economic Analysis
A. What Is the Purpose of the Economic
Analysis?
The primary purpose of the economic
analysis presented in the "Economic
Background Document, "is to estimate
potential industry compliance costs
associated with this listing proposal.
Secondary purposes are to provide
descriptive information about the
economic (industry) sectors affected,
and about the economic activities
involving chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbon chemicals (CAHCs). The
Economics, Methods, and Risk
Assessment Division (EMRAD) of EPA's
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) conducted
the economic analysis. The "Economic
Background Document"is available to
the public from the RCRA docket (refer
to the introduction to this preamble for
instructions on how to obtain a copy).
The findings of the economic study are
summarized in this section of the
preamble. References to statements
below pertaining to facts, data,
assumptions and other types of
information, are identified in the
document.
B. How May the Public Participate in the
Economic Analysis?
The USEPA encourages the public to
provide comments and suggestions
about the design, accuracy,
representativeness and completeness of
the "Economic Background Document."
In preparing the Economic
Background Document, the EPA
preferred to the maximum extent
possible, to use publicly-available rather
than confidential business information
(CBI) as information and data sources, to
facilitate transparency for public review
and comment. However, some
information was designated by survey
companies as CBI when collected in the
1992 and 1997 Section 3007 surveys
administered by EPA (described
elsewhere in this preamble).
Consequently, the background data and
information available to the EPA during
development of this listing proposal
also consisted of CBI information. In
order to minimize reliance on CBI data,
and to exhaust available public
information sources, EPA consulted
many other databases as supplements
and substitutes to the RCRA Section
3007 survey, in conducting the
economic study.
EPA particularly requests written
comments from the public on the
information elements listed below
pertaining to the economic analysis
presented in the "Economic Background
Document:"
1. Study Design: Suggestions for
modifications and improvements to the
scope, methodology, and organization of the
Economic Background Document (e.g., 30-
year cost annualization -period-of-analysis"
applied).
2. Facility Universe: Correct number and
locations of CAHC manufacturing and any
other types of facilities and entities
potentially affected by the RCRA listing
proposal.
3. Affected Wastes: Correct average annual
quantities, types and industrial source
(origin) of potentially affected CAHC
manufacturing wastes.
4. Industry Profile: Characterization of the
role, functions and industrial organization
associated with the production and use of
CAHCs in the US economy.
5. Baseline Waste Management:
Characterization of baseline (current) waste
management practices associated with CAHC
manufacturing wastes (both onsite and offsite
management practices), including the types
and relative waste quantities managed, types
of waste management units, costs of waste
management ($/ton basis), waste
commingling and segregation, etc. In
particular, there is uncertainty in the Section
3007 survey data, about the exact number
and sizes of wastewater management tanks
used by CAHC manufacturing facilities.
6. Compliance Waste Management:
Adaptation of CAHC manufacturing facilities
to the RCRA listing proposal if finalized,
such as changes in CAHC manufacturing
plant & equipment, facility layout,
production processes and methods, business
arrangements, CAHC product mixes, etc.
What are possible operating consequences to
waste management facilities for meeting
K175 waste pH and sulfide landfill
restrictions?
7. Facility Process Modifications:
Identification and dollar value of lump-sum
capital investment costs required (per
industrial operating unit or facility).
8. Unit Costs: Overall representativeness of
unit costs applied to the universe of CAHC
manufacturing facilities for industrial waste
management, involving both non-hazardous
and hazardous waste handling.
9. Impact Benchmarks:The
appropriateness of the alternative company
financial benchmarks (e.g., annual sales
revenues, annual profits, capital
expenditures, short-term credit) presented in
this study, and of other benchmarks not
presented, for purpose of providing
measurement references relative to assessing
the dollar magnitude of the estimated
industry compliance costs.
10. Supporting Data: The data applied in
the economic study are from sources
published over a number of years, and for
some key data elements, are more than five
years old (e.g., during preparation of this
study, the US Bureau of Census' 1997 Survey
of Manufacturers data reports were not yet
available).
11. Other Considerations: Any other
comments pertaining to other aspects of the
economic study, or to topics which have
been omitted or are outside the scope of the
-------
46518
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
study, irrelevant to assessing the economic
Impact of the listing proposal.
C. How Are Chlorinated Aliphatic
Chemicals Used in the Economy?
Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon
chemicals (CAHCs) entered into
commerce in the US in the early 1920s,
and as of 1994, approximately 38 billion
pounds of 50 different commercially
significant CAHCs were manufactured
by 23 chemical plants (facilities) in the
United States. The US production of
CAHCs has grown an average annual
rate of 4,4 percent over the last 30 years.
CAHCs are a group of organic
chemicals—most of which are colorless
liquids at room temperature—primarily
used as intermediate feedstocks for the
production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
plastics; CAHCs are also used directly in
liquid form as various types of solvents,
as intermediates for the production of
other types of chemicals, and in
assorted other commercial use
categories. As of 1996. three CAHCs—
ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride,
methyl chloride—were on the list of
top-50 chemicals produced in the
United States.
D. Where Are CAHCs Manufactured in
the United States?
In conjunction with contacts of
industry representatives, EPA identified
an initial subset of industrial facilities
relevant to the scope of the listing
proposal, according to both the (a) types
of chemical products manufactured, as
well as the (b) types of industrial
wastestreams generated from the
chemical manufacturing processes. EPA
identified a total of 28 facilities in the
1992 Section 3007 industry survey, and
a total of 26 facilities in the 1997 follow-
up survey, as a result of two facility
closures in the interim period. Three of
the 26 facilities were discovered to be
either "de minimus" producers of
CAHCs, or double-counted in the
survey, which resulted in a final subset
of 23 relevant CAHC manufacturing
facilities.
The relevant subset of 23 CAHC
manufacturing facilities surveyed in
USEPA-OSW's 1997 survey are located
in eight states (Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, Tennessee, and Texas), and
employ an average of over 700
employees per facility. Total
employment for all 23 facilities is about
19,000 employees, and the total
employment associated with the 16
parent companies which own these 23
facilities is much larger, estimated at
526,700 employees.
E. Have CAHCs Been Produced
Historically in Other Locations in the
United States?
In addition to current databases, there
are assorted documents which contain
historical information about the CAHC
production industry in the United
States. Historically, CAHCs have been
manufactured and/or used as feedstocks
and intermediates in chemical
production plants in at least 15 states in
the US. The historical data on the
number and location of CAHC
production facilities serves to illustrate
the dynamic business activity in this
industry sector. As late as 1975, CAHCs
were produced in the US by 32
companies in 58 plant locations.
F. What Are the Estimated Potential
Industry Costs of This Listing?
There are two associated categories of
potential compliance costs for CAHC
manufacturers under this listing
proposal: (a) process wastewater listing
costs, and (b) wastewater treatment
sludge listing costs. These costs are
incremental to current waste
management costs in this industry, in
the sense that all CAHC manufacturing
facilities are currently regulated under
RCRA (i.e., as chlorinated aliphatic
manufacturers via the existing RCRA
F025 and F026 wastecodes, among
others), and some facilities-currently
manage most or all of their CAHC
manufacturing wastes as hazardous.
Consequently, this listing proposal will
not have a full incremental impact on
these facilities, and the marginal impact
on their existing operations in relation
to current RCRA compliance and
hazardous waste handling practices may
be less than it otherwise would be if
these companies and facilities did not
have experience with baseline RCRA
waste management practices.
As summarized in Table IV-1 below,
EPA estimates the total industry
compliance cost—excluding paperwork
burden as separately estimated in the
Information Collection Request—
associated with the two wastestream
components of the listing proposal (i.e.,
sludges and wastewaters), at $2.355
million in average annual cost, for
annual waste management in
conformance with the terms of the
listing proposal. This total cost consists
of an estimated $1.320 million in initial
capital expenditures (30-year
annualized equivalent of $0.046
million), and an estimated $2.309
million in recurring annual costs.
TABLE IV-1.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR THE RCRA LISTING PROPOSAL;
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES AND WASTEWATERS. AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT TOTAL INDUSTRY COST
Item
A.
A1
A2
B.
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
c
Type of CAHC facility potentially affected by the proposed RCRA listing options
SLUDGE LISTING ESTIMATED COSTS:
Non-landfilled EDC/VCM sludge
VCM— A process w/mercury catalyst
Subtotal sludge costs
WASTEWATER LISTING ESTIMATED COSTS:
Tank fixed roof + valve .
Tank roof vent + carbon control
Tank "Subpart CC" ancillary costs*
Initial waste testing fordioxins
Annual waste retesting for dioxins
Subtotal wastewater costs
SLUDGE + WASTEWATER COSTS (column totals) .
Initial
capital
costs
($ lump-sum)
$0
C
I
1,084,600
150,900
(
84,500
C
1,320,000
1,320,000
Recurring
annual
O&M costs
($/year)
$1 333 000
209,000
) 1 ,542,000
81 ,600
591 ,200
23700
0
70,400
766,900
2 309 000
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday. August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46519
TABLE IV-1.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR THE RCRA LISTING PROPOSAL- WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT SLUDGES AND WASTEWATERS. AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT TOTAL INDUSTRY COST—Contin-
ued
Item
Type of CAHC facility potentially affected by the proposed RCRA listing options
Total annualized equivalent cost
Initial
capital
costs -
($ lump-sum)
Recurring
annual
O&M costs
($/year)
2,355,000
V. Proposed Treatment Standards
Under RCRA's Land Disposal
Restrictions
A. What Are EPA's Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs)?
The RCRA statute requires EPA to
establish treatment standards for all
wastes destined for the land disposal.
These are the so called "land disposal
restrictions" or LDRs. For any
hazardous waste identified or listed
after November 8, 1984, EPA must
promulgate these LDR treatment
standards within six months of the date
of identification or final listing (RCRA
Section 3004(g) (4), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(4))
RCRA also requires EPA to set as these
treatment standards "*' * * levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which
substantially diminish the toxicity of
the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized." (RCRA Section 3004(m)(l),
42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(l)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA may be land
disposed. Wastes that do not meet these
standards are prohibited from land
disposal (except in so-called no-
migration units). Each waste proposed
for listing as hazardous in this rule will
be subject to all the land disposal
restrictions on the same day their
respective listing becomes effective.
B. How Does EPA Develop LDR
Treatment Standards?
To establish LDR treatment standards,
EPA first identifies the best
demonstrated available technology
(BOAT) for the hazardous constituents
present in the hazardous waste, and
then determines what constituent
concentrations can be achieved by the
technology or technologies identified as
BOAT.
EPA typically has established
treatment standards based on
performance data from the treatment of
the waste at issue, if such data are
available, and also from the treatment of
wastes with similar chemical and
physical characteristics or similar
concentrations of hazardous
constituents. Treatment standards
typically cover both wastewater and
nonwastewater waste forms on a
constituent-specific basis. The
constituents selected for regulation
under the LDR program are not
necessarily limited to those present in a
proposed listing, but also may include
those constituents or parameters that ,
will ensure that treatment technologies
are operated properly. For listed waste
EPA identifies these as "regulated
constituents" and they appear
individually in the Table at 40 CFR
268.40, along with their respective
treatment standards.
EPA may develop and promulgate
either technology-specific treatment
standards or numerical treatment
standards. Should EPA elect to use
technology-specific standards, all
wastes that meet the listing designations
would have to be treated by the
technology or technologies specified
before disposal. These technologies are
also identified in the Table at §268.40
and are further described in §268.42.
Should EPA elect to use numerical
treatment standards, the Agency allows
the use of any technology (other than
impermissible dilution) to comply with
the treatment standards.
After developing the LDR treatment
standards, we must also determine if
significant treatment capacity is
available to treat the expected volumes
of wastes. If so, the LDR treatment
standards become effective essentially at
the same time a listing does. If not, EPA
may grant up to a two-year national
capacity variance (NCV) during which
time the LDR treatment standards are
not effective.
For a more detailed overview of the
Agency's approach for developing
treatment standards for hazardous
wastes, see the final rule on solvents
and dioxins (51 FR 40572, November 7,
1986) and section III. A.I of the
preamble to the final rule that set land
disposal restrictions for the "Third
Third" wastes (55 FR 22535, June 1,
1990). EPA also has explained its BOAT
procedures in "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT)
Background Document for Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
and Methodology (EPA/OSW, October
23, 1991)" . This document is available
in the docket supporting this
rulemaking.
C. What Kind of Treatment Standards
Are Proposed?
EPA has gathered data on waste
characteristics and current management
practices for wastes proposed in this
action as part of the administrative
record for this rule, and has evaluated
these data to develop specific treatment
standards. An examination of the
constituents that are the basis of the
proposed listings shows that the Agency
has previously developed numerical
treatment standards for most of the
constituents of concern. After reviewing
the available characterization data and
the available information on waste
management practices for these wastes
proposed for listing, EPA has
determined that it is technically feasible
and justified to apply existing universal
treatment standards (UTS) to the
regulated hazardous constituents of
concern in the wastes proposed to be
listed as K173 and K174. For K175, EPA
is proposing a metals recovery
requirement as the treatment standard,
namely roasting and retorting/Although
the mercury in K175 would be
recovered, other treatment residuals will
exist. For these residuals, we are
proposing that existing UTS will be
applicable.
Available information also shows that
these wastes and the treatment residuals
can be managed in existing treatment
and reclamation units that routinely
manage similar or as-difficult-to-treat
hazardous wastes that currently are
prohibited from land disposal. The
BOAT background document provides
further information on EPA's rationale
for applying UTS to these wastes and
the treatment standard of metals
recovery to K175. Also see LDR Phase
II final rule, 59 FR 47982, September 19,
1994, for a further discussion of UTS.
For proposed K173 and K174, EPA is
proposing to regulate specific
constituents from each of these
hazardous wastes. A list of the proposed
regulated hazardous constituents and
-------
46520
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
the proposed treatment limits can be
found in the following preamble section
and in the proposed regulatory Table
268.40—Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes. If EPA makes a final
decision to list the identified wastes,
these constituents and standards would
apply.
EPA has provided in the BOAT
background document a review of
thermal and nonthermal technologies
that can be used to meet the proposed
numerical concentration limits for
proposed K173 and K174, assuming the
design and operation of these
technologies are optimized. Since EPA
Is proposing numerical concentration
limits, the use of other technologies
capable of achieving the proposed
treatment standards is allowed, except
for those treatment or reclamation
practices constituting land disposal or
impermissible dilution (see 40 CFR
268.3). As noted above, EPA is
proposing a specified technology-
specific treatment standard for K175.
K175 waste would therefore have to be
treated by the required technology and
the residues thereof or subsequent
residues would have to meet numerical
UTS concentration limits.52
D. Other LDR-Related Provisions
We propose that the provisions in 40
CFR 268.45 would also be applicable for
the treatment and disposal of hazardous
debris contaminated with proposed
K173. K174, and K175. Hazardous
debris treated in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 268.45 may be
allowed for land disposal in a hazardous
waste disposal facility. As a result,
debris contaminated with proposed
K173, K174, and K175 would be
required to be treated prior to land
disposal, using specific technologies
from one or more of the following
families of debris treatment
technologies: extraction, destruction, or
immobilization. Residuals generated
from the treatment of debris
contaminated with proposed K173,
K174. or K175 will have to meet the
applicable UTS limits proposed today.
See 57 FR 37277, August 18,1992, for
additional information on the
applicability, scope, and content of the
hazardous debris provisions.
We note that, when the listings
proposed today become final, the
82 There are two exceptions. Where the treatment
technology is not appropriate to the waste.
regulations provide a petition process whereby the
generator or treatment facility may petition the
Administrator for a variance. See 40 CFR 268.44. In
addition, persons can petition the Administrator for
an alternate treatment method by showing that the
alternate method can achieve a measure of
performance equivalent to the method specified by
rule.
alternative soil treatment standards in
40 CFR 268.49 would be available for
any soils contaminated with the newly
listed wastes. Soils that must meet LDRs
before land disposal may be treated to
the levels in the alternative soil
treatment standards as long as the soils
will not be used in a manner
constituting disposal. Even though EPA
is proposing a method of treatment for
K175, the waste contains an analyzable
hazardous constituent. Consequently,
the alternative treatment standards may
apply and specify that the analyzable
constituent must be at specified levels
for soil contaminated with the waste to
be disposed. See 268.49 (c) (3) (B),
promulgated at 63 FR 28751. Such soils
can only be land disposed (here,
recycled by being placed on the land) if
they first meet UTS. See 63 FR 28609-
28610 (May 26, 1988).
A facility is not required to use these
alternative soil treatment standards and
may elect to comply with the traditional
LDR treatment standards for process
waste. The choice of whether to do so
potentially impacts how many
constituents must meet LDR treatment
standards. If a site chooses to meet the
alternative soil treatment standards and
their soils are contaminated with a
listed waste, then they are required to
treat both the regulated hazardous
constituents specified in 268.40 and
also any underlying hazardous
constituents. Potential underlying
hazardous constituents are listed in the
UTS Table at 268.48. However, if the
traditional treatment standards are
applied to a soil contaminated with a
listed waste, then only the regulated
constituents specified in 268.40 must
meet the treatment standards. For
further discussion of the alternative soil
treatment standards, please refer to the
final Phase IV LDR rule (63 FR 28556,
28609, May 26, 1998) and the
subsequent clarification notice (64 FR
25410-25411. May 11, 1999).
Lastly, because land disposal also
includes placement in injection wells
(40 CFR 268.2(c)) application of the land
disposal restrictions to proposed K173,
K174, and K175 requires the
modification of injection well
requirements found in 40 CFR 148. We
propose that K167 and K168 be
prohibited from underground injection.
See 40 CFR 148. Therefore, wastes
proposed to be listed as K173, K174,
and K175 may not be underground
injected unless they have been treated
in compliance with the LDR treatment
standards or a no migration petition for
these wastes has been approved. •
E. What Standards Is EPA Proposing for
K173?
EPA is proposing to apply existing
Universal Treatment Standards to
proposed K173 wastes. We have
examined the constituents that comprise
the basis of the proposed listing and
identified the presence of those other
constituents near on in excess of current
numerical universal treatment
standards. Wastes that exceed these
levels require treatment of the
constituents to diminish the toxicity of
the waste and to reduce the likelihood
of migration of the hazardous
constituents. Based on this examination,
we propose treatment standards for
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, chloroform,
pentachlorophenol, phenol, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol, chromium (total), and
nickel in addition to
tetrachlorodibenzodioxins,
pentachlorodibenzodioxins,
hexachlorodibenzodioxins,
heptachlorodibenzodioxins,
tetrachlorodibenzofurans,
pentachlorodibenzofurans,
hexachlorodibenzofurans,
heptachlorodibenzofurans, OCDD, and
OCDF in proposed K173.
Existing LDR standards for the wastes
that contain chlorinated dibenzo-para-
dioxins and dibenzofurans are
expressed in terms of all
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins,
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins,
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins,
tetrachlorodibenzofurans,
pentadibenzofurans,
hexachlorodibenzofurans, OCDD, and
OCDF. Today's notice proposes
treatment standards for five additional
dioxin/furan congeners, namely
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,5,7,8,9-
heptachlorodibenzofuran, OCDD, and
OCDF. We are doing so because these
constituents are present at
concentrations that present significant
risks should proposed hazardous waste
K173 be mismanaged.
For proposed K173 nonwastewaters,
we propose that the LDRs for the three
new congeners (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran,
1,2,3,5,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran,
OCDD, and OCDF) be set at the
quantitation limits of method 8280A.
These quantitation limits are achievable
routinely, and being 3 to 4 times the
detection limit of residues from
combustion, they are a reasonable
approximation of 2.8 times the method
detection limit normally used to
develop treatment standards from
detection limit data to account for
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46521
potential treatment variability.33 Since
method 8280A was first developed, the
more sensitive high-resolution mass
spectrometry method 8290 has been
developed. Method 8290 may achieve
detection limits orders of magnitude
more sensitive than Method 82 80A.
However, we lack actual treatment
performance data for these wastes using
method 8290. Further, because of the
trace levels of dioxins/furans that
method 8290 is capable of detecting, we
can not presume that combustion would
achieve the much lower non-detectable
levels of method 8290. Therefore, we are
proposing to base treatment standards
for the five congeners cited above on the
more widely available method 8280A.
We specifically invite data to be
submitted on the levels that can be
achieved using method 8290.
From past trial burns, we have
• confidence that incineration has been
fully demonstrated for treating dioxin-
containing wastes. As explained in 1989
solvents and dioxin rule, Method 8280A
failed to detect chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans in residues
from trial burns. This has led the
Agency to conclude that the residual
levels of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and dibenzofurans that remain after
treatment would be well below the
levels proposed. See 51 FR 1734,
January 14, 1986. Therefore, for the
three new congeners, we are proposing
standards based on these data showing
that high temperature thermal treatment
achieved destruction of these
constituents to levels below the stated
quantitation limits of method 8280A.
Foe, proposed K173 wastewaters, we
propose that the UTS treatment level of
0.000035 mg/L for
pentachlorodibenzofuran be transferred
to 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzofuran, and
1,2,3,5,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran.
Pentachlorodibenzofuran is a structural
homologue of these constituents with
similar physical properties, which
allows us to assume similar treatment
efficiencies. Similarly, we propose that
the UTS treatment level of 0.000063 mg/
L for tetrachlorodibenzofuran be
transferred to OCDD and OCDF. For all
other dioxin/furan congeners, we
propose to transfer the current,
corresponding universal treatment
standards.
For the specific numerical standards
proposed to be applicable to proposed
K173, see the proposed amendments to
53 See Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) Background Document for Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Procedures and
Methodology. EPA, October 23,1991.
40 CFR 268.40 at the end of this
preamble. We request comment on the
proposed treatment standards for
proposed K173. '-
F. What Standards Is EPA Proposing for
K174?
EPA is proposing to apply existing
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) to
these wastes. We have examined the
constituents that comprise the basis of
the proposed listing and identified the
presence of those other constituents
near on in excess of current numerical
universal treatment standards. Waste
that exceed these levels require
treatment of the constituents to
diminish the toxicity of the waste and
to reduce the likelihood of migration of
the hazardous constituents. Based on
this examination, we propose that
wastes proposed to be listed as K174 be
treated for arsenic, tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins, pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins, hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins,
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins,
tetrachlorodibenzofurans,
pentachlorodibenzofurans,
hexachlorodibenzofurans,
heptachlorodibenzofurans, OCDD, and
OCDF. We are proposing to apply the
new numerical standards for the five
new congeners (one
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, two
heptachlorodibenzofurans, OCDD, and
OCDF), discussed in the previous
section, to proposed hazardous waste
K174 because these constituents are also
present in proposed K174 wastes at
significant concentrations that would
present risks should the wastes be
mismanaged.
We request comment on the proposed
treatment standards for wastes proposed
to be listed as Kl74.
G. What Standards Is EPA Proposing for
K175?
Proposed hazardous waste K175 is
generated from the treatment of catalyst
change-out wastewaters from the
chlorination of acetylene on a mercuric
chloride catalyst. As with the above
wastes, we have examined the
constituents that comprise the basis of
the proposed listing and identified the
presence of mercury as the only
constituent that would require treatment
to diminish the toxicity of the waste and
to reduce the likelihood of migration.
Proposed K175 contains in excess of 260
mg/kg mercury and is greater than one
percent in organic constituents. This
type of waste profile is similar to wastes
that are currently deemed to be
characteristically hazardous under the
D009 waste code. Therefore, in
assessing what type of LDR treatment
standards are warranted for proposed
K175, we look first to the D009
treatment standards.
Current regulations for similar D009
wastes require either retorting or
roasting (RMERC) or incineration in
units operated in accordance with the
technical operation requirements of 40
CFR Part 264, Subpart O and Part 265,
Subpart O (IMERC ). However, current
regulations do not require combustion
units to capture and recover mercury
from the combustion gases produced. If
all the mercury contained in these
wastes were combusted without capture
and removal, the result would be over
one metric ton per year of mercury
emissions. Under the upcoming
revisions to the hazardous waste
combustion regulations, it is not clear
that facilities are going to choose to
employ air pollution control devices
(capture and removal devices) to
comply with mercury emission limits.
They might instead simply choose to
reduce their feed rate, which will not
. reduce the total amount of mercury
emitted over the long term. Given this
uncertainty about future compliance
strategies by the hazardous waste
combustion industry, we are proposing
that mercury recovery by retorting or
roasting (RMERC) be the required
treatment technology for this waste.
RMERC requires processing in devices
subject to mercury emission controls
resulting in mercury capture and
removal, and also subject to emission
standards such as the National
Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for mercury. See
40 CFR 268.42. For residues of the
RMERC process, we propose to adopt
the current standard of 0.20 mg/L TCLP
mercury.
The Agency has contacted a treatment
vendor of RMERC technology who
indicated that treatment of the subject
wastes may be difficult, but is
possible.54 We therefore request
treatment performance data regarding
the use of retorting for these waste.
Absent definitive treatment data, we
have considered whether an alternative
treatment standard to retorting might be
feasible to propose for comment. One
alternative is to establish a numerical
concentration limit. Under current
regulations, mercury wastes that are
stabilized are subject to a standard of
0.025 mg/L TCLP mercury. This differs
from the initial option of retorting in
two key respects. First, use of specific
treatment technology would not be
required and, second, the treated waste
or waste residuals would be subject to
a numerical standard about one order of
"Personal communication with John Boyle,
Bethlehem Apparatus Co.. Inc.
-------
46522
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
magnitude more stringent—0.2 mg/L for
retorting residuals under the first option
vs. 0.025 mg/L for all treatment
residuals under this second option.
Without the assurance of treatment
that a requirement for retorting would
provide, the tighter standard of 0.025
mg/L TCLP is appropriate to propose as
a potential treatment standard. This
standard would apply to all treatment
residuals included in the listing
description for proposed hazardous
waste K175, regardless of the type of
treatment used. In practice, this
standard would involve the
immobilization of the mercury in the
waste before land disposal. If
regulations were to be promulgated in
this form, the waste could be land
disposed if a standard of 0.025 mg/L
TCLP mercury was achieved using any
technology other than impermissible
dilution.
Calculated solubilities of mercury
sulfide (metacinnabar) as a function of
pH have revealed that above pH 6.0 the
presence of sulfide complexes results in
significantly increased solubility.55
Preliminary results from constant pH
leaching measurements of the subject
waste, as part of an on-going study, have
shown similar results.56 At pH 6.0 the
waste tested leached 0.0058 mg/L.
However, at pH 10, 1.63 mg/L mercury
was solubilized. Current landfill
disposal site conditions for this waste
are reported to be pH 9.48-9.57 57 Under
these conditions, mercury in the waste
would be expected to be mobilized
especially if excess sulfides were
present. Therefore, controlled treatment
and disposal conditions are warranted
to avoid mobilization of the mercury in
the waste, which could pose a
significant threat to human health and
the environment. To insure operational
stability of the treatment process and
proper long-term disposal, EPA
proposes two conditions as part of the
LDR treatment standards. First, the
waste residue generated, if in mercuric
sulfide form, must itself be pH 6.0 or
below. We therefore propose that
mercuric sulfide residues of this waste
**H, Lawrence Clever, Susan A. Johnson, and M.
Elizabeth Derrick. The Solubility of Mercury and
Some Sparingly Soluble Mercury Salts in Water and
Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions. J. Phys. Chem, Ref.
Data. Vol. 14, No. 3.1985. page 652.
**Paul Bishop, Renec A. Rauche. Linda A. Rieser.
Mukram T. Suldan. and Jain Zhang: "Stabilization
and Testing of Mercury Containing Wastes," Draft.
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. University of Cincinnati. March 31,
1999. Please note that this is a draft EPA document
not yet peer reviewed. Also, data within the report
1$ still undergoing QA/QC review, and the text,
data, and conclusions in the report may change
before the document is finalized.
**May 14.1999, landfill parameters, e-mail from
Mitch Hahn, Waste Management.
be treated to attain a pH of less than or
equal to 6.0. Second, if proposed K175
wastes are to be co-disposed in a landfill
with other wastes, co-disposal will be
restricted to wastes with similar pH (i.e.,
not greater than 6.0). To comply with
these requirements disposal facilities
would be required to certify and
maintain operating records available for
inspection of codisposed wastes to
demonstrate compliance.
Currently, the wastes proposed to be
listed as K175 are landfilled after
treatment has converted mercuric
chloride in wastewaters to mercuric
sulfide. We believe significant
opportunities exist for source reduction
and waste minimization to reduce or
eliminate the generation of this waste.
For example, the need to hydroblast
spent mercuric chloride catalyst from
reactors could be eliminated by internal
segmentation of the reactor bed that
would allow the segments to be sent
intact for mercury recovery. Thus,
generation of the waste could be
eliminated or significantly reduced.
Beyond modifications to the physical
plant, the treatment of the wash waters
could be modified to incorporate
addition of caustic and organic phase
separation. This would result in a
mercuric oxide sludge more amenable to
recovery by retorting prior to sulfide
treatment of the resulting brine. As a
result of such changes, a smaller volume
of mercuric sulfide sludge with reduced
organic content would be generated, as
would a larger volume of a more easily
recoverable mercuric oxide sludge.
We request treatment performance
data on the treatment standards
proposed and on other alternative
treatment technologies that would meet
the statutory criteria for all LDR
standards "minimizing threats to human
health and the environment by
reductions in the toxicity or mobility of
the wastes through the treatment
process. We also request comment on
the feasibility of source reduction and
waste minimization alternatives
described above.
H. What Other Land Disposal
Restrictions Aspects Are There to the
Proposal?
EPA is proposing to add the
numerical standards derived for the
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
heptachlorodibenzofuran,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (OCDD) and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) to the
Table of Universal Treatment Standards
(UTS) at 40 CFR 268.48. These
constituents have been shown to"
represent significant risks to human
health or the environment in the risk
assessment accompanying this proposal,
and their presence in other wastes
should be mitigated to avoid similar
risks. If promulgated, all characteristic
wastes which have these constituents as
underlying hazardous constituents
above the UTS thus will require
treatment of those constituents before
land disposal.
Furthermore, we are proposing that
the constituents 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin;
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran,
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran;
OCDD; and OCDF be added to the list
of regulated constituents in hazardous
waste F039 multisource leachate. F039
applies to multiple listed hazardous
waste landfill leachates in leu of the
original waste codes, and F039 wastes
are subject to all numerical treatment
standards applicable to all listed wastes.
To maintain regulatory consistency with
this regulatory architecture and the
implementation benefits of having one
waste code for multisource leachate, the
treatment standards for F039 are
updated each time a new LDR standard
is developed for listed wastes. As a
result, if today's proposal is ultimately
promulgated, all leachate (liquids that
have percolated through land disposed
wastes) resulting from the disposal of
more than one restricted hazardous
waste will have to meet UTS for all
hazardous constituents above the UTS.
/. 7s There Treatment Capacity for the
Proposed Wastes?
1. What Is a Capacity Determination?
EPA must determine whether
adequate alternative treatment capacity
exists nationally to manage the wastes
subject to LDR treatment standards.
RCRA section 3004 (h) (2). Thus, LDRs
are effective when the new listings are
effective as well (typically 6 months
after the new listings are published in
the Federal Register), unless EPA grants
a national capacity variance from the
otherwise-applicable date and
establishes a different date (not to
exceed two years beyond the statutory
deadline) based on "* * * the earliest
date on which adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity
which protects human health and the
environment will be available" (RCRA
section 3004 (h) (2), 42 U.S.C.
6924 (h) (2)).
Our capacity analysis methodology
focuses on the amount of waste
currently disposed on the land, which
will require alternative or additional
treatment as a result of the LDRs. The
quantity of wastes that is not disposed .
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46523
on the land, such as discharges
regulated under NPDES, discharges to a
POTW, or treatment in a RCRA-exempt
tank, is not included in the quantities
requiring additional treatment as a
result of the LDRs. Also, land-disposed
wastes that do not require alternative or
additional treatment are excluded from
the required capacity estimates (i.e.,
those that currently are treated to meet
the LDR treatment standards). Land-
disposed wastes requiring alternative or
additional treatment or recovery
capacity that is available on site or
within the same company also are
excluded from the required commercial
capacity estimates. The resulting
estimates of required commercial
capacity then are compared to estimates
of available commercial capacity. If
adequate commercial capacity exists,
the waste is restricted from further land
disposal. If protective alternative
capacity does not exist, EPA has the
authority to grant a national capacity
variance.
In making the estimates described
above, the volume of waste requiring
treatment depends on the current waste
management practices employed by the
waste generators before this proposed
regulation is promulgated and becomes
effective. Data on waste management
practices for these wastes were collected
during the development of this
proposed rule. However, we realize that
as the regulatory process proceeds,
generators of these wastes may decide to
minimize or recycle their wastes'or
otherwise alter their management
practices. Thus, we will monitor
changes and update data on current
management practices as these changes
will affect the volume of wastes
ultimately requiring commercial
treatment or recovery capacity.
The commercial hazardous waste
treatment industry can change rapidly.
For example, national commercial
treatment capacity changes as new
facilities come on line or old facilities
go off line, and as new units and new
technologies are added at existing
facilities. The available capacity at
commercial facilities also changes as
facilities change their commercial status
(e.g., changing from a fully commercial
to a limited commercial or "captive"—
company owned—facility). Thusi EPA
also continues to update and monitor
changes in available commercial
treatment capacity.
We request data on the annual
generation volumes and characteristics
of wastes affected by this proposed rule,
including proposed hazardous wastes
K173. K174, and K175 in wastewater
and nonwastewater forms, soil or debris
contaminated with these wastes,
residuals generated from the treatment
or recycling of these wastes, and the
current and planned management
practices for the wastes, waste mixtures,
and treatment residuals.
We also request data on the current
treatment or recovery capacity capable
of treating these wastes, facility and unit
permit status related to treatment,of the
proposed wastes and any plans that
facilities may have to expand or reduce
existing capacity, or construct new
capacity. Of particular interest to us are
waste characteristics, such as pH, total
organic carbon content, constituent
concentrations, and physical forms that
may limit the availability of certain
treatment technologies. Also of interest
are any analytical difficulties associated
with identifying and monitoring the
regulated constituents in these wastes.
2. What are the Capacity Analysis
Results?
This preamble only provides a brief
summary of the capacity analysis
performed to support this proposed
regulation. For additional and more
detailed information, please refer to the
"Background Document for Capacity
Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions:
Newly Identified Chlorinated Aliphatics
Process Wastes (Proposed Rule), July
1999."
For this capacity analysis, we
examined data on waste characteristics
and management practices gathered for
the purpose of the chlorinated aliphatics
hazardous waste listing determination.
The source for these data is primarily
the 1992 RCRA Section 3007 survey and
the follow-up survey specific to these
wastes conducted in 1997 (see the
docket for this proposed regulation for
more information on these survey
instruments).
The available data sources indicate
that proposed K173 wastes are
predominantly wastewaters, but may
exhibit total suspended solids content
greater than 1 percent, such that they
would be classified as nonwastewaters
with respect to the LDR requirements
(40 CFR 268.2). EPA has found that
most facilities generating proposed
K173 manage these wastes in tank-based
systems prior to a permitted discharge
to a surface water or POTW. The non-
CBI portions of the Section 3007 survey
responses, as well as other publicly
available information, indicate that
certain facilities manage proposed K173
using underground injection with
existing approved no-migration
determinations. Proposed K173
managed by land disposal units may
require alternative treatment if onsite
management to meet the LDR standards
or alternative onsite management is not
available. EPA expects that sufficient
offsite treatment capacity is available to
manage proposed K173 generated by
these facilities. Specifically, EPA
estimates that approximately 37 million
tons per year of offsite wastewater
treatment capacity are available, which
is well above the quantity of proposed
K173 generated by these facilities.
Therefore, sufficient commercial
capacity exists to manage proposed
K173 from these facilities should the
need for treatment of proposed K173
wastes arise.
As discussed in this section earlier,
the LDR treatment standards become
effective essentially at the same time a
listing does unless EPA grants a national
capacity variance because of a lack of
available treatment capacity (see RCRA
section 3004(h) (2)). Also, RCRA allows
generators to apply for an extension to
the LDR effective date on a case-by-case
basis for specific wastes generated at a
specific facility for which there is not
adequate capacity (RCRA section
3004(h)(3}). For those facilities
managing proposed K173 wastes, they
may choose to meet treatment standards
by onsite or offsite treatment, submit a
modified no-migration petition to
include newly listed wastes if
necessary, or transport their wastes to a
commercial Class I hazardous disposal
well facility.
Based on EPA's information, the
facilities managing proposed K173
wastes by underground injection have
existing approved no-migration
determinations. If an injection well has
received a no-migration determination,
it can inject a newly prohibited waste if
the waste is similar to wastes included
in the initial no-migration petition (63
FR 28626, May 26, 1998). EPA has
information showing that the facilities
already manage these newly-proposed
K173 wastes in their underground
injection wells. Further, EPA's sampling
and analysis results for wastewater from
one of the facilities shows that none of
the constituents being proposed for
inclusion in 40 CFR 268.40 for proposed
K173 (i.e., numerical treatment
standards) were present at
concentrations greater than the
proposed numerical treatment
standards. This suggests that for this
facility, the newly-proposed treatment
standards for proposed K173 might
already be met.
Based on the available data presented
above, EPA is not proposing a national
capacity variance for surface-disposed
or underground-injected proposed K173
wastes. However, EPA recognizes that
there are uncertainties in the available
data such that a facility may require
extra time (beyond the effective date) to
-------
46524
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
comply with the new listing and land
disposal restrictions requirements, if
finalized. For example, EPA realizes
that proposed K173 can be variable in
composition and not always exhibit
concentrations below the proposed
numerical treatment standards. Also,
any facility with an approved no-
migration determination without the
waste already incorporated in the
determination may need to submit a
modified petition (40 CFR Part 148.20
(f)). Potentially, the modification
process for the existing no-migration
petition, as well as the permit
modification itself, may be time-
consuming. There are potential
logistical difficulties associated with
accessing available treatment capacity
for wastewater, as well. For example, if
a facility generates high volumes of
proposed K173 and cannot manage the
waste onsite in a manner compliant
with the LDR standards, they may need
to make considerable logistical
adjustments such as repiping, retooling,
and development of transportation
networks at the plant in order to ship
the wastewater offsite for treatment or
disposal. Additionally, although
commercial treatment or disposal
capacity is available, the logistics of
transporting high volumes of
wastewater may be problematic,
particularly if existing piping, onsite
storage, or loading are not in place.
Should these difficulties arise such that
both onsite and offsite treatment and
disposal are not available for facilities
currently using underground injection,
EPA will consider all available data and
information provided during the public
comment period and revise its capacity
analysisiaccordingly in making the final
capacity determination.
For K174 wastes, the available data
sources indicate that there is no
quantity of the wastewater form of K174
that will require alternative commercial
treatment. There is adequate wastewater
treatment capacity available should the
need for treatment of the wastewater
form of K174 arise. From the available
data sources, required alternative
treatment capacity for K174
nonwastewater may be as low as 1,900
tons per year if most generators meet the
proposed requirements for contingent
management listing. If the generators do
not manage K174 nonwastewater
according to contingent management for
the listing designation, the waste
generated must meet LDR standards
before land disposal, and the total
quantity requiring treatment may be up
to 106,000 tons per year. As described
in the BDAT section above, we are
proposing that numerical treatment
standards be applied to K174
nonwastewaters. These standards were
derived by estimating the concentration
level following use of combustion
technologies. We estimate that the
commercially available sludge and solid
combustion capacity is at least 300,000
tons per year and therefore sufficient to
treat the proposed K174 hazardous
waste that would require treatment.
Therefore, EPA is proposing not to grant
a capacity variance for K174
nonwastewaters or wastewaters.
For wastes proposed to be listed as
K175, the available data sources
indicate that there is no quantity of the
wastewater form of proposed K175 that
will require alternative commercial
treatment. There is adequate wastewater
treatment capacity available should the
need for treatment of the wastewater
form of K175 arise. For nonwastewater
form of proposed K175, EPA estimates
that up to 130 tons per year may require
alternative commercial treatment. As
described in the BDAT section above,
two options are proposed as the
treatment standard. In one option, the
treatment standard was proposed as a
technology standard (RMERC), with
residues meeting a concentration level.
We have identified at least one facility
that operates commercially and that
potentially can be used for the treatment
of wastes proposed to be listed as K175;
there are other treaters which conduct
RMERC and the details are discussed in
the Capacity Analysis Background
Document. We recognize that treatment
residuals from these wastes may require
additional treatment capacity (e.g.,
stabilization of the ash following
combustion of the wastes) to achieve the
UTS for any metal constituents that may
be present in the residuals. We estimate
that there is several million tons per
year of commercial stabilization
capacity available. In the second option
for nonwastewater form of proposed
K175 described in the BDAT section
above, the treatment standard would be
a numerical standard followed by
certain landfill restrictions. EPA expects
that commercial treaters can customize
their treatment process to immobilize
the waste, attain a pH of less than 6.0,
and meet the treatment standard.
Therefore, sufficient commercial
treatment capacity exists for this
proposed K175 hazardous waste. EPA is
proposing to not grant a national
capacity variance from LDR treatment
standards for nonwastewater or
wastewater forms of proposed K175.
Also, the ultimate volumes of wastes
estimated to require alternative or
additional commercial treatment may
change if the final listing determinations
change; should this occur, we will
revise the capacity analysis accordingly.
For soil and debris contaminated with
these wastes, EPA believes that the vast
majority of contaminated soil and debris
contaminated with these wastes will be
managed on site and therefore will not
require substantial commercial
treatment capacity. Therefore, we are
not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for hazardous soil and
debris contaminated with the newly
listed wastes covered under this
proposal. Based on the 1992 RCRA 3007
Survey questionnaire responses and
1997 updated responses, there are no
data showing mixed radioactive wastes
associated with the proposed listings.
We are .not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for mixed radioactive
wastes (i.e., radioactive wastes mixed
with proposed K173, K174, or K175) or
soil and debris contaminated with these
mixed radioactive wastes. As discussed
in this section earlier, EPA also is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for proposed K173, K174, or
K175 wastes being surface-disposed or
underground injected.
EPA requests comments on current
and future management practices and
the volumes managed for these wastes.
Also, we request comments on other
commercially-available thermal and
non-thermal treatment or recovery
capacity that would achieve proposed
LDR treatment standards for these
wastes and on chemical and physical
constraints of treatment technologies for
the wastes. Specifically, EPA requests
comments on its proposal to not grant
a capacity variance for proposed K173
waste. EPA solicits comments on
physical and chemical characteristics of
proposed K173 wastes, any treatment
problems before disposing of proposed
K173, the time and necessary
procedures required for permit
modifications for proposed K173
generators or commercial treatment or
disposal facilities, required changes for
operating practices, and any specific
difficulties in making treatment capacity
unavailable that would warrant a
variance. For nonwastewater form of
proposed K175, we solicit any
information regarding the availability of
RMERC for treating the wastes, and
regarding chemical and physical
constraints to meet numerical standards
and pH restriction for this waste.
IV. Compliance Dates
A. Notification
Under RCRA Section 3010 any person
generating, transporting, or managing a
hazardous waste must notify EPA (or an
authorized State) of its activities.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46525
Section 3010 (a) allows EPA to waive,
under certain circumstances, the
notification requirements under Section
3010 of RCRA. EPA is proposing to
waive the notification requirement as
unnecessary for persons already
identified within the hazardous waste
management universe (i.e., persons who
have an EPA identification number
under 40 CFR 262.12). EPA is not
proposing to waive the notification
requirement for waste handlers who
have neither notified the Agency that
they may manage hazardous wastes nor
received an EPA identification number.
Such individuals will have to provide
notification under Section 3010. Any
person who generates, transports, treats,
stores, or disposes of these wastes and
has not previously received an EPA
identification number, must do so
within 90 days of the effective date of
the final rule.
B. Interim Status and Permitted
Facilities
Today's proposed rule is being
proposed under the authorities granted
to EPA under HSWA. Because HSWA
requirements are applicable in
authorized States at the same time as in
unauthorized States, EPA will regulate
the newly identified wastes listed under
HSWA until States are authorized to
regulate these wastes. Thus, once this
regulation becomes effective as a final
rule, EPA will apply Federal regulations
to these wastes and to their management
in both authorized and unauthorized
States.
VII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized
States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under Sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA,
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended
RCRA, a State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of the Federal
program in that State. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized State, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities located in
the State with permitting authorization.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obligated 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.
By contrast, under Section 3006 (g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA (including the hazardous
waste listings proposed in this notice)
take effect in authorized States at the
same time that they take effect in non-
authorized States. EPA is directed to
implement those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as State law to retain
final authorization, the Federal HSWA
requirements apply in authorized States
until the States revise their program and
receive authorization for the revisions.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
Because this proposal (with the
exception of the actions proposed under
CERCLA authority) will be promulgated
pursuant to the HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification is
able to apply to receive either interim or
final authorization under Section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on
the basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's requirements. The procedures
and schedule for State program
modifications under Section 3006 (b) are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that all HSWA interim
authorizations are currently scheduled
to expire on January 1, 2003 (see 57 FR
60129, February 18, 1992).
Section 271.2 l(e) (2) of EPA's State
authorization regulations (40 CFR Part
271) requires that states with final
authorization modify their programs to
reflect Federal program changes and
submit the modifications to EPA for
approval. Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become RCRA subtitle C requirements.
Because this rule would be promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, if the proposal is
adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40
CFR 271.1 will be amended accordingly.
If finalized, EPA will implement this
rule in all States, including authorized
States, until the States modify their
authorized programs to reflect this rule.
VIII. Designation of Chlorinated
Aliphatic Wastes (Proposed K173, K174
and K175) Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
A. What Is the Relationship Between
RCRA and CERCLA?
CERCLA defines the term "hazardous
substance" to include RCRA hazardous
wastes. When EPA adds a hazardous
waste under RCRA, the Agency also will
add the waste to its list of CERCLA
hazardous substances. EPA establishes a
reportable quantity or RQ for each
CERCLA hazardous substance. EPA
provides a list of the CERCLA hazardous
substances along with their RQs in
Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4. If you are
the person in charge of a vessel or
facility that releases a CERCLA
hazardous substance in an amount that
equals or exceeds its RQ, then you must
report that release to the National
Response Center (NRC). You also may
have to notify State and local
authorities.
B. Is EPA Proposing To Add Chlorinated
Aliphatic Wastes to CERCLA?
Yes. Today, EPA is proposing to add
chlorinated aliphatic wastes (Proposed
K173, K174 and K175) to the list of
CERCLA hazardous substances. As
discussed below, EPA also proposes to
adjust the RQs for these wastes.
C. How Does EPA Determine Reportable
Quantities?
Under CERCLA, all new hazardous
substances automatically have a
statutory one-pound RQ. EPA adjusts
the RQ of a newly added hazardous
substance based on an evaluation of its
intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxic
properties. These intrinsic properties—
called "primary criteria"—are aquatic
toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral,
dermal, and inhalation), ignitability,
reactivity, chronic toxicity, and
potential carcinogenicity. EPA evaluates
the data for a hazardous substance for
each primary criterion. To adjust the
RQs, EPA ranks each criterion on a scale
that corresponds to an RQ value of 1, 10,
100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. For each
criterion, EPA establishes a tentative
RQ. A 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, EPA further evaluates
substances for their susceptibility to
certain degradative processes. These are '
secondary adjustment criteria. The
-------
46526
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
natural degradative processes are
blodegradation, hydrolysis, and
photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous
substance, when released into the
environment, degrades rapidly to a less
hazardous form by one or more of the
BHP processes, EPA generally raises its
RQ (as determined by the primary RQ
adjustment criteria) by one level.
Conversely, if a hazardous substance
degrades to a more hazardous product
after its release, EPA assigns an RQ to
the original substance equal to the RQ
for the more hazardous substance.
The standard methodology used to
adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous
waste streams differs from the
methodology applied to individual
hazardous substances. The procedure
for assigning RQs to RCRA waste
streams is based on the results of an
analysis of the hazardous constituents of
the waste streams. The constituents of
each RCRA hazardous waste stream are
identified in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix
VII. EPA first determines an RQ for each
hazardous constituent within the waste
stream using the methodology described
above. The lowest RQ value of these
constituents becomes the adjusted RQ
for the waste stream. When there are
hazardous constituents of a RCRA waste
stream that are not CERCLA hazardous
substances, the Agency develops an RQ,
called a "reference RQ," for these
constituents in order to assign an
appropriate RQ to the waste stream (see
48 FR 23565, May 25, 1983). In other
words, the Agency derives the RQ for
waste streams based on the lowest RQ
of all of the hazardous constituents,
regardless of whether they are CERCLA
hazardous substances.
D. When Do I Need To Report a Release
of Proposed Kl 73, Kl 74 or Kl 75 Under
CERCLA?
Today, EPA is proposing to adjust
statutory RQs for the proposed K173,
K174 or K175 waste streams to one
pound based on their hazardous
constituents. EPA is proposing to adjust
the RQ at one pound for the proposed
K173 and K174 waste streams based on
their hazardous constituents,
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs)
and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs).
EPA is proposing to adjust the RQ at one
pound for the proposed K175 waste
stream based on its hazardous
constituent, mercury. However, in
determining when to report a release of
proposed K173, K174 or K175, EPA is
proposing to allow you to apply the
mixture rule, codified in 40 CFR 302.6,
using the maximum observed
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents within the respective waste
streams.
The mixture rule provides that
"discharges of mixtures and solutions
are subject to RQ regulations only where
a component hazardous substance of the
mixture or solution is discharged in a
quantity equal to or greater than its RQ"
(44 FR 50767, Augusr29, 1979).
Therefore, if the concentration of a
hazardous constituent is known, the
amount of release needed to reach its
RQ can be calculated. By using the
maximum observed concentration that
EPA is proposing today, you may apply
the mixture rule, even if you don't know
the concentration of constituents
released. That is, if you are the person
in charge, you must immediately report
the release as soon as you know that you
have released proposed K173, K174 or
K175 in an amount that will reach the
RQ for the waste stream. This approach
is reasonable and conservative because
the sampling data presented in the
Listing Background Document
accurately identify the maximum
observed concentrations of the
hazardous constituents in the
chlorinated aliphatics waste streams.
Table VIII-1 below identifies the
hazardous constituents for each waste
stream, their maximum observed
concentrations in parts per million
(ppm), and their constituents' RQs or
reference RQs.
TABLE VIII-1.—MAXIMUM OBSERVED CONCENTRATION AND CORRESPONDING RQ FOR HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS THAT
ARE BASIS FOR LISTING PROPOSED K173, K174, AND K175
Waste
K173
K174
Constituent
237 8-TCDD "
1237 8-PeCDD
1 2 3,4,7,8-HxCDD
12367 8-HxCDD
12378 9-HxCDD
123467 8-HpCDD
OCOD
2378-TCDF
1237 8-PeCDF
2347 8-PeCDF
12347 8-HxCDF
12367 8-HxCDF
1,237,89-HxCDF
23467 8-HxCDF
1,2 3 4 6 7 8-HpCDF
1 2,3 4 7 8 9-HpCDF
OCDF
Chloroform
237 8-TCDD
1 2 37 8-PeCDD
1234 7,8-HxCDD
11 2367 8-HxCDD .'
1 ,2 3 7,8 9-HxCDD
1 23467 8-HpCDD
OCDD
237 8-TCDF
1 2378-PeCDF
2347 8-PeCDF
12347 8-HxCDF
1.2.3.6.7.8-HxCDF - :
Max.
Concentration
(ppm (mg/kg))
.000000017
.00000015
.00000012
.00000091
.00000092
.000044
.00022
.00000045
.0000012
.0000015
.000042
.000045
.000014
.000027
.0013
.00017
.006
.7
.000039
.0000108
.000024
.000083
.000062
.00123
.0129
.000145
.000077V
.000127
.001425
.000281
RQ (!b)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46527
TABLE Vlll-1.—MAXIMUM OBSERVED CONCENTRATION AND CORRESPONDING RQ FOR HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS THAT
ARE BASIS FOR LISTING PROPOSED K173, K174, AND K175—Continued
Waste
K175
Constituent
1 ,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Mercury
Max.
Concentration
(ppm (mg/kg))
~00014
nnnfi/iR
nony
on^
919
Q9nn
RQ (Ib)
For example, if proposed K173 is
released from your facility and you do
not know the actual concentrations of
its constituents, you may assume that
the concentrations are those identified
in Table VIII-1. Thus, applying the
mixture rule to the assumed maximum
concentrations indicated in the table,
you would have to release 1,408,450
pounds to reach the RQ for this waste
(based on the maximum observed
concentration of chloroform). If
proposed K174 waste is released from
your facility and you do not know the
actual concentrations of its constituents,
you may apply the mixture rule to the
assumed maximum concentrations
indicated in the table. You would have
to release 4,716,981 pounds of proposed
K174 to reach the RQ for this waste
(based on the maximum observed
concentration of OCDF). If proposed
K175 is released from your facility and
you do not know the actual
concentration of mercury, you may
assume that the concentration is 9200
ppm. Applying the mixture rule, you
would have to release 108.7 pounds of
this waste to reach the RQ.
E. What if I Know the Concentration of
the Constituents in My Waste?
If you know the concentration levels
of all the hazardous constituents in a
particular chlorinated aliphatic waste,
you may apply the mixture rule (see 40
CFR 302.6(b)) to the actual
concentrations. You would need to
report a release of either waste when an
RQ or more of any of their respective
hazardous constituents is released.
F. How Did EPA Determine the RQs for
Proposed Kl 73, Kl 74 and Kl 75 and
Their Hazardous Constituents?
The hazardous constituents identified
as the basis for listing the proposed
K173 and K174 waste streams include
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs)
and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs).
Previously, EPA had established an
adjusted RQ of one pound for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (see 54 FR 33426). EPA has not
established adjusted RQs for the other
CDD and CDF congeners. However, EPA
recognizes that a number of these
congeners exhibit dioxin-like toxicity
and has established "reference RQs" of
one pound for these congeners to
support the development of the adjusted
RQs for the proposed K173 and K174
waste streams.
The adjusted RQ for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
was established as one pound based on
potential carcinogenicity, considering
the weight of evidence that this
substance is carcinogenic, and
considering its estimated carcinogenic
potency. To establish reference RQs for
the other CDD and CDF congeners in the
waste stream, EPA applied the toxicity
equivalency factors (TEFs) established
for dioxin-like compounds to the
potency factor used as the basis for the
adjusted RQ for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Of the
210 CDD and CDF congeners, only those
with chlorine substitutions in, at least,
the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions (a total of 17
CDD and CDF congeners) are considered
to have dioxin-like toxicity. Applying
the TEFs established for these 17
congeners to the potency factor
established for 2,3,7,8-TCDD indicates
that all of the congeners fit into RQ
Potency Group 1 with a corresponding
reference RQ of one pound.58 Therefore,
because each of the hazardous
constituents has an RQ or reference RQ
of one pound, EPA is proposing to
establish an adjusted RQ of one pound
for the proposed K173 and K174 waste
streams.
The hazardous constituent identified
as the basis for proposing to list the
K175 waste stream is mercury.
Previously, EPA had established an
adjusted RQ of one pound for mercury
(see 50 FR 13456, April 4, 1985).
Because the hazardous constituent used
as the basis for listing the K175 waste
stream has an RQ of one pound, EPA is
58 For an explanation of how potency factors are
calculated and potency groups and RQs are
established, see the Technical Background
Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to
CERCLA Section 102, Volume 3, July 27. 1989. This
document can be viewed by calling the EPA
Superfund Docket Center, 703-603-8917, and
requesting document number 102 RQ 273C:
proposing to establish an adjusted RQ of
one pound for this waste.
G. How Do I Report a Release?
To report a release of proposed K173,
K174 or K175 (or any other CERCLA
hazardous substance) that equals or
exceeds its RQ, you must immediately
notify the National Response Center
(NRC) as soon as you have knowledge
of that release. The toll-free telephone
number of the NRC is 1-800-424-8802;
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area, the number is (202) 267-2675.
You also may have to notify State and
local authorities. The Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) requires that owners
and operators of certain facilities report
releases of CERCLA hazardous
substances and EPCRA extremely
hazardous substances (see list in 40 CFR
Part 355, Appendix A) to State and local
authorities. After the release of an RQ or
more of any of those substances, you
must report immediately to the
community emergency coordinator of
the local emergency planning committee
for any area likely to be affected by the
release, and to the State emergency
response commission of any State likely
to be affected by the release.
H. What Is the Statutory Authority for
This Program?
Section 101(14) of CERCLA defines
the term hazardous substance by
referring to substances listed under
several other environmental statutes, as
well as those substances that EPA
designates as hazardous under CERCLA
Section 102(a). In particular, CERCLA
Section 101 (14) (C) defines the term
hazardous substance to include "any
hazardous waste having the
characteristics identified under or listed
pursuant to Section 3001 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act." CERCLA Section
102 (a) gives EPA authority to establish
RQs for CERCLA hazardous substances.
CERCLA Section 103 (a) requires any
person in charge of a vessel or facility
that releases a CERCLA hazardous
substance in an amount equal to or
-------
46528
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
greater than its RQ to report the release
Immediately to the federal government.
EPCRA Section 304 requires owners or
operators of certain facilities to report
releases of CERCLA hazardous
substances and EPCRA extremely
hazardous substances to State and local
authorities.
/, How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking
on Regulating Proposed Kl 73, Kl 74 and
Kl 75 Under CERCLA?
In developing this proposal, EPA tried
to address the concerns of all our
stakeholders. Your comments will help
us to improve this proposal. We invite
you to provide your views on this
proposal and how it may affect you. We
also are interested in receiving any
comments that you have on the
information provided in Table VIII-1,
including the hazardous constituents
identified for proposed K173. K174 and
K175 and the maximum observed
concentrations for each constituent.
IX. Administrative Assessments
A, Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866
(September 30. 1993), EPA must
determine whether a regulatory action is
"significant" and, therefore, subject to
OMB review and the other provisions of
the Executive Order. A significant
regulatory action is defined by
Executive Order 12866 as one that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy
of SI00 million or more or adversely affect
in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities:
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
Otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency:
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or rights and obligations or
recipients thereof: or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, EPA has determined that
this rule is a "significant regulatory
action" because of point four (4) above:
The rule raises two novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive Order.
Today's proposed rule, which includes
proposed alternative listing approaches
for two wastestreams deviates from the
Agency's standard or historic listing
approach in the following two ways:
• Targeted wastestream listing:
Historically, the Agency's listing program
captured entire quantities of targeted
wastestream posing unacceptable risks to
human health and the environment. Today's
proposed listing approach for two
wastestreams (i.e., EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges and one alternative option
for VCM-A wastewater treatment sludges)
proposes listing as hazardous only those
quantities of the waste that are managed in
a manner that reflects unacceptable risks.
• Wastewater treatment units:In addition,
today's action proposes to change a long-
standing Agency policy of exempting from
RCRA regulation the management of
hazardous wastes in wastewater treatment
units regulated under § 402 or § 307 (b) of the
Clean Water Act. To address the risks
associated with the wastewaters proposed to
be listed as hazardous under today's action,
the Agency believes that it is necessary to
regulate these management units when used
to manage chlorinate aliphatic wastewaters,
to ensure against hazardous air emissions
from this wastestream. (In section III.E.l.a.vi.
of today's preamble, EPA is requesting
comment on this approach.)
Due to the Agency's decision to propose
a deviation from our historical
hazardous waste listing approach and to
change our long-standing policy
regarding the regulation of wastewater
treatment units, the Agency is deeming
today's action to be "significant" and is
submitting these proposed policy
changes to OMB for review. Changes
made to the Agency's proposed actions
in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in
the public record.
Although today's proposed rule is not
"economically significant," the Agency
prepared an "Economic Background
Document" iia support of today's rule.
The Agency's economic assessment
addresses, among other factors, industry
compliance costs, industry financial
impacts, and potential for small entity
impacts. A summary of findings from
our economic assessment is presented
in Section IV. The complete Economic
Background Document is available for
public review from the RCRA docket,
according to instructions provided in
the introduction to this preamble.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the 1980 Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency
is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment, a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,
small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
"significant" economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a "significant" economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion
explains EPA's determination. '
EPA has examined this rule's
potential effects on small entities as
required by the RFA/SBREFA, and has
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This is evidenced by the fact that only
one of the potentially affected, parent
companies determined to be producers
of chlorinated aliphatic products in the
U.S., may be classified as a "small
business," according to the U.S. Small
Business Administration's employee
size standards (i.e., less than or equal to
1,000 employees) and according to that
company's primary Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code (SIC 2869).
I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document was prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1924.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at
OP Regulatory Information Division;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington,
D.C. 20460, by E-mail at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy also may
be downloaded off the Internet at http:/
/www.epa.gov/icr.
This proposed rule includes new
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 etseq. In addition to
complying with the existing subtitle C
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the newly listed waste
streams, EPA is proposing that facilities
generating chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters comply with testing
requirements. In conjunction with
testing requirements, we are proposing
that generators maintain documentation
of detailed standard operating
procedures for the sampling arid
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46529
analysis protocols that were employed,
sensitivity and bias of the measurement
process, precision of the results, and the
analytical results from testing events.
These requirements are being proposed
to ensure generators are complying with
the proposed technical standards for
controlling air emissions of dioxins
from wastewater treatment tanks.
EPA also is proposing that generators
be able to document their compliance
with the conditions provided for
exclusion from the scope of the two
conditional hazardous waste listings
proposed in today's notice. This
requirement is necessary to ensure that
both EDC/VCM wastewater treatment
sludges and VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludges are managed in a
manner that is safe for human health
and the environment. In addition, EPA
is requiring' disposal facilities that
manage VCM-A wastewater treatment
sludges to maintain records
documenting that these sludges are co-
disposed only with other wastes that
have a pH level of 6.0 or lower. This
requirement is necessary to ensure that
the mercury contained in the waste does
not leach from the waste after disposal.
The Agency estimated the burden
associated with complying with the
requirements in this proposed rule.
Included in the ICR are the burden
estimates for the following requirements
for industry respondents: reading the
regulations; performing testing and
waste analyses; keeping records of
testing results; completing and
submitting certifications; incorporating
testing and waste analysis requirements
into permits; keeping records
documenting compliance with
conditions for exclusion from hazardous
waste listings; and keeping records
documenting compliance with landfill
waste disposal requirements for the
disposal of VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludges. Included also are the
burden estimates for State respondents
for applying for State authorization. The
Agency determined that all of this
information is necessary to ensure
compliance with today's proposed rule.
To the extent that this rule imposes
any information collection requirements
under existing RCRA regulations
promulgated in previous rulemakings,
those requirements have been approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.,
and have been assigned OMB control
numbers 2050-0009 (ICR No. 1573, Part
B Permit Application, Permit
Modifications, and Special Permits);
2050-0120 (ICR No. 1571, General
Facility Hazardous Waste Standards);
2050-0028 (ICR No. 261, Notification of
Hazardous Waste Activity); 2050-0034
(ICR No. 262, RCRA Hazardous Waste
Permit Application and Modification,
Part A); 2050-0039 (ICR.N.O. 801,
Requirements for Generators,
Transporters, and Waste Management
Facilities under the Hazardous Waste
Manifest System); 2050-0035 (ICR No.
820, Hazardous Waste Generator
Standards); and 2050-0024 (ICR No.
976, 1997 Hazardous Waste Report).
EPA estimates that the projected
annual hour burden for industry
respondents will be 1,088 hours, and
cost of $184,186. Total estimates over
three years are 3,264 hours and
$552,558.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and use technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
Comments are requested on the
Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments
on the ICR to the Director, OP
Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington,
D.C. 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, N.W.; Washington, D.C.
20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA." Include the ICR number in
any correspondence. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
August 25, 1999, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it by September 24, 1999.
The final'rule will respond to any OMB
and public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, Section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of Section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, Section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under Section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The Agency's analysis for compliance
with the UMRA found that the proposed
action imposes less than the $100
million expenditure threshold on the
private sector; thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of Sections
202 and 205 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing
the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875; EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a
mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
-------
46530
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If
EPA complies by consulting, Executive
Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition. Executive Order
12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of
State, local and tribal governments "to
provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded
mandates,"
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting. Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities."
Today's rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. There is no
impact to tribal governments as the
result of the proposed action. In
addition, this proposed rule is required
by statute (HSWA). Accordingly, the
requirements of Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
The topic of environmental threats to
children's health is growing in
regulatory importance as scientists,
policy makers, and village leaders
continue to recognize the extent to
which children are particularly
vulnerable to environmental hazards.
Recent EPA actions have been in the
forefront of addressing environmental
threats to the health and safety of
children. Today's proposed rule further
reflects our commitment to mitigating
environmental threats to children.
A few significant physiological
characteristics are largely responsible
for children's increased susceptibility to
environmental hazards. First, children
eat proportionately more food, drink
proportionately more fluids, and breathe
more air per pound of body weight than
do adults. As a result, children
potentially experience greater levels of
exposure to environmental threats than
do adults. Second, because children's
bodies are still in the process of
development, their immune systems,
neurological systems, and other
immature organs can be more easily and
considerably affected by environmental
hazards.
Today's proposed rule will reduce
risks posed by the hazardous
constituents found in the listed waste
streams by requiring more appropriate
and safer management practices. EPA
considered risks to children in its risk
assessment. The more appropriate and
safer management practices proposed in
this rule are projected to reduce risks to
children potentially exposed to the
constituents of concern. The public is
invited to submit or identify peer-
reviewed studies and data, of which the
agency may not be aware, that assess
results of early life exposure to the
proposed hazardous constituents from
wastewaters and wastewater treatment
sludges from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic chemicals.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 •
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Pub. L. No.
104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
I. Executive Order 12898:
Environmental Justice
Under Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations," as well as through EPA's
April 1995, "Environmental Justice
Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice
Task Force Action Agenda Report," and
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken
to incorporate environmental justice
into its policies and programs. EPA is
committed to addressing environmental
justice concerns, and is assuming a
leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all residents of the United
States. The Agency's goals are to ensure
that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income, bears disproportionately
high and adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of
EPA's policies, programs, and activities.
Today's proposed rule is intended to
reduce risks of hazardous wastes as
proposed, and to benefit all populations.
As such, this rule is not expected to
cause any disproportionately high and
adverse impacts to minority or low-
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46531
income communities versus non-
minority or affluent communities.
In making hazardous waste listing
determinations, we base our evaluations
of potential risk from the generation and
management of solid wastes on an
analysis of potential individual risk. In
conducting risk evaluations, our goal is
to estimate potential risk to any
population of potentially exposed
individuals (e.g., home gardeners, adult
farmers, children of farmers, anglers)
located in the vicinity of any generator
or facility handling a waste. Therefore,
we are not putting poor, rural, or
minority populations at any
disadvantage with regard to our
evaluation of risk or with regard to how
the Agency makes its proposed
hazardous waste listing determinations.
In proposing today to list three wastes
as hazardous (i.e., chlorinated aliphatic
wastewaters, EDC/VCM wastewater
treatment sludges managed in land
treatment units, and VCM-A wastewater
treatment sludges), all populations
potentially exposed to these wastes or
potentially exposed to releases of the
hazardous constituents in the wastes
will benefit from the proposed listing
determination. In addition, listing
determinations are effected at the
national level. The wastes proposed to
be listed as hazardous will be hazardous
regardless of where they are generated
and regardless of where they may be
managed. Although the Agency
understands that the proposed listing
determinations, if finalized, may affect
where these wastes are managed in the
future (in that hazardous wastes must be
managed at subtitle C facilities), the
Agency's decision to list these wastes as
hazardous is independent of any
decisions regarding the location of
waste generators and the siting of waste
management facilities.
Similarly, in cases where the Agency
is proposing not list a solid waste as
hazardous because the waste does not
meet the criteria for being identified as
a hazardous waste, these decisions are
based upon an evaluation of potential
individual risks located in proximity to
any facility handling the waste.in the
case of wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of allyl chloride
and methyl chloride and the case of
EDC/VCM. wastewater treatment sludges
managed in landfills, we believe the
potential risk levels associated with the
wastes are safe for all populations
potentially exposed to the wastes and
their constituents.
The Agency is soliciting comment and
input from all stakeholders, including
members of the environmental justice
community and members of the
regulated community. We encourage all
interested parties to provide comments
or further information related to
potential environmental justice
concerns orimpacts, including
information and data on facilities that
have evaluated potential ecological and
human health impacts (taking into
account subsistence patterns and
sensitive populations) to minority or
low-income communities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 148
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous waste. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection. Hazardous
materials. Recycling, Waste treatment
and disposal.
40 CFR Part 264
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control. Hazardous waste.
Insurance, Packaging and containers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds.
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste. Insurance, Packaging and
containers. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures. Surety
bonds, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste management.
40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, '
Hazardous material transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control,
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 302
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
chemicals, Hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials transportation.
Hazardous substances, Hazardous
waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal. Water
pollution control. Water supply. -
Dated: July 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations^ proposed to be
amended as follows: ~
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S C
6901 etseq.
2. Section 148.18 is amended by
adding paragraphs (1) and (m) to read as
followst
§ 148.18 Waste-specific prohibitions—
newly listed and identified wastes.
*****
(1) Effective [date six months after
publication of final rule], the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K173, K174,
and K175 are prohibited from
underground injection.
(m) The requirements of paragraphs
(a) through (1) of this section do not
apply:
(1) If the wastes meet or are treated to
meet the applicable standards specified
in subpart D of part 268 of this chapter;
or
(2) If an exemption from a prohibition
has been granted in response to a
petition under subpart C of this part; or
(3) During the period of extension of
the applicable effective date, if an
extension has been granted under
§148.4.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921
6922, 6924(y), and 6938.
4. Section 261,3 is amended by
adding a paragraph (c) (2) (ii) (F) to read
as follows:
§ 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
*****
(c) * * *
(2)***
(ii) * * *
(F) Wastewater treatment sludges
derived from the treatment of
chlorinated aliphatic wastewaters listed
in §261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K173. However, this paragraph does not
exempt from the definition of hazardous
waste any wastewater treatment sludges
that are explicity listed (e.g., K174,
Kl 75) or that meet any other listing in
-------
46532
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
subpart D of this part, as a result of the
derived-from rule.
* * * * *
5. Section 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(15) to read as
follows:
§261.4 Exclusions.
*****
(b)***
(15) Leachate or gas condensate
collected from landfills where certain
solid wastes have been disposed,
provided that:
(i) The solid wastes disposed would
meet one or more of the listing
descriptions for Hazardous Waste Codes
K169, K170. K171. K172, K174, and
K175 if these wastes had been generated
after the effective date of the listing;
(ii) The solid wastes described in
paragraph (b)(15)(i) of this section were
disposed prior to the effective date of
the listing:
(iii) The leachate or gas condensate do
not exhibit any characteristic of
hazardous waste nor are derived from
any other listed hazardous waste;
(iv) Discharge of the leachate or gas
condensate, including leachate or gas
condensate transferred from the landfill
to a POTW by truck, rail, or dedicated
pipe, is subject to regulation under
Sections 307 (b) or 402 of the Clean
Water Act.
(v) After February 13, 2001, leachate
or gas condensate derived from K169-
K172 will no longer be exempt if it is
stored or managed in a surface
impoundment prior to discharge. After
[date 24 months after publication date of
the final rule], leachate or gas
condensate derived from K175 will no
longer be exempt if it is stored or
managed in a surface impoundment
prior to discharge. There is one
exception: if the surface impoundment
is used to temporarily store leachate or
gas condensate in response to an
emergency situation (e.g., shutdown of
wastewater treatment system), provided
the impoundment has-a double liner,
and provided the leachate or gas
condensate is removed from the
impoundment and continues to be
managed in compliance with the
conditions of this paragraph (b) (15) (v)
after the emergency ends.
*****
6. In §261.32, the table is amended by
adding in alphanumeric order (by the
first column) the following waste
streams to the subgroup "Organic
Chemicals" to read as follows:
§ 261.32 Hazardous waste from specific
sources.
*****
Industry and
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
Organic Chemi-
cals:
K173
K174
K175
Wastewaters from the production of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, except wastewaters generated from the (T)
production of vinyl chloride monomer using mercuric chloride catalyst in an acetylene-based process. This list-
ing includes wastewaters from the production of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons having carbon chain lengths
ranging from one to and including five, with varying amounts and positions of chlorine substitution
Wastewater treatment sludges from the production of ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride monomer (including (T)
sludges that result from commingled ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride monomer wastewater and other
wastewater), unless the sludges meet the following conditions: they are disposed of in a subtitle C or D landfill
licensed or permitted by the state or federal government; they are not otherwise placed on the land prior to
final disposal; and the generator maintains documentation demonstrating that the waste was either disposed of
in an on-site landfill or consigned to a transporter or disposal facility that provided a written commitment to dis-
pose of the waste in an off-site landfill. Respondents in any action brought to enforce the requirements of sub-
title C must, upon a showing by the government that the respondent managed wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of vinyl chloride monomer or ethylene dichloride, demonstrate that they meet the terms of
the exclusion set forth above. In doing so, they must provide appropriate documentation (e.g., contracts be-
tween the generator and the landfill owner/operator, invoices documenting delivery of waste to landfill, etc.) that
the terms of the exclusion were met
Option 1: Wastewater treatment sludges from the production of vinyl chloride monomer using mercuric chloride (T)
catalyst in an acetylene-based process.
Option 2: Wastewater treatment sludges from the production of vinyl chloride monomer using mercuric chloride (T)
catalyst in an acetylene-based process, unless the sludges are disposed in a subtitle C landfill; and the
sludges do not fail the toxicity characteristic for mercury in 40 CFR 261.24; and the generator maintains docu-
mentation demonstrating that the waste was disposed of in a subtitle C landfill or consigned to a transporter or
disposal facility that provided a written commitment to dispose of the waste in a subtitle C landfill. Respondents
in any action brought to enforce the requirements of subtitle C must, upon a showing by the government that
the respondent managed wastewater treatment sludges from the production of vinyl chloride monomer using
mercuric chloride catalyst in an acetylene-based process, demonstrate that they meet the terms of the exclu-
sion set forth above. In doing so, they must provide appropriate documentation (e.g., contracts between the
generator and the landfill owner/operator, invoices documenting delivery of waste to landfill, analytical results or
other information showing the waste does not fail the toxicity characteristic for mercury, etc.) that the terms of
the exclusion were met
7. Appendix VII to Part 261 is amended by adding the following wastestreams in alphanumeric order (by the
first column) to read as follows:
-------
Federal Register/VoL 64, No. 164/Wednesday. August 25, 1999 /Proposed Rules 46533
Appendix VII to Part 261—Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents for which listed
^ *
K173 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD), 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1234678-
^P™?' ^2'3'4-7'8.9-HePtachloradibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8,9-HpCDF), HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-Wdioxins)
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans), PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) OCDD (12346789
°°te£hl°r°dibenz°-^di°xin. OCDF (1'2'3-4'6'7.8.9-Octachlorodibenzofuran), PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofuran's)
TCDDs (All tetrachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxins), TCDFs (All tetrachlorodibenzofurans) '
K174 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD), 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1234678-
uP™?' );2,3,4,7,8,9'Heptachlorodiben2ofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8,9-HpCDF), HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzc-^dioxins)
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans), PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) OCDD (1234678 9
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, OCDF (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran) PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofuran's)
TCDDs (All tetrachlorodi-benzo-jOdioxins), TCDFs (All tetrachlorodibenzofurans) *
K175 Mercury
8. Appendix VIII to part 261 is amended by adding in alphabetical sequence of common name the following entries:
Appendix VIII to Part 261—Hazardous Constituents
Common name
Chemical abstracts name
Chemical
abstracts
No.
Hazardous
waste No.
Octachlorodibenzo-jD-dioxin (OCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-/>dioxin 3268-87-9
Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran 39001-02-0
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
9. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
Subpart A—General
10. Section 264.1 is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (g) (6) to read as follows:
§ 264.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(g) * * *
(6) * * * However, if the owner or
operator is managing EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K173 (chlorinated aliphatic
wastewater) in a tank, the owner/
operator must comply with
§264.1080(h).
Subpart CO—Air Emission Standards
for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers
11. Section 264.1080 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§264.1080 Applicability.
* * * * *
(h) Notwithstanding the applicability
requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, any tank (including wastewater
treatment units as defined in §260.10 of
this chapter) managing EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K173, where the dioxin
concentration in the influent wastewater
to the tank is greater than or equal to 1
ng/L TCDD TEQ at a 95% upper '
confidence limit around the mean, must
comply with the requirements of this
paragraph, and with §264.1084 as
appropriate. In order to determine
whether the influent concentration of
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K173 is
greater than or equal to 1 ng/L TCDD
TEQ at a 95% upper confidence limit
around the mean, the generator or
owner/operator must comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR 265.1080(h)(l)
through (5).
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
12. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912,
6922, 6923. 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and
6937, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A—General
13. Section 265.1 is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (c) (10) to read as follows:
§265.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*****
(c) * * *
(10) * * * However, if the owner or
operator is managing EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K173 (chlorinated aliphatic
wastewater) in a tank, the owner/
operator must comply with
§265.1080(h).
Subpart CC—Air Emission Standards
for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers
14. Section 265.1080 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§265.1080 Applicability
*****
(h) Notwithstanding the applicability
requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, any tank (including wastewater
treatment units as defined in §260.10 of
this chapter) managing EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K173, where the dioxin
concentration in the influent wastewater
to the tank is equal to or greater than 1
ng/L TCDD TEQ at a 95% upper
confidence limit around the mean, must
-------
46534
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999 /Proposed Rules
comply with the requirements of this
paragraph, and with §265.1085 as
appropriate. In order to determine
whether the influent concentration of
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K173 is
greater than or equal to 1 ng/L TCDD
TEQ at a 95% upper confidence limit
around the mean, the generator or
owner/operator must comply with the
following:
(1) Waste sampling and analysis
plans, (i) General. The generator of Kl 73
shall develop and follow a written waste
sampling and analysis plan which
describes the procedures for sampling
and analysis of the hazardous waste at
the influent to each wastewater
treatment tank to be excluded from the
requirements of this part. The waste
sampling and analysis plan shall be
developed in accordance with the
applicable sections of the "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods" (SW-846)
or other appropriate guidance. The plan
shall be followed and retained at the
facility claiming an exemption for one
or more wastewater treatment tanks.
(ii) At a minimum, the plan must
include:
(A) A detailed description of the test
method(s) used to test for 2,3,7,8-
substituted chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxin (CDD) and 2.3,7.8-substituted
chlorinated dibenzo-p-furan (CDF)
congeners;
(B) The sampling method used to
obtain representative samples of each
wastewater tank influent; and
(C) How the design of the sampling
program accounts for any expected
fluctuations in concentrations over time,
while ensuring that the samples
collected are grab samples and that all
samples are collected within a
timeframe that will allow for the
analyses to account for potential
variabilities in the wastestream.
(2) Sampling and analysis, (i)
General. For each wastewater treatment
tank for which an exemption is claimed,
the generator of K173 must:
(A) Test for all 2,3,7,8-substituted
CDDs/CDFs; or
(B) Use process knowledge for tanks
downstream of a tank that is exempt as
a result of testing specified in paragraph
(h)(2)(i)(A) of this section.
(ii) The K173 generator may use any
reliable analytical method to
demonstrate that the TCDD TEQ does
not exceed the trigger level. It is the
responsibility of the generator to ensure
that the sampling and analysis are
unbiased, precise, and representative of
the waste.
(Hi) The generator must ensure that
the measurements are sufficiently
sensitive, accurate and precise to
demonstrate that the maximum TCDD
TEQ in any sample analyzed does not
exceed the specified trigger level.
(iv) For the tank to be eligible for
exemption, a generator must
demonstrate that:
(A) The maximum TCDD TEQ in the
influent to the tank does not exceed 1
ng/L at the 95% upper confidence limit
around the mean;
(B) The TCDD TEQ for each sample
shall be determined by multiplying the
concentration of any 2,3,7,8-substituted
CDD or CDF detected and the
appropriate toxicity equivalency factor
(TEF), as described below, and summing
these products for each sample;
(C) The following toxicity equivalence
factors shall be used:
Compound
2 3,7,8-TetraCDD
1237 8-PentaCDD
1 2 3,4,7 8-HexaCDD
12378 9-HexaCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDD
1 23467 8-HeptaCDD
1 234578 9-OctaCDD
237 8-TetraCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF
1 ,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF
1 ,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDF
1 ,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDF
23467 8-HexaCDF
1 23478 9-HeptaCDF
1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF
1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OctaCDF
WHO-TEF
1
1
0.1
01
0.1
001
00001
0.1
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
01
001
0.01
0.0001
(D) The analysis could have detected
the presence of the CDD/CDF congeners
at or below the trigger level of 1 ng/L at
the 95% upper confidence limit around
the mean.
(v) In an enforcement action, the
burden of proof to establish
conformance with the exemption
specification shall be on the generator
claiming the exclusion.
(vi) The generator must conduct
sampling and analysis in accordance
with their waste sampling and analysis
plan developed under paragraph (h) (1)
of this section.
(vii) The influent to exempt
wastewater treatment tanks must be re-
tested, at a minimum, annually and
must be retested after a process change
that could change the TCDD TEQ level
in the waste.
(3) Records. The generator must
maintain records of the following
information on-site:
(i) All information required to be
submitted to the implementing
authority as part of the notification of
the claim:
(A) The owner/operator name,
address, and RCRA facility ID number of
the person claiming the exemption; and
(B) The certification signed by the
person claiming the exclusion or his
authorized representative.
(ii) A brief description of the tanks
covered by the claimed exemption,
including dimensions and service in the
wastewater treatmentisystem;
(iii) A description and process flow
diagram of the wastewater treatment
system, clearly identifying the exempt
tanks and sampling points;
(iv) The results of all analyses and all
detection limits achieved as required
under paragraph (h) (2) of this section;
(v) The waste sampling and analysis
plan;
(vi) The results of the sampling and
analysis, including the following:
(A) The dates and times waste
samples were obtained, and the dates
the samples were analyzed;
(B) The names and qualifications of
the person(s) who obtained the samples;
(C) A description of the temporal and
spatial locations of the samples;
(D) The name and address of the
laboratory facility at which analyses of
the samples were performed;
(E) A detailed description of the
analytical methods used, including any
clean-up and sample preparation
methods;
(F) All quantitation limits achieved
and all other quality control results for
the analysis (including method blanks,
duplicate analyses, matrix spikes, etc.),
laboratory quality assurance data, and
description of any deviations from
analytical methods written in the plan
or from any other activity written in the
plan which occurred;
(G) All laboratory analytical results
demonstrating that the trigger
exemption level has not been exceeded
at the tank influent, for each exempt
tank; and
(H) All laboratory documentation that
support the analytical results, unless a
contract between the claimant and the
laboratory provides for the
documentation to be maintained by the
laboratory for the period specified in
paragraph (h) (4) of this section and also
provides for the availability of the
documentation to the claimant upon
request; and
(4) Records retention. Records must
be maintained for the period of three
years. A generator must maintain a
current waste sampling and analysis
plan during that three year period.
(5) Notification and certification. The
waste generator must submit a one-time
notification and certification to the EPA
Region or an authorized State (by mail
or delivery service which provides
return receipt) within 60 days following
the effective date of the final rule or
initial use of a wastewater treatment
-------
Federa] Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999 /Proposed Rules
46535
tank used to manage K173. The
notification must include the waste
generator's name and address, a
representative's name and telephone
number, and a description of the
wastewater treatment system and the
assessed tanks. The certification must be
signed by an authorized representative
and must state as follows:
I certify under penalty of law that the
influent (s) to the tanks identified in this
certification do not exceed 1 ng/L TCDD
TEQ. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting a false, inaccurate, or
incomplete certification, including the
possibility of fine .and imprisonment.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
15. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
Subpart A—General
16. Section 268.7 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§268.7 Testing, tracking, and
recordkeeping requirements for generators,
treaters, and disposal facilities.
*****
(f) The owner or operator of a facility
codisposing wastes with wastes
identified as hazardous waste Kl 75
must maintain records available for
inspection of the pH of the wastes so
codisposed.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
17. Section 268.33 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 268.33 Waste specific prohibitions-
chlorinated aliphatic wastes.
(a) Effective [date 90 days from date
of publication of final rule], the wastes
specified in 40 CFR Part 261 as EPA
Hazardous Wastes Numbers K173,
K174, and K175, and soil and debris
contaminated with these wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective [date two years from date
of publication of final rule], the
following wastes are prohibited from
land disposal: soil and debris
contaminated with radioactive wastes
mixed with EPA Hazardous wastes
K173, K174, andK175.
(c) Between [date of publication of
final rule] and [Insert date two years
from date of publication of final rule],
radioactive waste mixed with K173,
K174, and K175 wastes and/or soil and
debris may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment only if such unit
is in compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5 (h) (2).
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b) and (c) of this section do not
apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards specified in subpart
D of this part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under §268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under
§268.44;
(4) Hazardous debris has met the
treatment standards in §268.40 or the
alternative treatment standards in
§268.45; or
(5) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to §268.5, with
respect to these wastes covered by the
extension.
(e) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in §268.40, the initial
generator must test a sample of the
waste extract or the entire waste,
depending on whether the treatment
standards are expressed as
concentrations in the waste extract or
the waste, or the generator may use
knowledge of the waste. If the waste
contains regulated constituents in
excess of the applicable Universal
Treatment Standard levels of §268.48,
the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of this
part are applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
(f) Disposal of Kl 75 wastes containing
mercuric sulfide is restricted to units to
which disposal of wastes in excess of
pH 6.0 is prohibited.
18. In §268.40, the Table is amended
in the entry for F039 to add constituents
in alphabetical order and by adding in
alphanumeric order new entries for
K173, K174, and K175 to read as
follows:
§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste
code
Waste description and treatment/regu-
latorysubcategory' Common name
Concentration
CAS 2 No '" m^ or
technology
code4
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/L
TCLP", or tech-
nology code
F039 Leachate (liquids that have percolated
through land disposed wastes) re-
sulting from the disposal of more
than one restricted waste classified
as hazardous under Subpart D of
this part. (Leachate resulting from
the disposal of one or more of the
following EPA Hazardous Wastes
and no other Hazardous Waste re-
tains its EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s): F020, F021, F022,
F026, F027, and/or F028) * * *.
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-yO
dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD).
35822-39-4
0.000035 0.0025
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF).
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF).
67562-39-4
55673-89-7
0.000035 0.0025
0.000035 0.0025
-------
46536
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste
code
Waste description and treatment/regu-
latory subcategory' Common name
Concentration
rAq2 MO in m9/L'3 or
OAb IMO. technology-
code4
Concentration in
mg/kg s unless
noted as "mg/L
TCLP", or tech-
nology code
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-/c>- 3268-87-9
dioxin (OCDD).
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0
Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF).
0.000063 0.0025
0.000063 0.005
K173
Wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
except Wastewaters generated from
the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based proc-
ess. This listing includes
Wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
having carbon chain lengths rang-
ing from one to and including five,
with varying amounts and positions
of chlorine substitution.
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
111
0.033 6.0
K174
Wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of ethylene dichlo-
ride or vinyl chloride monomer.
Chloroform ...........................................
Pentachlorophenol ..............................
Phenol .................................................
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ..........................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD).
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF).
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF).
HxCDDs (All Hexachloro- .................. .
dibenzo-yodioxins) 34465-46-8 ..........
HxCDFs (All Hexachloro- ....................
dibenzofurans) .....................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (OCDD).
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF).
PeCDDs (All Pentachloro- ..................
dibenzo-p-dioxins) ...............................
PeCDFs (All Pentachloro- ...................
dibenzofurans) .....................................
TCDDs (All tetrachloro- .......................
di-benzo-yO-dioxins) ..............
TCDFs (All tetrachloro- .......................
dibenzofurans) .....................................
Chromium (Total) ................................
Nickel [[[
dioxin (1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD).
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF).
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF).
HxCDDs (All Hexachloro- ...................
dibenzo-/>dioxins) ...............................
HxCDFs (All Hexachloro- ....................
dibenzofurans) .....................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (OCDD).
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF).
67-66-3
87-86-5
108-95-4
88-06-2
35822-39-4
67562-39-4
55673-89-7
0.000063
55684-94-1
3268-87-9
39001-02-0
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
0.000063
55722-27-5
7440-47-3
7440-02-0
35822-39-4
67562-39-4
55673-89-7
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
3268-87-9
39001-02-0
0.046
0.089
0.039
0.035
0.000035
0.000035
0.000035
0.001
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000035
0.001
0.000063
2.77
3.98
0.000035
0.000035
0.000035
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
6.0
7.4
6.2
7.4
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.60 mg/L TCLP
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46537
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste Waste description and treatment/regu-
code latorysubcategory' Common name
PeCDDs (All Pentachloro-
dibenzo-/>dioxins)
PeCDFs (All Pentachloro-
dibenzofurans)
TCDDs (All tetrachlorodi-benzo-/>
dioxins).
TCDFs (All tetrachlorodibenzofurans)
Arsenic
K175 K175 (wastewater treatment sludge Mercury
C
CAS 2 No.
36088-22-9
30402-1 5-4
41903-57-5
- 55722-27-5
7440-36-0
7438-97-6
Concentration
in mg/L,3 or
technology.
code4
0 000063
0 000035
0.000063
0.000063
1 4
NA
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/L
TCLP", or tech-
nology code
0 001
0 001
0.001
0.001
"? f) mn/l TCI P
RMFRO
from the production of vinyl chloride
monomer using mercuric chloride
catalyst in an acetylene-based proc-
ess) nonwastewaters that contain
greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg
total mercury.
K175 nonwastewaters that contain
less than 260 mg/kg total mercury
that are residues from RMERC.
Other K175 nonwastewaters that con-
tain less than 260 mg/kg total mer-
cury and are not residues from
RMERC.
Mercury
Mercury
7438-97-6
7438-97-6
All K175 wastewaters
PH
Mercury
7438-97-6
NA 0.20 mg/L TCLP
NA 0.025 mg/L
TCLP
NA pH <6.0
0.15 NA
* Note: NA means not applicable.
1The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR Part 261. Descriptions of Treatment/Requlatorv
Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards.
2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical
with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples.
4 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268 42
Table 1-Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.
5 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration
were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O
or Part 265 Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements A fa-
cility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters
are based on analysis of grab samples.
19. In § 268.48(a) the Table is
amended by adding in alphabetical
order the following entries under the
heading organic constituents: (The
footnotes are republished without
change.)
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
§268.48
(a)* •
Universal treatment standards.
Wastewater
f^/voi standard
Regulated constituent common name h concentration
0 numDsr •
mg/L 2
Nonwastewater
standard
concentration in
mg/Kg3 unless
noted as
"mg/L TCLP"
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptachIorodibenzo-jCnJioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD) 35822-39-4 0.000035 0.0025
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hept'achlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF) 67562-39—4- 0.000035 0.0025
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8,9-HpCDF) 55673-89-7 0.000035 0.0025
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) 3268-87-9 0.000063 0.005
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) 39001-02-0 0.000063 0.005
-------
46538
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
* Note: NA means not applicable.
1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical
with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples.
3 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration
were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart
O, or Part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A
facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters
are based on analysis of grab samples.
*****
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
20. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a). and 6926.
21. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to Table 1 and Table 2 in chronological order
by date to read as follows.
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
» * * * *
0)* * *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation dale
Title of regulation
Federal Register
reference
Effective date
(insert date of signature of final Listing of Hazardous Wastes [insert Federal
rule] K173, K174, and K175 numbers]
Register page [insert effective date of final rule]
TABLE 2.—SELF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implementing provision
RCRA citation
Federal Register reference
(effective date of final rule].
Prohibition on land disposal of K173, K174, and K175 3004(g)(4)(C) and 3004(m). [date of publication of final
wastes, and prohibition on land disposal of radio- rule], [FR page num-
active waste mixed with K173, K174, and K175 bersj.
wastes, including soil and debris.
PART 302—DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
22. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603. and 9604: 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
23. In §302.4. Table 302.4 is amended by adding the following new entries in alphanumeric order at the end
of the table to read as follows:
§302.4 Designation of hazardous substances
TABLE 302.4—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
[Note: All Comments/Notes Are Located at the End of This Table]
Hazardous substance
K173* ,
K174f ,
K175'
CASRN
Regulatory synonyms
RQ
*1
*1
*1
Statutory
Codet
4
4
4
RCRA
waste
No.
K173
K174
K175
Fina
Category
X
X
X
RQ
Pounds
(Kg)
1 (0 454)
1 (0.454)
1(0.454)
t Indicates the statutory sources as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.
4— Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
*1—indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.^
'See 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1) for application of the mixture rule to this hazardous waste. -
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 1999/Proposed Rules
46539
24. Section 302.6 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(l)(iii) introductory text and by adding entries K173, -K174,
and K175 to the table in paragraph (b)(l)(iii) in numerical order to read as follows:
§302.6 Notification requirements.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For waste streams K169, K170, K171, K172. K173, K174, and K175, knowledge of the quantity of all of the
hazardous constituent (s) may be assumed, based on the following maximum observed constituent concentrations identified
by EPA:
Waste
Constituent
Max ppm
K173 2,3,7,8-TCDD (000000017
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 00000015
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 00000012
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 00000091
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD _ 00000092
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD . 000044
OCDD '.WQ22
2,3,7,8-TCDF .QD000045
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF JJ000012
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF UI000015
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 000042
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 000045
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 000014
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 'o00027
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0013
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 000^
OCDF 'me
Chloroform y
K174 2,3,7,8-TCDD .' " ' (000039
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD .0000108
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0000241
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 000083
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD " 000062
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 00123
OCDD ; : .". 1(029
2,3,7,8-TCDF GD00145
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0000777
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF (H00127
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 001425
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ''..' ""' oo0281
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 00014
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 000648
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF O2Q7
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0135
OCDF '33,2
K175 Mercury 9200
[FR Doc. 99-20753 Filed 8-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Correction Notice
Septembers, 1999
-------
-------
49052
Corrections
Federal Register
Vol. 64, No. 174
Thursday, September 9, 1999
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains editorial corrections of previously
published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,
and Notice documents. These corrections are
prepared by the Office of the Federal
Register. Agency prepared corrections are
Issued as signed documents and appear in
the appropriate document categories
elsewhere in the issue.
Wednesday, August 25, 1999, make the
following correction (s):
On page 46495, remove the heading
for Table III-4. and the tables designated
as Table III-4A and Table III-4B, and add
Table III-5A and Table Ill-SB as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148,261,264,265,268,
271, and 302
[SWH-FRL-641S-4]
RIN 2050-AD85
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Chlorinated
Aliphatics Production Wastes; Land
Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Identified Wastes; and CERCLA
Hazardous Substance Designation and
Reportable Quantities
Correction
In proposed rule document 99-20753.
beginning on page 46476, in the issue of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 1999 / Corrections
49053
Table III-5. Summary of Excess Lifetime Arsenic Cancer Risks Attributable to
Management of EDC/VCM Sludge in An Offsite Landfill
Table III-5A. Deterministic Risk Results
Receptor
Fanner
Child of Farmer/Child of Resident
Adult Resident/Gardener/Fisher
HE
3E-05
9E-06
2E-05
CT
9E-07
6E-07
8E-07
High End Parameters
Distance To Receptor Weil and Exposure
Duration
HE = High End; CT = Central Tendency
Time for Peak concentration to reach receptor is approximately 8800 years (HE), 9600 years (CT)
Table Ill-SB. Probabilistic Risk Results
Receptor
Farmer
Adult Resident/Gardener/Fisher
Child Resident
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-18
Farm Child
Age 1-5
Age 6-11
Age 12-1 8
Percentile
50th
2E-08
2E-08
90th
3E-06
3E-06
95th
8E-06
6E-06
97.5th
1E-05
1E-05
100th
3E-04
2E-04
IE-OS
1E-08
9E-09
2E-06
2E-06
IE-06
5E-06
4E-06
3E-06
9E-06
8E-06
6E-06
1E-04
1E-04
9E-05
3E-08
2E-08.
IE-OS
4E-06
3E-06
2E-06
9E-06
6E-06
5E-06
2E-05
1E-05
IE-OS
2E-04
2E-04
1E-04
[FR Doc. C9-20753 Filed 9-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
-------
------- |