&3WFR 83
Monday
Aprif 4, 1183
Hazardous Waste
Proposed Rule
Agency.
Management System;
-------
14514
federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4,1983 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, and 775
ISWH-FRL 2315-5]
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Standards for
Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities; Interim Status
Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities; and
Storage and Disposal of Waste
Material: Prohibition of Disposal of
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today proposing to
amend the regulations for hazardous
waste management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), by listing additional hazardous
wastes containing certain chlorinated
dioxins, -dibenzofurans, and -phenols,
and by specifying certain management
standards for these wastes. These
wastes are being listed as acutely
hazardous. EPA is also proposing to
delete several commercial chemical
products from the list of hazardous
wastes since these listings are
duplicated in today's proposal. In
addition, EPA is proposing to list these
material!! as solid wastes when they are
recycled by being used or reused, so that
these wastes remain subject to
regulation when recycled in this manner.
EPA also is proposing to revoke its
regulation concerning the disposal of
2,3,7,8-letrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)-contaminated wastes under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
when this regulation under RCRA
becomes effective. This action extends
regulatory control to certain hazardous
wastes not covered by the existing
regulation. It requires handlers of such
wastes to comply with the appropriate
regulatory standards.
DATE: EPA will accept public comment
on this amendment until June 3,1983.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to the Docket Clerk, Office of Solid
Waste (WH-562), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street S.W.,
Washington, B.C. 20460.
Communications should identify the
regulatory docket numbers "Section
3001/Dioxin" or "OPTS 62007".
. Pursuant to provisions of RCRA and
TSCA, requests for a hearing should be
addressed to Eileen Claussen, Director,
Office of Management, Information, and
Analysis, Office of Solid Waste (WH-
562),.U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, S.W., -
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Docket: The public docket for
40 CFR Parts 261, 264, and 265 is located
in Room S-269C, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, and is available
for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays.
.The public docket for 40 CFR Part 775
is located in Room E-107 at the same
address, and is available for viewing
during the same hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346
or at (202) 382-3000 or Judy Bellin (202) ,
382-4770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Listing
III. Basis for Listing
A.-Toxicity of Contaminants of Concern
B. Contaminant Concentration Levels in
These Wastes
C. The Wastes' Potential to Cause
Substantial Harm if Mismanged
D. Listing as Acutely Hazardous Wastes
IV. Removal of Certain Commercial Chemical
Products Listed in 40 CFR 261.33[f)
V. Regulatory Status of These Materials
When Recycled by Being Used or Reused
VI. Relation of Today's Proposal to
Regulation of TCCD—Contaminated
Wastes Under the Toxic 'Substances
Control Act
VII. Proposed Management of These Wastes
A. Management at RCRA Interim Status
Facilities
B. Management at Fully Permitted Facilities
C. Other Management Options Considered
For These Wastes
Vin. Analytical Method for tetra-, penta-, and
hexachlorodibenzo-p-idoxins and -
dibenzofurans
IX. Questions for comment
X. Economic, Environmental, and Regulatory
Impacts • :
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paper Reduction Act of 1980 , ,
XI. Rulemaking Record ••£*»•'
XII. List of Subjects >
I. Background "
On May 19,1980, as part of the final
and interim final regulations - .
implementing Section 3001 of RCRA,
EPA published a list of hazardous
wastes that included hazardous wastes
generated from non-specific sources.
(See 40 CFR 261.31.) This list has been
amended several times. In today's '
action, EPA is proposing to amend this
section to add particular wastes
containing certain contaminants that
are, for certain animal species, among
the most toxic known; these wastes '
consequently are of particular
environmental concern, EPA has
evaluated these wastes against the
, criteria for listing acutely hazardous and
hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.11 (a) (2)
and (a) (3)), and has determined that
.. they: (1) Are capable of causing or
significantly contributing to an increase
in serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible, illness, and (20) also pose a
substantial present or potential 'threat tr
human health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise managed, and
therefore are acutely hazardous wastes.'
II. Summary of the Proposed Listing 2
This proposed regulation covers
principally wastes from the production
of certain chlbrophenols and of
chlorophenoxy pesticides, as well as
discarded unused formulations
containing tri-, tetra-, or
, pentachloropheriol and their derivatives.
Specifically, this proposed regulation
designates as hazardous certain wastes
(including reactor residues, still bottoms,
brines, spent filter aids, spent carbon
from product purification, and sludges
from wastewater treatment, but not
including untre.ated wastewater or spent
carbon from hydrogen chloride
purification) resulting from the following
processes:3' * •
1 The RCRA definition of acutely hazardous waste
is set forth at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). Under'that
definition, such a material is not necessarily
"acutely toxic" in the way that term is used by
toxicologists. Rather, the term is intended by EPA to
identify wastes which are'so hazardous that they
inay, either through acute or chronic exposure,"
"cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness",.regardless of how they are managed.
2The following acronyms and definitions are used
in this document (and in the background document
for this regulation):
PCDDs = all isomers of all chlorinated dibenzo-jp-
dioxins. >
PCDFs=allisbmersofall chlorinated dibenzo-
furans
CDDs and CDFs=all isomers o£the tetra-, penta-,
and hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and -
dibenzofurans, repectively.
TCDDs and TCDFs = alI isomers of the
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans,
respectively.
TCDD and TCDF=the respective 2,3,7,8-isomers-,
The prefixes D, Tr, T, Pe, and Hx denote the di-,
tri-, tetra, penta-, and hexachloro-congeners,
respectively.
3 Not all of these wastes are generated by every
process discussed in the text.
4 We are not proposing to list untreated
wastewaters or spent carbon from hydrogen
chloride purification because these wastes are not
expected to contain CDDs or CDFs at levels of
concern. " ' ' '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 65 / Monday,. April 4; 1983 / Proposed Rules 14515
(a) The production and. manufacturing
use 5oftri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol
and intermediates used to produce their
derivatives;017 '
(b) The manufacturing use of tetra.-,
penta-s or hexachlorbbenzenes under
alkaline conditions;
(c) the production of materials, onu
equipmentpreviously used for the
production or manufacturing use of '
materials liatedJunder (a) and (bj above;
and -. '••
(d) discarded unused formulations,
containing tri-,tetra-,r or .
pentachlorophenols, or discarded
unused formulations, containing
compounds, derived from,these
chlorophenols.8 - .
5 In the context of this listing, "manufacturing
use" means the use of the named chemical as a
reactant or chemical interme,diate (for instance; as.
in the usecof 2,4,5,-tfichlorophenol (2,4,5,-TCB}:as a
feedstock for theisynthesis of 2,4,5,-T),,or as a*
component in a formulating process (as, for
instance; in the formulation of a mixture^of-2,4,5,-
TCP and,l,2,4,5,-TeGP, irt which these components
retain their chemical identity). In the present
context,,the term "manufacturing use" does,nat
include residues from, the use ofchlorophenoxy
pesticide formulationsi.e.g., in wood preservation.
°The principal manufacturing use of
chlorophenols is: in. the synthesis of chlorophenoxy
acids, esters, and amines. They are. also'used in the
synthesis o£ phenolic resins, and of dye and pigment
intermediates. However, only wastes from
chlorophenoxy'synthesis are listed as hazardous . -
wastes, because the Agency has no data on the •
conditions of synthesis, generation of wastes, and
the leyelof chlorinated dihenza-p-dioxin or -
dibenzofuran contamination of wastes from the
synthesis of phenolic resins, dyes, and pigments:
The Agency solicits1 data on the extent of CDD/CDF!
contamination of the latter wastes; We also;are?
presently initiating sampling of some of these
wastes in the course of'our ongoing Industry Studies
program.
'The 2,4,5;7TCP derivative Hexachlorophene:is
now synthesized from a purified 2,'4,5,-TCP in an
acid-catalyzed condensation reaction. Because the
reaction occurs at rather low temr)eratures,.and at
acidpH, no CDD or CDF formation.is expected to
occur.-Earlietproduction techniques resulted_in
TCDD contamination. Wastes.resulting-from
Hexachlorophene production therefore are not
included in this listing unless prepurified 2,4',5; TCP
was not used, or the process took place on
equipment contaminated with.CDDs or CDFs,
aThis category .of listed wastes:includes , *
discarded pesticides and formulations, containing
tri-, tetrar, or pentachlorophenol as ingredients.
Some of these materials, namely EPA Hazardous,
Wastes U212, 230,231, 242, and the chlorophenoxy
pesticides U232 and U233 already are hazardous
wastes under-40 CFR 261.33(f) when discarded'in
commercial grade, technical grade, oroff—
specification form, or wh'en present as the sole
active ingredient ura»formulation. However,
discarded'formulations containing these
chlorophenols or chlorophenoxy compounds as one
of a numberof ingredients (for example, hi a
mixture of 2,4;54-T, and.2,4;-D)"are not presently
consideredito be hazardous wastes (unless;they
exhibit a^characteristic ofhazardouawaste).These
multi-ingredient formulations nevertheless are likely
to-be,just as toxic an sole active'ingredfent mixtures,
since the concentration of toxic ingredients,isrthe1
same or higher. Today's action thus would remedy
this gap in regulatory coverage by listing the multi-'
ingredient formulations containing the discarded
III. Basis for Listing
. - • . * - -. ~
A. Toxicity of: contaminants of concern
1. Toxicity of chlorinated dioxins. and
-dibenzofurans, The contaminants of;
concern in these wastes ana CDDs and
CDFS, tri-, tetra-, and
pentachlorophenols, and the
chlorophenoxy derivatives of these
chlorophenols. CDDs and CDFs are,,for
certain animal species.'among the most
potent toxic substances known. 9T,CDD
and two HxCDD isomers are' among the
most potent animal carcinogens tested.
Since each of these, substances are
carcinogenic in well-conducted tests hi ,
both rats and mice, they are also
considered by the Agency to be .
potential human- carcinogena (see 4tFR
39858-39879 (Juiy-6,1979)).,Ittlaboratory
studies, TCDD haa-also been shown to
be tera'togenic; fetotoxic; and
embryotoxic at extremely low doses
(ng/kg/dayJ.'Based on structure-activity
relationships; TCDF also may have
reproductive effects at'extremely low •
doses. Many CDDs and7 CDFs are acute
toxicants as tested inJaboratory
animals at the ftg/kg/day dose rate,
and, even at these very low
concentrations, have-many observable,
physiologic effectsi Although" an EPA
Scientific Advisory':Panel determined 1
ng/kg body weight to be "for-all
practical purposes" a no. observed, effect
level in rodents (44, FR 72337 (December
13, JL979)),. several other scientists have
Concluded that ariNOEL has not been
conclusively demonstrated-Mpreoveu,
the Scientific Advisory Panel concluded
that a NOEE had not been demonstrated
for primates. In addition, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration has
established a guideline suggesting,
limitation of human consumption of fish
containing TCD0 concentrations greater
than 25-50 ng/kg (ppt). Furthermore^ in .
severalenforcement actions and in two
site-specific risk assessments conducted-
by the Agency regarding Tunes Beach
and Imperial hi Missouri, environmental
concentrations in the ppt to ppb range1
were determined to be levels of concern,
and were used to define clean-up levels.
The Agency emphasizes that, for
purposes of this regulation.jt considers
all CDDs arid CDFs as toxicants of
concern hi these wastes. Many
biochemical, and toxicology studies have
listed compounds. In addition, we are amendihg.the
basis for^h'sting these commercial chemical products
to include certain chlorinated dioxins and -
dibenzofurans as toxicants of concern.
'The statements on toxicity, persistence, and
environmental contamination outlined in this
preamble are more fully, explained and
substantiated in the background document for this ,
listing which is available for review in the public
docket.
demonstrated that there; areFwell-
defuied structure/activity correlations
defining;the acute and chronic-toxic
effects: of PCPDs and PCDFs. Those
isomers that have halogens in at least
three of the fqur lateral ring positions
(numbers 2,3,7, or 8), and that have at
least one ring hydrogen atom, are the
most toxic isamers. All the CDDs and
CDEs substituted irr this manner have
extremely higji acute, toxicity, bind
strongly to a eytosolic. protein receptor,
and are potent inducers.of sey.eral liver.
enzymes. The;Agency recognizes that,
everLwithui such congenericrgroupnigs,
there are. differences in toxicity; There
is, for instance, a 370-fold difference hi
acute.! toxicity between, the I,2i3,7,8<~and
me l,2,4,7,8-P.(iCDD iscaners;: however,
even the. less 1;oxic:isomer has extremely
high acute toxicity (oral LD50 in the
guinea pig=l.l mg/kg).
Only limited toxicity information is
available on certain of the CDD and1
CDF isomers. However,, many are •-
structurally similar^tootheECDD:and
CDF isomers-.that are^potent toxicants.
The- Agency maypermissibly- infer that
certain waste constituent's are-toxic;
based upon structural similaritjrto:
known toxicants. -See EDFv. EPA, 598 F;
2d 62^, 7&-S3 (D.C. Cir. 1978)" (prohibition
of discharge* to navigable;waters ofless
chlorinated:PGBs is permissible: hi;the
absence of specific toxicolbgic data due
to their structural similarityto7the: more
chlorinated PCBs)V
Consequently, because most of the
•isomers of the listed GDDs and GDFs
are toxic; albeit to different degrees,, .
because Identification of ^individual
isomers-in the waste would be an
excessive-regulatory burden, and
becausethe Agencybelieves thafrthese
wastes would'contain a certaui
percentage of the more toxic component,
the Agency ha!s determhied that it is a
cohservative-public-health assumption
that all the isamers- of TCDD' should be
considered in estunating its toxicity. We
have therefore!, determhied that all' the
CDDs and CDFs identified or proposed
to be identified in,Appendix VIII should
be considered, as toxicants of concern, in
these wastes. This decision is analogous
to the finding adopted by the Agency in
the case- of muinicipal waste resource
recovery facilities.10
2. Toxicity opchlorophBnois-and their
chlorophenox'jrderivatives. The other
toxicants of concern hi these wastes
also havepserious adverse effects. EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Gro.up has- .
10 See Interim evaluation of the health risks
associated with emissions of tetracBlorinated
dioxins from municipal waste resource recovery.
facilities. U.S. EPA, Office.of the Administrator, ,
November 16,1981L. .
-------
14516
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
determined that 2,4,6-TCP is a potential
human carcinogen."In addition,
ehlorophcnols may cause liver and
kidney damage. Some chlorophenoxy
compounds are also known or potential
human carcinogens, and may have
reproductive and teratogenic effects. •
Water Quality Criteria have been
established for many of these
compounds. For example, for 2,4,6-TCP,
the criterion for the protection of people
from excess risk of developing cancer
(10'8risk level) from the lifetime
consumption of contaminated fish and'
water is 12 ppb. The criterion for 2^,5-
TCP (based on its chronic systemic toxic
effects) is 2.6 ppm.
For several other chlorophenols, the
organoleptic water quality criteria are at
the ppb level (see 45 FR 79318 November
28,1980).
B, Contaminant concentration levels in
tliese wastes
The toxicants of concern are likely to^
be present in the listed wastes at
concentrations many orders of
magnitude greater than the levels which,
as cited above, are of concern in terms
or human health. In some cases, the
Agency has inferred the presence of
these contaminants from knowledge of
reaction chemistry and process
operating conditions. In other cases, the
contamination of chemical,
intermediates and commercial chemical
products is analytically established. For
example, analysis of distillation bottoms
from manufacturing processes making or
using trichlorophenols can contain
several hundred ppm CDDs, filter aids
may contain up to 6000 ppm TCDDs, and
cooling pond muds were shown to
contain as much as 1200 ppm CDDs. Still
bottoms from 2,4,5-TCP and 2,4,5-T
production generated by the Vertac
Chemical Corporation contained up to
111 ppm TCDDs. (U.S v. Vertac
Chemical Corp., 489 F. Supp. 870, 879 (D.
Ark. 1980)) (improper storage and
disposal of dioxin-containing wastes
results in imminent and substantial
cndangerment warranting injunctive
relief).
Some process wastes may be
contaminated with CDDs or CDFs
because they were generated in the
course of a manufacturing process
performed on equipment that was
.previously used for a CDD or CDF-
goncrnting process. In the manufacture
of chemicals on a production tram.
previously used for a process generating,
e,g., CDDs, both the product and the
wastes generated can be contaminated
with CDDs. This was shown to be the
case, for instance, for wastes resulting
from the manufacture of 2,4-D. These
wastes contained TCDDs at the ppb
level, presumably because the
equipment, used previously to produce
2,4,5-T, remained contaminated with
TCDD after production shifted to 2,4-D'
(45 FR 32677, May 19,1980).
The.contamination-of tri-, tetra-, and
, pentachlorophenols, and their phenoxy
derivatives with CDDs (30-100 ppm) and
CDFs (50-140 ppm) also results in the
contamination of biocides and their
formulations.
The concentration of higher .
chlorinated phenols and chlorophenoxy
derivatives in these wastes also is likely
to be considerable. In the case of wastes
from cholorophenol production,
cholorophenols (because of their
solubility characteristics) are likely to
be present in reactor residues, in still- .
bottoms, and in the sludges from
wastewater treatment. Wastes from the
manufacturing use of these compounds
likewise will contain these
chlorophenols—since they are the
principal raw material in the process^—
as well as various chlorophenoxy
derivatives. Because of the nature of the
purification and precipitation processes,
the latter compounds will occur
principally in reactor residues, on
adsorbents used for product purification,
and on filter aids. These compounds are
known to be present in'the wastes from
these processes. For example, a study of
the aqueous waste of one herbicide
manufacturing facility found that it
contained 13.5 kg/day of mixed
chlorophenols, and about 32.7 kg/day of
phenoxy acid. These are discharged in
fairly concentrated form: a typical ,
untreated aqueous waste stream from
phenpxy acid manufacture contains 112
ppm of mixed chlorophenols and 235
ppm of chlorophenoxy acids.
Discarded pesticides and pesticide
formulations containing these
chlorophenols as active ingredients
obviously will contain these toxicants in
high (percent) concentrations.-
C. The wastes'potential to cause
substantial harm if mismanaged
Not only are the contaminants of
concern present in significant
concentrations, but they are capable of
migrating from waste matrices and
reaching environmental receptors in
potentally dangerous concentrations.
These contaminants are persistent12—
" U.S. EPA, Ambient water quality criteria for
cblorophcnols. EPA 440/5-80-032.
"CDDs (and presumably CDFs] are highly
resistant to microbial degradation. The Agency thus
believes that these toxicants will be present in
wastewater treatment sludges. The listed
chlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy derivatives
are biodegradable, but where overloading and
CCDs and CDFs extremely so—and
several can accumulate in the food
chain. The measured bioaccumulation
factor (BCF) for TCDD is species
dependent, and varies from 2,000 to
48,000; structure/activity considerations
make it reasonable to assume that the
BCF for other CDDs and CDFs are
within the same range. The calculated
BCF for the chlorophenols ranges from
290 for 2,4,5-TCP to 610 for 2,4,6-TCP
(however, the measured, steady state
BCF for PGP is only 13). Thus, if these
toxicants migrate from these wastes,
even in extremely low concentrations,
they can accumulate in biological
organisms at much higher levels,
increasing the likelihood of substantial
harm to human health and the
environment.
_ These toxicants, moreover, are mobile
in the environment, particularly as a
result of water run-off or wind
dispersion of contaminated particles,
and can migrate from these wastes if
they are improperly managed. Although
CDDs and CDFs are relatively water
insoluble, and bind strongly to organic
.soil constituents, improper land disposal
could cause substantial harm to
environmental receptors. Pollution of air
and surface waters can occur, perhaps
, as a result of windblown dust, water
run-off or erosion, or flooding of waste
disposal sites. All of these scenarios
have occurred. In the Vertac case cited
. earlier, improper storage and disposal of
wastes from the manufacture of 2,4,5-
TCP, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T resulted in
significant environmental
" contamination. Fish and other aquatic
life in a local stream accumulated TCDD
at levels as high as 600 ppt. The court
concluded:
Dioxins * * * can and have been
transported off the Vertac site on dust, by the
action of landfill areas and equalization
basin area, and when people and equipment
move to and from the Vertao site. Samples
show that dibxin has been transported off the
Vertac site into fish and sediment in [a local
stream), and also into the Jacksonville
sewage treatment plant. (489 F..Sjipp. at 879)
TCDDs also h*ive been detected at
levels of concern in the sediments of
streams, public sewers, and home'sumps
at other sites, including Love Canal.
TCDD has been reported in fish and
crayfish living in contaminated streams,
in concentrations (600 ng/kg) up to
fifteen times higher than that at which
FDA advises that human consumption
be limited. High ppt concentrations have
been reported for. other CDDs and CDFs
in fish. Because of their insolubility in
inadequate treatment occur, and in the anaerobic
environment.of sludge disposal, they may persist.
-------
Federal-Register /Vol. 48, No; 65 /-Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
14517
water, and,their strong binding to
organic soil constituents, CDDs. and
CDEs are not ordinarily expected to
leach, to ground water if proper ' ;
precautions are, taken.' However, if these
wastes are co-disposed'with solufailizing,
solvents, or disposed in situations where,
soil binding site are exhausted, ground
water dontamination.could,result:
Although: chlorophenolsr and
.chlorophenoxy compounds are subject
to environmental degradation,^including
blodegradaiion by adapted. .-
communities, environmental pollution
from,these, constituents haa occurred
where wastes from the production and
manfuacturing usaof cMorophenols
were mismanaged. More than.twenty-
five, years after, the improper disposal of
chloraphenolic wastes. at.Lova Canal,
tri-, tetrar, and pentachlorophenols were,
identified in'soil, waters and atorm
sewer sediments at concentrations,
ranghig from 14s ppb (PGP kksump
waten) to. 496 ppm (TCPain atorm.sewer
sediment). ,
A further risk ta human healthumay ba
posed by, improper incineration;of these
wastes: Impropen incuieration, of
chlorophenola- are'prediced to form
CDDs and GDEs as products, of
incomplete combustion,.13 posing'a
further riskof.substaniiaLhaEm. Indeed,
as discusseilatermthiapreambletthe.
Agency is studying whether different
criteria or management standards (e.g.,
higher destructioiuand removal
efficiency for the incineration^ of these
wastes), are>appropriate- and practical.,
D. Listing: as-acutely hazardous
wastes.
• It is: clear front this: discussion, that.
these wastes have; the potential: to: cause;
substantial-harmi, if:mismanaged. The
Agency is further, convinced that these
are acutely hazardous wastes?under4Q.
CFR 261.H(a)(2),, sinca they contain
contaminants which;, when:teated hx
animals,t are among the mast toxic
contaminants kno.wn,, and thus:, are,
capable of causing,, or significantly -
contributing to: serioua irreversible;, or
incapacitating, reversible;, illness; ^This
standard is taken; directly front Section
1004(5) of RCRA,. and. is reservedfor
wastes;partic.ularly likely to pass a
substantiaL'risk to human health.;and the.
13Shaub,.W,,M. and-W. Tsang, SBhysicaland
chemical, pr.operties;of dioxinaan relation- ta their
disposaLPraceedings 2nd. International Symposium
onDioxins. Arlington, VA. October 1981.
"By means.of a site-speoifictexoiusibn petition, a
generator may beiablettb show, that a;was.le:daes •
not contain CDDs and/or CDFs at levels sufficient,
to sustain regulatory concern as. acutely hazardous:
. waste; Such levelstliowever; as well as the-
presence of cKlprophenols; or. chlorophenoxy
compounds; may, still render,such wastes
hazardous.
environment (see; preamble to Part 261,,.-
45 FR 33106, May 19,1980).
Additional rea'sqna for listing these.
waates as acutely hazardous ane, that
the wastes have^beeatimplicated' in a1
series of damage, incidents, among.them
the. incidents of Eove Canal and Times
Beach. The Agency also, has been
compelled to exert regulatory control
over many of these'wastes under the
Toxic Substances Control'Act in the
face of the unreasonable risk posed'by
ongoing and contemplated waste
management practices (see further
discussion in Part VI. below),
.The practical consequences of such*a
listing are two-fold":. First, these;wastes
will be subject to the 1 kg/month, small
quantity generator limitation contained
in40CFK'261;5(e).15 • -
The Agency deems-1kg to be
equivalent, for all practical purposes; to
total control of the management of these
wastes since, they are,genera±edJn
amounts far. greater than 1 kg. The
Agency solicits comments on.the . :
appropriateness, of'this limitation, f
however; Second,, the residues in empty.
containers,'that contain.these1 listed'
wastes are subject to control under
Subtitle C of RCRA, unless the container"
has been triple-rinsed using a solvent
capable o£cleaning the containeri.or,the
container has been otherwise, cleaned
by a method-thai has- been shown to
achieve equivaleirfTemoval. In addition,
as explained more fidlybelow, we are
proposing that;tfrese wastes be managpd;
only, at treatment,., storage; and disposal
facilities that"have been fullypermitted
under RCRA (except as. diacussed; in
Section Vn.). tt the-Agency's-judgment,
these wastes shoufd.be managed
pursuanttb the most stringent
appropriate standards that are: '
contained-in theRGRA hazardous-waate.
management regulations. ;
IV. Remo.vaL of Certain Commercial
ChemicaLPEoductSiListediin 4D GFR,
261.33J;f) ,
As-discussedin. the1 previous section,
the Agency is proposing tcplist-as
acutely hazardous those^unused
discarded* formulations1 containing tri-,
tetra-, or pentachlorophenol and
discarded forotnulations containing as
15 The Agency is proposing today ta amend this*
provision to apply hxalliaeutely/Kazardousiwastes,.-.'
notjustto.the, acutely, hazardous. wastes;listed,ini4D
CFR'2ai.33(ej: At the time §.261.5 waa written,, there
were no acutely-hazardous wastes-otherthan those
in § 261.33(e). Now. that we-are proposing:to.list
wastes in §261.31 aar'acutely, hazardous, weare:
proposing to,confornvthe.reference,to,acutely
hazardous waste in I 261.5. For theisame reason, we
are proposing to make the samer type":of conforming ,
change to § 261.!'(bJ^—the provision statingtwhen
containers, that hay Kheld:acutely: hazardous wastes'
are "empty." -...•' • , "
ingredients: co;mpounds derivedrfrom.
these Ghlorophenols.,Some of these
materials akeady are hazardous wastes
under 40 CFR ,261.33(f) when discarded
or intended for discard;in commercial
grade, technical grade> or off-
specification form, or when the toxicant
is present in formulations as the sole
. active uigredienL They were originally
listed as toxic, (rather, than acutely
hazardous) because the Agency djd not
at that time consider, the presence of
CDDs and GDFs. However, as?shown
above,: these formulations will contain ,
chlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurans,
because the chlorophenol or
chlorophehoxy derivatives will
themselves be contaminated with GDDs
and CDFs. For thia reason, we. are now
listmg them asVactutely hazardous: under'
40 CFR:261.11(a)(2).
Ta avoid lis;ting'the:samawaste?under
two different'(andihconsistent)
provisions, we are proposing to remove
EPA Hazardous Wastes U212, U230,
. U231, U232, U233, and U242"from 40 CFR
261.33(f). As a consequence; there
should:be no confusion that these •
wastes will be subject to a small
quantity generator exclusion of 1 kg/mo.
V. Regulatory Status of These Materials
When Recycled by Being Used or
Reused }__ ' • ;
. Qn May 19, l9ao,,EPA promulgated- a
definition, of, sijh'd, waste, which,, among
other things, slates, which materials are
solid wastes; when recycled.. In
promulgating. 1niarule,:EPAJestafalished
broad, jurisdiction over, recycled -v
materials. andLrecycling,pperations.,EPA
ia today proposing.in a separate, notice'
to revise thia rulato, state. that,certaih
types- of activitiea involving secondary
material use:a:adlreuse, do, not constitute
solid waste,m
-------
14S1»
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
They also contain significant levels of
hazardous constituents—CDDs and
CDFs—not ordinarily found in raw
materials or analogous commercial
products, nor would these toxicants
contribute to the efficacy of the
recycling practice. In addition, in light of
their toxicity and their environmental
persistence, these wastes could pose the
same potential for causing substantial
harm when used or reused as when
disposed. Since use or reuse would be
unregulated, the potential for harm in
fact 5s probably greater.16
Accordingly, we are proposing
elsewhere in today's Federal Register to
list these materials as solid wastes
when they are used or reused. As a
result, these wastes will remain subject
to regulation when transported and
stored under the Subtitle C regulations
even when recycled by being used or
reused as ingredients in new products,
or by being used or reused directly as
products.
VI. Relation of Today's Proposal to
Regulation of TCDD-Contaminated
Wastes Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act
Many wastes containing TCDD are
presently regulated under 40 CFR Part
775, a regulation issued under Section 6
of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)." This regulation, promulgated
on May 19,1980 (45 FR 32676), prohibits
the Vertac Chemical Company from
disposing of certain wastes containing
TCDD, and requires the company to
store and monitor these wastes until a
long-term management solution can be
determined. The regulation also requires
other persons intending to dispose of
TCDD wastes (defined as those resulting
from the production of 2,4,5-TCP or its
pesticide derivatives, or substances
produced on equipment that was
previously used for the production of
2,4,5-TCP or its pesticide derivatives) to
notify the Agency 60 days in advance of •
such disposal. The regulation does not
apply, however, "to persons disposing of
wastes containing TCDD at facilities
permitted for disposal of TCDD under
'*Wo note, however, that when secondary
miiloriiili that are derived from commercial
pesticides (such as rinse waters from pesticide
containers) are put to use as pesticides, they are not
considered to bo RCRA solid wastes. The Agency
constderti this activity to constitute continued use of
the pesticide, and so not to Involve waste
management. Any such use, of course, would have
to comply with requirements for-use of the pesticide
Imposed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
nnd Kucic nlicidc Act.
"The hazardous waste listings proposed today
are more inclusive than those regulated under
TSCA, including for example, wastes from the
production of certain letrachlorophcnols and
eftlorobcnzcnes.
Section 3005(c) of RCRA." (See 40 CFR
775.197.)
On January 5,1982, EPA issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) (47 FR 193),
anriouncing the Agency's intent to
review the TCDD disposal rule (40 CFR
775), and solicited comment to aid the
Agency in determining the most
appropriate long-term solution for
TCDD-contaminated wastes. Several
comments received on this ANPRM
stated that the regulation of treatment
and disposal of hazardous wastes
properly belongs under RCRA, and that
the Agency should avoid overlapping
and potentially contradictory
approaches to the same problem under
different regulatory authority, e.g., TSCA
and RCRA. Section 1006(b) of RCRA in
' fact provides that, in implementing the
Act, EPA "Shall avoid duplication" with
other statutes administered by the
Agency. Section 9(b) of TSCA provides
that the Agency must utilize its authority
under the other environmental laws it
administers where these laws are
adequate to prote'ct against
unreasonable risk, and where there is no
stong public interest in taking action
under TSCA.
EPA agrees that RCRA provides the
appropriate long-term solution for
controlling the management of TCDD-
contaminated wastes. The disposal rule
under TSCA was only meant as a
temporary solution. See 45 FR 32682.
EPA, in fact, acknowledged the
advantages of using RCRA, by providing
that final permits issued under RCRA
for disposal of TCDD-contaminated '
wastes would supersede the TSCA rule.
The rule proposed today under RCRA
will provide the safeguards of a final
permit, and will, therefore, render the
TSCA rule unnecessary.
. Accordingly, only the RCRA rule
becomes effective, EPA proposes to
revoke the TSCA rule that applies to
disposal of TCDD-contaminated wastes.
The basis for this revocation.js stated in
the following paragraphs.
EPA promulgated the TSCA rule
under Section 6(a) of that Act. Section ,
6(a) provides that EPA may prohibit or
otherwise regulate any manner or >
method of disposal of chemical
substances or mixtures if the Agency
finds that there is a reasonable basis to
conclude that such activities present or
will present "an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment."
Determining unreasonable risk involves
an administrative judgment which is
reached by balancing "the probability
that harm will occur and the magnitude
and severity of that harm against the
effect of proposed regulatory action on
the availability to society of the benefits
of the substance or mixture, taking into
account the availability of substitutes ,
for the substance or mixture which do
not require regulation, and other
adverse effects which such proposed
action may have on society." {TSCA
Legislative History at 422).
In the May 19,1980 regulation, EPA
determined that removal for disposal of
certain TCDD wastes at Vertac's
Jacksonville, Arkansas site would
present unreasonable risks. The Agency
found that maintaining drummed wastes
on-site, with monitoring, presented a
relatively, known and correctable risk,
while disposing of the wastes, as,
proposed by Vertac, posed a
substantially greater risk, particularly
where a case-spe'cific assessment on the
management of these wastesjiad not
been performed. (See Preamble to Final
Rule at 45 FR 32680; Preamble to
Proposed Rule at 45 FR 15595.) Similar
considerations led EPA to determine
that disposal of TCDD wastes by other
persons without prior notification to
EPA would present unreasonable risks. _
The. minimal costs of notifying EPA sixty
days before disposal, so that EPA could
evaluate the management scheme
proposed by the notifier, was
determined to be outweighed by the
risks of harm that could occur from
exposure to TCDD disposed of
improperly.
We now propose to regulate these
wastes under RCRA. On May 19,1980, •
EPA believed that the then existing :
RCRA regulations for treatment and
disposal of hazardous waste were not
appropriate for TCDD-contaminated
waste because EPA had not yet
developed final permit standards for
land disposal or incineration of
hazardous wastes. Thes,e final
regulations are not effective, and
provide a means of properly evaluating
the various management alternatives for
TCDD-contaminated wastes to ensure
that these wastes are managed in a
manner that does not present an '
unreasonable risk. Thus, when the rules
proposed today under RCRA become
final, it will no longer present an
unreasonable risk for these wastes to be
treated and disposed of in RCRA
facilities, and this will be the only legal
waste management option. Since
promulgation of these RCRA regulations
will vitiate the unreasonable risk finding
under TSCA, we will at the same time
revoke the TSCA May 19,1980
regulation.
It should be noted that,by doing this,
we are eliminating the 60-day
notification requirement under TSCA for
waste disposed at facilities not
-------
*. •- - • " ' . ' • " , ' ' ,
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65- '[ Monday, April 4, 1983 /Proposed Rules
14519
permitted under Section 3005(c) of
RCRA. However, when this rule
becomes effective, it will be illegal to
dispose of these wastes at facilities that
have not been fully permitted,
- Therefore, we believe the TSCA 60-day
notification requirement is unnecessary;
in addition, notification .under Section
3010(b) will still be required and thus,
the Agency will still be informed of who
is handUng these types of wastes.
We also believe that it will be less
confusing for the regulated community,
and more cost effective, both with
respecfto compliance and regulatory
enforcement, for waste'disposal to be
regulated under RCRA alone, rather
.than under both statutes! Moreover, the
technical expertise needed to issue
permits for these wastes is chiefly
within the Agency's office administering
RCRA. We consequently believe that
the public interest warrants rescission of
the TSCA rule once this RGRA
, regulation becomes effective.
VII. Proposed Management of These
Wastes
A. Management at RCRA Interim Status
Facilities "
As noted, the TSCA rule presently
does not allow these wastes to be
disposed or treated at interim status
facilities without prior approval,
bebause management of such waste at
• unscrutinized interim status facilities
ordinarily presents an unreasonable risk
(45 FR 32682). To avoid a decrease in
regulatory coverage, and in light of the
waste contaminants' high toxicity,
persistence, and potential to
bioaccumulate, we are proposing to
amend the RCRA regulations, except as
noted below, for landfills, waste piles,
surface impoundments, land treatment
facilities, and incinerators, to require
that these wastes be managed only at
fully permitted facilities. The reasons for
the unreasonable risk finding still hold.
Interim status incinerators need not
perform at 99,99% destruction and
removal efficiencies, or meet the other
performance standards contained in
Subpart O of Part 264. Interim status
landfills, waste piles, surface
impoundments, and land treatment
facilities need not meet the monitoring
requirements in Subpart F or many of
the design and operating standards of
Subparts K, L, M, and N of Part ,264 until
they are permitted. In addition, we
believe that any facility that manages
these wastes should be evaluated
individually by EPA before accepting
them in order to ensure that the facility
,is designed and operated properly. The
proposed regulation consequently
prohibits interim status facilities from
managing these wastes.
We have proposed three exceptions to
this prohibition. The first applies to
surface impoundments in which
wastewater treatment sludges .are
generated. The Agency has the authority
to prohibit interim status surface
impoundments from leceiving these .
wastes. If we propose this action,
however, .the facilities now generating
the listed wastewater treatment sludges
would probably have to close down
until they obtain permits for their
• impoundments, or build alternative
treatment facilities that can efficiently
tr-eat these wastes. The Agency is not
proposing this course of action; and
notes that Section 3004 of RCRA [as
amended by the Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments of 1980) specifically
allows the Administrator, in setting
standards for hazardous waste
management facilities, to distinguish :
between new and existing facilities.The
legislative history indicates that .'-
Congress was concerned with the costs
of.modifying existing wastewater
treatment impoundments installed to
meet Clean Water Act requirements
(although the Agency has the authority
to require such modification where
appropriate). See S. Rep. NO. 96-172, '.
96th Cong. 1st Sess., laf 3. We are
drawing this distinction in today's
proposal. -. .-'•'•
Allowing these wastewater treatment
sludges at hiterim status surface
impoundments in which they are
generated should be environmentally
. acceptable for the period until a permit
is issued. These sludges are expected to
contain lower concentrations of CDDs,
CDFs, and chlorophenols than the other
waste we are listing. The CDDs and
CDFs present also will be adsorbed to
the organic matter present; 'in addition,
we believe, that there should be little
chance that solubilizing solvents, -such,
as benzene, toluene, xylene, or
halogenated benzenes, will be present in
significant cdncentrations (since these
solvents have very limited water
solubility). This situation therefore
should not present a significant risk of
leaching. Risk of wind dispersal, one of .
the principal exposure pathways for
CDD and CDF-containing wastes which
are stored in open piles or disposed in
landfills, is not present for these
wastewater treatment sludges when
they are in an impoundment. "
. We are not proposing to allow other
interim status surface impoundments to
manage these sludges, however, because
other impoundments could contain
CDD- or CDF-solubilizing residues from
processes not related to chlorophenol or
chlorophenoxy manufacture. In addition,
manufacturing operations will not be
curtailed if these impoundments have, to .
• obtain permits before receiving these
wastes. - ' . . - '',-•-
For all of these reasons, therefore, we
are proposing to allow the listed
wastewater treatment sludges to be
managed .at the interim status surface
impoundments in which they are
generated. However, we expect, as a
first priority, ;to evaluate the Part B
permit applications* of those interim
status surface! impoundments that
manage these wastes, in order to
minimize any potential risk. In addition,
if monitoring data, or a review of site
management make it apparent that the
wastes cannot be prevented from
migrating, the. owner'or operator of the
facility will be required to remove the
waste from the surface impoundment.
The second exception is for interim "'
status tank arid container facilities, '
- which will be allowed to accept these
" wastes. These facilities, although not
providing maximum protection, do
provide control of these wastes to
prevent them from posing a substantial
environmental hazard or an
unreasonable risk since tanks or
containers at interim status facilities,
must meet most of the requirements
(e.g., storage in non-leaking units,
periodic inspections) required for fully
permitted tank and container facilities.
Therefore, theise facilities should
provide adequate management of these
wastes in the short term. However, we
do expect to give highest priority to
examining thei Part B'permit applications
of those interim status tank and
container storage' facilities that store
these wastes, in order to minimize any
potential risk.
The final exception is for enclosed
waste piles. An "enclosed waste pile" is
defined in this proposed rule as a pile
that meets the: requirements of
§ 264.250(c)—namely, that the pile is
inside a structure that provides
protection from run-on, precipitation,
and wind dispersal; does not generate
leachate, and does-not contain free
liquids. Under existing regulations, •
waste piles meeting these requirements
are exempt from the otherwise-
applicable permitting provisions of
Subpart L of Part 264 relating to ' •.
containment. (See 46 FR 55112,
November 6,1981.)
We are proposing that enclosed waste
piles be allowed to accept these wastes
' without first obtaining a permit because
enclosure of t]ais type will guard in the
short-term against ihe means of
exposure of concern—run-off,jwind
dispers'al, and leaching. In addition,
-------
14520
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
allowing this type of interim status
facility to accept these wastes should
help provide management capacity until
disposal facilities receive permits to
manage these wastes.
We are proposing that interim status
enclosed waste piles accepting these
wastes still must meet the remaining
applicable requirements of Subpart L of
Part 265: waste analysis, special
requirements for ignitable, reactive, or
incompatible wastes, and closure
requirements. (Post-closure
requirements would not be applicable
because we are assuming that these
wastes will be removed from these
piles.) We note, in addition, that to be
eligible for interim status, the facility
must have been fa existence on
November 19,1980, submitted a Part A
permit application, and (if required)
submitted a notification of hazardous
waste activity. (See § 122.23(a) and 45
FR 76836, November 19,1980.) Enclosed
piles added at interim status facilities
after November 19,1980, or accepting
these wastes after that date, may be
eligible for interim status provided they
meet the requirements for adding waste,
increasing design capacity, and
(possibly) adding a new management
process. (See § 122.23(c) (1), (2), and (3)
(permissible changes during interim
status)).
B. Management at Fully Permitted
RCRA Facilities
1, Management at fully permitted
landfills, waste piles, surface
impoundments, lagoons, and land
treatment facilities. Except as described
in the previous sections, the storage,
treatment, and disposal of these wastes
will be allowed only at fully permitted
RCRA landfills, surface impoundments,
waste piles that are not enclosed, and
land treatment facilities. Enclosed waste
piles that are permitted under Part 264
would not require a waste management '
plan prior to accepting these wastes.
(The Agency made this determination
because it judged that the means of
enclosure satisfies the concerns the plan
would address.)
In addition, before any of these
particular facilities can obtain a permit
and, thus, before it can accept any of the
wastes proposed to be listed today, it
must have a "waste management plan"
that is approved by the Regional
Administrator. EPA believes that the
inherent hazard of these wastes, and
their mismanagement history, warrants
regulatory controls on potential
migration above those contained in the
existing permit requirements. The
management plan will be the vehicle for
assuring individualized consideration
that the wastes will be managed safely.
The plan must be submitted by the
owner or operator "of the facility as part
of the permit application; it must
describe the potential for migration of
toxicants from the site via any media,
and, where migration is possible, it must
address measures to,be taken, over and
above the applicable permitting
requirement, to reduce migration of the
wastes or waste constituents.
At a minimum, the proposed plan
must address the volume and toxicant
'concentrations in the wastes to be
managed at the facility, the propensity
of toxicants to be emitted to the air
through volatilization or as aerosols or
dusts during placement of the wastes,
whether toxicants may migrate from or
with the wastes, whether the wastes
will be co-disposed with other materials
having mobilizing properties, and the
potential for soils to attenuate migrating
toxicants if the liner system (when one
is required by the regulations) is
damaged and breached. Where a"
potential for migration is identified, the
proposed plan must identify design
provisions and/or operating practices to
be adopted to prevent that migration. ' -
These design and operating features are
in addition to those that would-
otherwise be required by the
regulations. For example, if the facility
also disposes of dioxin solubilizing
solvents, the applicant may propose to
segregate the wastes to prevent contact. •
If leaching is possible, the applicant
might propose lining the unit or mixing
the waste with activated carbon, organic
sorbents, or other materials designed to
immobolize the migrating toxicants.
Whatever is proposed by the applicant
must be supported by data or a
technical rationale. The Regional
Administrator will evaluate whether
these additional management and
design features are adequate to prevent
migration.
As a general matter, the additional '
measures required under a waste
management plan will focus on control
measures not currently specifically
required by the Part 264 land disposal
regulations. For example, the plan may
include specific waste treatment •
processes that will reduce th&likelihood
that dioxin will migrate out of the unit.
In addition, the plan may include a
demonstration that siting factors (e.g.,
the attenuative properties of the soil
beneath the site) would operate to
control migration of dioxin. In most
cases, EPA does not believe that it will
be necessary to impose additional
structural requirements [e.g., liner
specifications) for the unit. The Agency
intends to provide detailed guidance for
the preparation of a waste management
plan for managing these wastes prior to
issuing this regulation in final form.
Waste management plans''will be ,
considered in.the normal course of the
permitting process, so that no special
EPA review probedures are required.
2. Management at fully permitted-
incinerators. As stated, we also are
' .proposing-to allow incineration of these
wastes only at fully permitted
incinerators. It is the Agency's view that
incineration often is a preferred ••
management option for these wastes,
because high temperature destorys the ,
chlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurans.
If incineration is not properly performed,
however, the original toxicants may be
released,undestroyed, or chlorinated
-dioxins, -dibenzofurans, biphenyls, and
-phenols can be formed from precursors
such as chlorinated biphenyls,
benzenes, and -phenols.
The proposed regulation, therefore,
allows these wastes to be burned only
at fully permitted RCRA incinerators
which have proven capability to assure
99.99??; DRE for principal organic
hazardous constituents (POHCs) which
are as difficult, or more difficult to -
incinerate than CDDs or CDFs.ls The
Agency judges that such a
demonstration of DRE is sufficiently
rigorous to ensure the proper
management of these wastes, and
therefore feels that it is not necessary to
require an additional management plan
for incinerator facilities treating these
wastes. , • ' •
3. Management at fully permitted tank
and container storage facilities. We also
have tentatively decided against
requiring fully permitted tank and
container storage facilities to have a
waste management plan approved by
the Regional Administrator, before
' storing these wastes. The current
storage regulations provide the Agency
with sufficient information to evaluate
the storage facility's ability to contain
these wastes. Therefore, an additional
management plan for tank and container
storage facilities storing'these wastes
appears unnecessry.
C. Other Management Options
Considered or These Wastes
1. Standards for Interim Status
Landfills, Waste Piles, Surface >
Impoundments, Land Treatment
Facilities, and Incinerators. The Agency
considered proposing a regulation that
would allow interim status land disposal
and.incineration facilities to manage
these wastes if they obtained prior
18 The requirements for trial burn permits are
described in 40 CFR 122.27. See also, "Guidance
manual for hazardous waste incinerator permits;
"U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, November 1982.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
14521
approval from the Regional •.
Administrator. It was felt that the
Agency could provide interim.status
facilities the same opportunities to
handle these wastes as are provided to
fully permitted facilities if the Agency
can be assured that such management
can be accomplished safely. The vehicle
to be used to assure individualized
consideration of prospective waste
management would be a waste
, management plan that would address
the factors outlined in the previous
section as well as other design and
operating conditions contained in the
Part 264 regulations, as deemed
appropriate by the Regional or State
officials. ' ."
The procedures we considered for '
approving a waste management plan
would be the same as, or similar to,
those for approving a closure plan. They
would allow for public participation on
the plan submitted by the facility, and
on a tentative decision (and a rationale
therefor) of the Regional Administrator.
The Regional Administrator could hold a
public hearing if he believed it would
aid in elucidating the issues.
However, the Agency .believes that
most interim status facilities probably
could not adequately manage these
wastes without significant changes. In
addition, the amount and detail of
information to be provided in the
'management plan could be almost
equivalent to the-information needed to
obtain a permit. For example, as part of
the waste management plan for
incineration,, the owner or operator of •
the incinerator would need to conduct a
trial burn to ensure that destruction and
removal efficiencies could be met. EPA
thinks it is unlikely that interim status
facilities would go to the expense of
preparing and receiving approval on a
plan, only to have to go through a later
permit proceeding when their Part B
application is processed.
However, the Agency solicits
comments on the desirability of allowing
• disposal and treatment of these wastes
at interim status facilities ,having an
approved management plan for these
wastes.
2. Additional Standards for Container
and Tank Storage Facilities. The •
Agency believes that container storage
facilities storing these wastes should
meet the moststringent requirements
under Part 2641 Present regulations
(Subpart I) do not require secondary
containment for non-liquid wastes [e.g,
tarry materials) if the storage area
slopes, or the container is elevated.
However, the A.gency believes that
secondary containment might
appropriately be required for container
storage areas that store all non-liquid •
CDD and CDF-contaminated wastes,,
due to the toxicity of these wastes, their
potential to ooze and to spill, and the
long time periods tfiese wastes may be
stored before a disposal or incinerator
treatment facility can be found that is
willing to accept these,wastes. (For
example, the wastes at the Vertac site
have been stored for many years",
despite the repeated attempts by the
company to find a disposal site.) This
requirement may be necessary to ensure
that any spillage or release of these
wastes is contained and not released
into the environment. The Vertac
damage incident, where improper
storage of these wastes was responsible
.for considerable harm, serves as an
, example of these wastes' potential for
harm if stored improperly. The Agency
therefore is considering a provision that
would require secondary containment at
container storage facilities that store
non-liquid CDD- and CDF-contaminated
wastes.' •
The Agency is also considering a
provision that would require secondary
containment at tank storage facilities
that stpre CDD- and CDF-contaminated
wastes, due to the wastes' toxicity and
the long periods of time they might be .•
stored. The damage incident .at Neosho,
Missouri, when a concrete tank holding
chlorophenolproductionstill bottoms (a
waste covered by this proposal) and
wastewater cracked, and caused
considerable contamination, illustrates
the potential for harm that s'econdary
containment could address. The Agency
solicits comment on the suitability of.-,
these two provisions. ,
3. Optional Standards Considered for
Permitted Incinerators. Under current
regulations, a facility which has shown
that it can achieve 99.99% ORE for . '
POHC's which are more resistant to
thermal degradation than are CDDs or
CDFs (such as carbon tetrachloride or
pentachlorophenol), may be permitted to
incinderate CDD or CDF-containing
.wastes without conducting an additional
trial burn or modifying its permit (40
CFR 264.342 and 264.343). Because of
theiriiazardousness, the Agency is
considering proposing that a facility
burning these wastes notify the Regional
Administrator of that fact. We are
-considering this requirement because it
is felt that Regional authorities might
wish to prioritize compliance monitoring
for facilities incinerating these wastes.
The Agency solicits comments 'on the
desirability of requiring notification to
the Regional Administrator on the part
of a facility that is burning CDD or CDF
wastes. •••;,..
4. Development of Special
Management Standards. The Agency is
considering the development of special
management standards for CDD/CDF-
contaminated wastes. For some wastes,
high temperature incineration might be
the preferre'd method of treatment,
whereas for other wastes lane! disposal
might be a better alternative, For the
latter, disposal at sites having particular
. hydrogeological iand topographic or
surface water characteristics might be •*
needed. The Agency is presently
reviewing these problems, arid may, for
example, propose incineration standards
that could require levels of destruction
and removal efficiency (DRE's) for these
wastes that ari» greater than the 99.99%"
DRE presently Required .under RCRA.
For some wastes, land disposal controls
ensuring the prevention of dust
formation could be imposed,, and for
some wastes the Agency could prescribe
the application of special technologies, ,
such as photodechlorination, or molten
salt or critical water oxidation, which
are known to cause the destruction of
chlorinated aromatics. such as CDDs.
The Agency solicits comment with
respect to the regulatory alternatives
discussed above, as well as any other ,
approaches which might realistically be
considered, j.- .
-• '• - •* '• ' ' • '
YHI. Analytical Method foETetra-, .
Penta-, and H«xachIoro-Dibenzo-p-
Dioxins and -Bibenzofurans .
In order to assist generators in the
determination of the contamination of
wastes with the above compounds, [e.g.,
for delisling purposes under §§260.20
and 260.22 of the RCRA regulations), the
Agency is proposing a method of
analysis for tetra-, penta-, and
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinsjirid- «-...-
-dibenzofurans (see Appendix A). The
method proposed in this regulation was
largely developed by!the workers at
Wright State University,; arid lias been
used for the analysis of TCDDs in. a
variety of wastes.19 If adopted, this ,-'
method will replace the method for
analysis of ,TCDD presently listed in the
solid waste test manual ("Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/
Chemical Methods", EPA publication
number SW-846). The present method is
inappropriate because it is not -.
sufficiently -sensitive, and.does not
sufficiently eliminate interfering,
substances. It also 'does not specify the
procedure -to lie followed for the
""Analytical protocol for determination of'
TCDDs in phenolic chemical wastes and soil
samples obtained from the proximity of chemical .
dumps", and "Analytical protocol for determination
of chlorinated .dibisnzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated
dibenzofurans in liver water", Brehm Laboratory,
Wright State University, Dayton, OH,45435, January
7,1982. These protocols are available in the Docket
for this listing. i .. » — .:, ,
-------
14522
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
analysis of the chlorinated
clibenzofurans.
The proposed method subjects the
sample to extraction with petroleum
ether (waste not amenable to petroleum
ether as an extractant, such as tar-like
or carbonaceous wastes, will require
extraction with other organic solvents,
such as toluene, hexane, or
dichloromethane).20The extract is
successively washed with alkali and.
acid, subjected to fractionation on
alumina, and the eluate is analyzed by
high-resolution gas chromatography,
using a capillary glass column, and by
low-resolution mass spectrometry. In
case ofmterference, the alumina eluate
is subjected to further cleanup with high
pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).
The Agency has chosen the proposed
method because it is the one that has
been most successfully applied to
chemical wastes. In addition, its
originators have indicated to the Agency
that it can be used for the analysis of
both CDDs and CDFs.2*-24For example,
the proposed method has been used for
the analysis of TCDD in chlorophenol
still bottoms, reactor residues, oxidation
pond sediments, cooling pond muds,
contaminated soils, and sludge samples.
The detection limit for TCDD
established in these different matrices
varied from 15 ppt (soils, 0.5 ppb
(cooling pond muds), and 1 ppb •;
(sludges) to 0.1-1300 ppb (still bottoms,
highly variable). The recovery of added
TCDD varied from 14-111 percent,
averaging 76 percent. In incinerator
stack effluents, the minimum detectable
quantity was 3.8 ng for CDDs and 3.5 ng
for CDFs, and the recovery of added
CDDs or CDFs averaged 80 percent.
IX. Questions for Comment
The Agency welcomes public
comment on all aspects of this proposed
rule. However, public comment is
especially solicited with respect to the
following questions.
1. Should EPA develop, for ODD or
CDF-containing wastes, a
""Capabilities on methodology for the analysis
of tclracJilorodibcnzo-p-dloxin", Baltelle Columbus
Laboratories, Columbus, OH 43201, August 10,1981.
" Dr. M. Taylor, Wright State University, to C.
Corcln, U.S. EPA, Report of analytical data
(December 8,1979).
*»Dr. T, O. Tieman. Wright State University, to D.
L, Rosengrcn. Viar and Company, Inc., Report on
sample analyses (Juno 1,1982].
**Dr. T, O. Tieman, Wright State University, to L.
Unas, Viar and Company, Inc., Report on sample
analyses (August 6,1982),
*4T. O. Tieman et al. Incineration of chemical
wastes containing polychlorinaled biphenyl;
assessment of tests conducted at Rollins
Environmental Services. Deer Park, Texas, and
Energy Systems Company, El Dorado, Arkansas. In:
Dcloxlcnlton of Hazardous Waste.}. H. Exner, Ed.,
Ann Arbor Science. 1982. pp 143-183.
"characteristic " definition of
hazardousness under Subpart C of
Section 261 of the RCRA regulations?
Instead of listing CDD/CDF-containing
wastes as hazardous under Subpart D of
the Part 261 regulations, EPA considered
an alternative approach, namely,
identifying such wastes as
"characteristic" hazardous wastes under
Subpart C of Part 261. This approach
would oblige the Agency to make a
generic determination as to the lower
level of concern regarding CDD/CDF
contamination, and would then require
generators to either analyze or estimate
the amount of CDD's or CDF's in a
waste (by actual analysis or, for
example, from a knowledge of reaction :
chemsistry, process technology, and
chemical engineering principles).
The Agency judged that this approach,
although at first glance appealing
because of its apparent simplicity,
would not be a suitable regulatory
alternative. It would require that the
Agency set a concentration (as in the EP
hazardous waste characteristic) defining
the level at which CDD's and CDF's
constitute a minimum level of concern.
Heretofore, EPA has not attempted to
set a lower limit for the concentration of
a toxicant of concern in a waste, except
in a limited manner. Instead, EPA has
made qualitative assessments in
determining-that certain wastes should
be listed in the RCRA regulations
because they present a potential threat
to human health and the environment, if
mismanaged.
Because of the high^acute and chronic
toxicity properties of many of the CDD's
and CDF's, as evidenced in animal
studies, the Agency considered that, if a
lower limit of concern were to be
developed it would be very low.
Additionally, because biological
availability of these toxicants is
expected to be dependent on waste
matrix characteristics, it was felt that a
generic risk estimation for all wastes
would be extremely difficult-to. perform.
One alternative was to set thg lower
limit at the limit of detection of CDD's <
and CDF's in the waste. However, this is
not a fixed concentration. As outlined
above, the limit of detection is'sample
and matrix-dependent. Since industrial
wastes are' highly variable, it may not be
realistic to establish generally
applicable standards for the level of
detection, recovery, and reproducibility
for the analytical determination of
CDD's and CDF's in these wastes.
• Within the above limitations, the
Agency could nevertheless set a lower
level of concern for the concentration of
CDD's and CDF's in these wastes. The
Agency solicits comment on the
advisability, practicality, and
desirability of doing so. If a lower level
of concern is to be established, at what
level should it be set, and how .could this
level be justified?
2. Analytical Methodology—The •
Agency solicits comment on the
proposed method of analysis for CDD's
and CDF's; in particular, evidence that
some extraction media may be more
efficacious than others for particular
wastes. The Agency considered whether
it might be useful to develop a method of
analysis that would be less detailed,
and therefore less expensive, than that
proposed, since a high degree of
specificity with respect to isomeric,
content is not necessary in the present
instance. For delisting purposes, for
instance, it might be sufficient for,a
petitioner to show that a waste does not
contain any CCD's or CDF's—even
though, for example,- dichloro- or hepta-
and octachlorodioxins are present. The
Agency solicits comments with respect
to the usefulness, practicability, and
cost, for instance, of a GC/MS
analytical method which would detect
total CDD's and CDF's at low levels in a
waste in one analytical determination.
3. Wastes resulting from
manufacturing processes conducted on
equipment contaminated with CDD's or
CDF's—The Agency is proposing to list
as hazardous, wastes resulting from
processes conducted on equipment
previously used for a manufacturing
process that generated CDD's or CDF's,
A generator could legitimately question
how this regulation can be enforced:
how can they know whether the
equipment in question was previously
used for these processes? The Agency
considers that a demonstration of
historical knowledge would be deemed
sufficient for this purpose (45 FR 32678
(May 19,1980); see also the Listing
Background Document). If historical
records are not available, or inaccurate,
analysis of .the listed wastes on several
occasions for total CDD'S and CDF's
would be sufficient to establish their
absence. The Agency solicits comments
on the appropriate historical records
and time periods to be used, and the
appropriate analytical detection limit to
be used if historical records are not
available.
4. Identification of commercial
chemical products subject to this listing.
The Agency is concerned that some
users of commercial chemical products
may not be able to identify which
commercial chemical products contain
tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol, or their
chlorophenoxy derivative acids, esters,
and amine salts, and which, therefore,
would be regulated (when discarded) as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 /Proposed Rules
44523
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F023.
Although the FIFRA regulations (40 CFR
162) do require that active ingredients
be identified by their chemical name or
by a usual common name, and an EPA
publication ("Accepted common names
and chemical names for the ingredient
statement on pesticide labels", EPA 540/
. 9-7-017) is available to aid in their
chemical identification, these aids may
not convey sufficient information to the
unsophisticated user. Non-pesticide
products may also be hard to identify.
Therefore, the Agency is considering
various mechanisms to solve this
potential problem (i.e., labeling
requirements for manufacturers, . - ..
publishing a list of all products which
contain these compounds, etc.).The
Agency solicits comment on this "
potential problem.
5. Wastes which may contain CDDs
and CDFs but which are not covered by
the present regulation. The Agency has
some data indicating that wastes, other
than those covered by this proposal,
may contain CDDs and CDFs. This may
be the case, for instance for residuals
such as fly ash from low temperature
combustion of certain industrial wastes
(especially of wastes containing
chlorophenols, or chlorobenzenes);
residuals from dichlorophenol
manufacture; and sludges from wood
preserving using pe'ntachlorophenols. In
the case of the first two wastes,
although the Agency, on the grounds of
knowledge of reaction chemistry and
process technology, believes this may be
the case, it lacks sufficient data to
support this supposition. For this reason,
studies are being conducted in order to
gather more data. These "wastes may be
listed at a future date if further evidence
demonstrates that they indeed are
hazardous. "
With regard to waste from wood
preserving, we are presently
investigating whether additional wastes
from this process should be listed as
hazardous, and whether CDDs and
CDFs should be constituents of concern
in the process wastes already listed
(EPA Hazardous Waste K001,
Wastewater treatment sludges). Pending
completion of those studies we may take
further regulatory action. •
X. Economic, Environmental, and
Regulatory Impacts
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must "determine whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subjept to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact •
Analysis. The effect of the present
amendment is judged not to be major,
since it in part replaces regulation under
a different statute (Section B(d) of the
Toxic Substances ControlAct), and
imposes an additional regulatory burden
only on three manufacturers, of' '•':
chlorophenols, and five manufacturers
of chlorophenols and their
chlorophenoxy derivatives. In addition,
some number of manufacturers who use
equipment that may be contaminated
with CDDs or CDFs may also have
additional regulatory burden. However,
we presume that this part of the
regulation is unlikely to affect many
additional manufacturers ;other than the
eight referred to above. La addition, this
regulation imposes a regulatory burden
on perspns or entities discarding some
unused formulations containing tri-,
te{ra-, or pentachlorophenol or unused
"formulations containing compounds
'derived from these phenols. The
disposal of many of these formulations,
however, is already regulated under
§ 261.33 of RCRA. Additionally, because
of their inherent value, we do not
believe that the regulated community
will usually discard substantial
quantities of these materials, further
minimizing any.impact.
In addition, we believe that there will
be no adverse impact on the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets. Therefore, since the
Agency does'not expect that the
proposed action will result in either an
effect oh the^economy of $100 million or
more, or an adverse impact on U.S.
based enterprises, this "proposed
regulation is not considered to be a"
major action. Because this proposed
amendment is not a major regulation, no
Regulatory Impact Analysis has been
conducted. • '-.-..."
This amendment was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA, and any EPA ,
responses to those comments are
available for public inspection in Room
S-269CatEPA. ,
B. RegulatoryFlexibility Act
Pursuant tq the Regulatory Flexibility.
Act, 5 U.S.Gy§ 601 etseq., whenever an"
agency is required to publish a general ~"
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must,prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small.
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
head of the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. (•' ,
' Only one of the hazardous wastes"
proposed to b« listed in § 261.31 is,
expected to be generated by small
entities. The Agency anticipates that
pesticide aerial applicators will
constitute the main segment/of small
business entitj.es affected by this
regulation.25However, these.persqns are
probably already regulated under RCRA
since a large number of pesticides (both
acutely hazardous and toxic) are
currently covered by existing '
regulations. Therefore; we would riot
expect any aerial applicators to be
newly regulateid as a result of this rule..
In addition, thie Agency does not believe
that small entities will dispose of
significant quantities of the commercial
chemical products proposed for ;
regulation. Thus, today's amendment is
• unlikely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation therefore does
not .require a regulatory flexibility
analysis. • ,'," ' •
C. Paper Reduction Act of1980
The reporting orrecordkeeping ;
(information) provisions in this rule will
be submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
under Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, U.S.G. 3501 et
seq. Any final rule will explain.how its
reporting or rebordkeeping provisions
respond to any OMB or public
comments. ii ' •
XII. Rulemaking Record
The public docket for 40 CFR Part 775
is located in Room E-107 at the address
listed for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the address section
of this preamble. The entire rulemaking
docket for the'rale being proposed today
is included in ihe record for 40 CFR Part
775. EPA will identify the complete
rulemaking record for 40" CFR part 775
on or before the date of repeal. EPA will
consider any time between the ~
publication of this notice and the date
the Agency ideintifies'thelinal record.
XII List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
' • .1 .'.'-,
Hazardous materials, Waste
treatment and disposal, Recycling. -
25 Farmers may also generate some of these
wastes—discarded unused fonnulations—however,
farmers are exempt from regulation provided the
waste pesticides are from their own.use and are
disposed of on their own farm rn a manner '
consistent with the disposal instructions on the
pesticide label. Therefore, we,do not expect farmers
•to. be severely impacted.
-------
14524
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65"/ Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting requirements,
Security measures, Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 265
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting requirements,
Security measures, Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 775
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials, Pesticides and pests, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated: March 21,1983.
John W. Hernandez,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, it is proposed to amend Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for Part 261
reads as follows:
AuUiority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and .,
3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended [42 U.S.C.
6905,0912(a), 6921, and 6922).
2. In § 261.5, paragraphs (e)(l) and
(e)(2) are revised to read as follows:
§ 261.S Special requirements for
hazardous waste generated by small
quantity generators
* * * *° *
(e) * * *
(1) A total of one kilogram of acutely
hazardous wastes listed in §§261.31,
281.32, or 261.33(e).
(2) A total of 100 kilograms of any
residue or contaminated soil, waste or
other debris resulting from the cleanup
of a spill, into or on any land or water,
of any acutely hazardous wastes listed
in §§261.31,261.32, or 261.33(e).
3. In §261.7, the introductory text of
paragraphs (b)(l) and(b)(3) is revised to
read as follows: -"
§261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in
empty containers.
* * * * *
(b)(l) A container or an inner liner
removed from a container that has held
any hazardous waste, except a waste
that is a compressed gas or that is
identified as an acutely hazardous
waste listed in §§261.31 261.32, or
261.33(e) of this chapter is empty if:
*****
3. A container or an inner liner
removed from a container that has held
an acutely hazardous waste listed in
§§261.31 261.32, or 261.33(e) is empty if: -
4. In §261.31, add the following waste
streams:
§261.31 Hazardous waste from
nonspecific sources.
Industry and EPA
hazardous waste
.' no.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
Generic:
F020....
F021..
F022....
F023
. Wastes (except wastewater , (H).
and spent carbon from hy-
.drogen chloride purification)
from the production or
manufacturing use (as a
reactant, chemical interme-
diate, or component in a
formulating process) of tri-,
tetra-. or 'pentachloro-
phenol, or of intermediates
used to produce their de-
rivatives. (This listing does
not include wastes from the
production of Hexachloro-
phene from highly purified
2,4,5-trichlorophenol.:
. Wastes " (except wastewater (H).
and spent carbon from hy-
drogen chloride purification)
from the manufacturing use
(as a reactant, chemical in-
termediate, or component
in a formulating process) of
tetra-, penta-, or hexachlor-
obenzenes under alkaline
conditions.
. Wastes (except wastewater (H).,
and spent carbon from hy-
drogen chloride purification)
from the production of ma- ,
terials on equipment previ-
ously used for the produc-
tion or manufacturing use
(as a reactant, chemical in- ,
termediate or. component in
a formulating process) of
materials listed under F020 .
and F021..
Discarded unused formula- '(H).
tions containing tri-, tetra-,
or pentachlorophenot or
discarded unused formula-
tions containing compounds
derived from these chloro-
phenols.
5. In § 261.33(f), remove the following
waste streams:
§ 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species,
container residues, and spill residues
thereof.
Hazardous
waste No,
Substance
U212
U212
U230
0530.
U231.
U231.
U232.
U232.
U233.
U233.
U242.
U242,
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.
Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetracholorq'-. -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol. V
Phenol, 2.4,5-trichloro-.
2.4,6-lrichlorophenol.
Phenol, 2,4,6-trichlorq-.
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid.
2,4,5-T.
'Silvex.
Proptonic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-.
Pentachlorophenol.
Phenol, pentachloro-. - ' ,
6. Amend Table I in Appendix III of
Part 261, by removing the entry
"chlorinated dibenzodiqxins", and
adding the following entries in
alphabetical order:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 /^Proposed Rules
14525
Appendix III—Chemical Analysis Test Methods
* . ~ * ' * / * "••- * ' *
TABLE 1 .—ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS
\ Measurement, techniques
Compound
Sample handling class/fraction
Non-GC
methods GC/jyS
Conventional -
GC
Detector
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins.'. Extractable/BN..,
Chlorinated dibenzofurans : Extractable/BN...
8280
8280
7. Add the following entries in numerical order to Appendix VII of Part 261:
Appendix VII—Basis for Listing Hazardous Wastes -
EPA
hazardous
waste No. .
Hazardous constituents for which listed
EPA_
hazardous
. waste No.
Hazardous constituents for which listed
. tetra-i penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-
"dioxins; tetra-, penta-, and- hexachlorodi-
benzofurans; and tri-, tetra-, and penta-
chlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy.
derivative acids, esters, .and amine salts..
tetra-, penta-, 'and hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins; tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodi-
benzofurans; and trK tetra-, and penta-
'chlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy
derivative acids, esters, and amine salts.
tetra-, penta-, and hexachlbrodibenzo^-
dioxins; tetra-, • penta-, and hexachlorodi-
benzofurans; and tri-, tetra^,'and penta:
• chlorophehols and their chlorophenoxy
' .derivative acids, esters, and amine salts.
tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins; tetra-, penta-; and hexachlorodi-
benzofurans; and tri-, tetra-, and penta-
- chlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy
derivative acids, esters, and amine salts.
8, Add the following constituents in alphabetical order to Appendix VIII of
Part 261: - . • -
. Appendix VIH—Hazardous Constituents
•* * * * * . ' '
hexachlorodibenzp-p-dioxins ~" ." "'...-'..'•••
hexachlorodibenzofurans .
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins - . -
pentaehlorodibenzofurans
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ' ...
tetrachlorodibenzofurans , .
9! Appendix IX is added to Part 261 to
read as follows:
Appendix IX—Method of Analysis for
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -
dibenzofurans1234 '- -
-Method 8280
1t Scope and Application. •
'This method is appropriate for the analysis of
tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins' and -dibenzofurans,
2Analytical protocol for determination of TCDDs
in'phenolic chemical wastes and soil samples
obtained from the proximity of chemical dumps.
T.O. Tiernan and M. Taylor. Brehm Laboratory,
Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435.
Analytical protocol for determination of
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated
dibenzofurans in river water. T.O. Tiernan and M. •
Taylor. Brehm Laboratory, Wright State University,
Dayton, OH 45435.
••In general, the techniques that should be used to
handle these materials are those which are followed
for radioactive .or infectious laboratory materials.
Assistance in evaluating laboratory practices may
be obtained from industrial hygienists and persons
specializing in safe laboratory practice. Typical
1.1 This method covers the determination
of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
chlorinated dibenzofurans in chemical
wastes including still bottoms, filter aids, .
sludges, spent carbon, and reactor residues,
and'in soils. ,
1.2 The sensitivity of this method is
dependent upon the level of interferences.
1.3 This method is recommended for use
:ohly by analysts experienced with residue
analysis and skilled in mass spectral"
analytical techniques.
1.4 Because of the extreme toxicity of
these compounds, the analyst must take
necessary precautions to prevent exposure to
himself, or to others, of materials known or
•beleved to contain CDDs or CDFs.
infectious waste'incinerators are probably not
satisfactory devices for disposal of materials highly
contaminated with GDDs or CDFs. A laboratory
planning to use these compounds should prepare a
disposal plan to be reviewed and approved by
EPA's Dioxin Task Force [Contact Conrad Kleveno,
WH-548A, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460).
2. Summary of the Method.
2.1 This method is an analytical
extraction cleanup procedure, and capillary
column gas chromatographty-low resolution
mass spectrometry method, using capillary
column GC/MS conditions and internal
" standard techniques, which allow for the
measurement of PCDDs and PCDFs in the '
exjract. j . : ' . , .
2.2 ' If interferences are encountered, the *
method provides selected general purpose -'
cleanup procedures to aid the analyst in, their
elimination. ,;'; •''-.'''
3. Interferences.
•3.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and
- other sample processing hardware may yield
discrete artifacts and/or elevated bas*eljnes
causing misinterpretation of gas .
chrdmatograms. All of these materials must -
be'demonstated to be free from interferences
under the conditions of .the analysis by
running method blanks.. Specific selection of
, reagents and purification of solvents by
distillation in all-glass systems may be
required. ; ' ' • '. •• '
3.2 Interferences co-extracted from the
samples will vary considerably from source
to^source, depending upon the diversity of the
industry being sampled. PCDD is often
associated with other interfering chlorinated
compounds such as PCB's which may be at
concentrations several orders of magnitude
higher than that of PCDD. While general
cleanup techniques are provided as part of
this method, unique samples'may require
additional cleanup approaches to.achieve the
sensitivity stated in Table 1.
3.3 The other isomers of
tetrachlorodibenzo-prdioxin may interfere
with the measurement of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. •"
Capillary column gas chrpmatography is
required to resolve those isomers that yield /
.virtually identical mass fragmentation
patterns. !i •
•- 4. Apparatus and Materials. . . •.
4.1 Sampling equipment for discrete or
composite sampling. '
4.1.1 Grab sample bottle—:amber glass, 1-
liter or 1-quart volume. French or Boston _
Round design is recommended. The container
must be washed and solvent rinsed before
use to minimize interferences. *
4.1.2 Bottle caps—threaded to screw on to'
the sample bottles. Caps must be lined with
Teflon. Solvent washed foil, used with the
shiny side towards the sample, may be
substituted for the Teflon if sample is not
corrosive. -. : ' •
4,1.3 Compositing equipment—automatic
or manual compositing system. No tygon>or •
rubber tubing may be. used, and the system
must incorporate glass sample containers for
the collection of a minimum of 250 ml. Sample
containers must be kept refrigerated after •
sampling. ." . • . '
4.2 Water bath—heated, with concentric
ring cover, caipable of temperature control (±
2° C). The bath sho.uld be use'd in a hood.
4.3 Gas cliromatograph/mass
spectrometer data system •
4.3.1 Gas chromatograph: An analytical
system with a temperature-programmable gas
chromatograph and all required accessories
including syringes, analytical columns, and
-------
14526
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 / Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
4.3,2 Column: SP-2250 coated an a 30 m
long x 0,25 mm LD. glass column [Supelco No.
2-3714 or equivalent). Class capillary column.
conditions; Helium carrier gas at 30 cm/sec
linear velocity run spliUeas. Column
temperature ia 210* C.
4.3.3 Mass spectrometer: Capable of
scanning from 35 to 450 amu every 1 sec or
lass, utilizing 70 volts (nominal) electron
energy in the, electron impact ionization mode
and producing a mass, spectrum which meets
all the criteria in "table 2 when 50 ng. of
decafluorotriphenyl-phosphme (DFIPP) is
injected through the GC inlet The system
must also be capable of selected ion
monitoring (SIM] for at least 4 ions
simultaneously, with, a cycle time of 1 sec or
less. Minimum integration time for SIM is 100
ms. Selected ion monitoring ia verified by
injecting .015 ng of TCD0 Cl" to give a
minimum signal to noise ratio of 5 to 1 at
mass 320.
4.3.4 GC/MS interface: Any GC-to-MS
interface that gives acceptable calibration
points at 50 ng per injection for each
compound of interest and achievea
acceptable tuning performance criteria [see
Sections O.t-6.3) may be used. GC-to-MS
interfaces constructed of alt glass or glass-
lined materials are recommended. Glass can
be deactivated by silanizing with
dichlorodimethyfsilane. The interface must be
capable of transporting at least 10 ng of the
components of interest from the GCto the
MS.
4.3.5 Data system: A computer system
must be interfaced to the mass: spectrometer.
The system, must allow the continuous
acquisition and storage on machine-readable
media of all mass spectra obtained
throughout the duration of the
chromatogiaphic program. The computer
must have software that can search any GC/
MS data file for ions of a- specific mass and
that can, plot such ion abundances versus
time or scan number. This type of plot is
defined as an Extracted Ion Current Profile
(EICP), Software must also be abler to
integrate the abundance, to any EICP,
between specified time or scan number
limits.
4.4 Pipettes-Disposable, Pasteur, 150-mm
long x 5 mia ID (Fisher Scientific Co., No. 13-
678-6A oruqulvalent).
4.5 Flint glass bottle- (Teflon-Kned screw'
cap).
4.0 Reaoti-vital (sllanfaed} (Pierce
Chemicat Co.).
5. Reagents.
5.1 Potassium- hydroxide-(ACSI, 2 percent
in distilled water.
5.2 Sulfuric acid-{ACS), concentrated.
5.3 Methylcne chloride, hexane, benzene,
petroleum either, methenol, tebradecane-
pcsticide quality or equivalent.
5.4 Stock standards in a glovebox,
prepare stack standard solutions- of TCDD
and Ct-TCDD (molecular weight 328), The
slock solutions are stored in a glovebox, and
checked frequently for signs of degradation
or evaporation, especially fust prior to the
preparation: of working' standards.
5.5 Aluinina-basic, Woelm; 80/200 mesh.
Before use activate overnight at 600'C, cool to
room temperature in a dessicator.
5.0 Prepurified nitrogen gas
6.0 Calibration.
6.1 Before using any cleanup procedure,
the analyst must process a series of
calibration standards through the procedure
to validate elution patterns and the absence
of interferences fronr reagents.
6.2 Prepare GC/MS. calibration standards
for the internal standard technique that will
allow for-measurement of relative response
factors of at least three TCDD/a7Cl-TCDD
and TCDF/3'C1-TCDF ratios.5 The 3'C1-
TCDD./E concentration in the standard
should ba fixed and selected to yield a
reproducible response at the most sensitive
. setting of the mass spectrometer.
&.3 Assemble the necessary GC/MS
apparatus and establish operating
parameters equivalent to those indicated in
Section 11.1,of this method. Calibrate the
GC/MS system according to Eichelberger» et
al. (19Z5J by tha use of decafluorotriphenyl
phosphine (DFTPP). By injecting calibration
standards, establish the response factors for
CDDs vs. S4C1-TCDF. The detection, limit
provided in Table 1 should be verified by '
infecting jQ15 ng of '"Cl-TCDD which should
give a minimum signal to noiae ratio of 5 to 1
at mass 320.
7. Quality Control.
7.1 Before processing any samples, the
analyst should demonstrate through the
analysis of a distilled water method blank,
that all glassware and reagents are
interference-free. Each time a set of samples
is extracted or thera is a change ia reagents,
a method blank should be processed as a
safeguard against laboratory contamination.
7.2 Standard quality assurance practices
must be used with this method. Field
replicates must be collected to validate the
precision of the sampling technique.
Laboratory replicates must be analyzed to
validate the precision of the analysis.
Fortified samples must be analyzed to
establish the assuracy of the analysis.
8. Sample Collection, Preservation, and
Handling. ' ,
8.1 Grab and composite samples must be
collected in glass containers. Conventional
sampling practices should be followed,
except that the bottle must nnt heprewashed
with sample-before collection^ Composite
samples should be collected in glass -
containers, ia accordance with, the
requirements of the RCRA program. Sampling
equipment must be free of tygon and other
potential sources of contamination.
8.2 The samples must be iced of,
refrigerated from the time, of collection, until
extraction. Chemical preservatives siould
not be used in. the field unless more, than 2.4:
hours will elapse before delivery to the
laboratory. If an aqueous sample is faken and
the sample will not be extracted within 49
hours of collection, the sample should be
adjusted to a: ptf range of 6.0-S.O with sodium
hydroxide or sulfuric; acid.
5 "'Cl-labelled TCDD and TCDF are available
from K.O.R. Isotopes, Cambridge, MA. Proper
standardization requires tbff tree of a specific
labelled iaomer for each congener to be determined.
However, the only labelled fsomers readily-
available are a7Gt-2;3,Z,8-TCDDand37Cl-2,3,?,8-
TCDF. Tints method therefore uses ffieseisomere as
surrogates for the CDDs ancf CDFs. Wfieir labelled
CDDs and CDFs are airailabre, their use^will be
required.
8.3 All samples must be extracted with 7
days and completely analyzed within 30 days
of collection.
9. Extraction, and Cleanup Procedures.
9.1 Use an aliquot of 1-10 g sample of the
chemical waste or soil to be analyzed. Soils
should be dried using a stream of prepurified
nitrogen and pulverized in a ball-mill or
similar device. Transfer the sample to a tared
125 ml flint glass bottle (Teflon-lined screw
cap] and determine the weight of the sample..
Add an appropriate quantity of 37Cl-lahelled
. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (adjust the quantity according
to the required minimum detectable '
concentration), which is employed aa an
internal standard.
9.2 Extraction.,
9.2.1 Extract chemical waste samples by
adding-10" ml methanol, 40" ml petroleum
ether, Sttml doubly distilled water, and then.
shaking the mixture for 2 minutes. Tars-
should be completely dissolved in any of the
recommended neat solvents. Activated
carbon samples rouat he extracted with
benzene usingmathad 3540, in SW-846 (Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste—
Physical/Chemical Methods, available from,
G.P.O. Stock #055-Q02r810Ql-2).
Quantitatively; transfer the organic extract or
dissolved sample, to a. clean. 250. ml flint glass
bottle (Teflon lined screw cap), add 50 ml
doubly distilled water and shakefor 2
mmutes. Discard tha aqueous layer and
proceed" with Step 9.3.
9.2.2 Extract soil samples by adding 40 ml
of petroleum ether, to the sample, and then
shaking for 20 minutes. Quantitatively
transfer the organic extract to a clean 250 ml
flint glass bottle (Teflon-lined screw cap)v •
add 50 ml doubly distilled water and shake
for 2 minutes. Discard the aqueous: layer: and
proceed with Step 9.3.
9.3 Wash the organic layer with 50 ml; of -
20% aqueous potassium hydroxide by shaking1
for 10 minutes and then remove and discard
the aqueous layer.
9.4 Wash the organic layer with 50 ml of
doubly, distilled water by shaking for 2
minutes and discard the aqueous layer.
9.5 Cautiously add 50. ml concentrated
sulfuric acid and shake for 10 minutes'. Allow
the mixture to stand until layers- separate
(approximately 10 mmutes), and remove and
discard the acid layer. Repeat acid washing
until no color is visible lathe acid layer.
9.6 Add 50 ml of doubly distilled' water to
the organic extract and shake for 2 minutes-.
Remove and discard the aqueous layer and
dry the organic layer by- adding; lOg of
anhydrous sodium sulfate. '
9.7 Concentrate the extract tot incipient
dryness by heating in a 50,° C water bath and
simultaneously flawing, a. atream of
prepurified: nitrogen aver/ the extract.
Quantitatively transfer the residue taan
alumina microcolumn1 fabricated as follows:
9.7.1 Cat off the top-section of a 10 ml
disposable Pyrex pipette at the 4.0 ml mark
and insert a plugof silanized.glasa wool inta •
the tip of the lower, portion of the pipette.
9.7.2 Add 2.8g of Waelnt basic alumina
(previously activated at 600* C, overnight and
then cooted tO-room temperature in a
desiccator just prior to use).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 /Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules •
14527
9.8 Elute the microcolumn with 10 ml o.f
3% methylene chloride-in-hexane followed by
15 ml of 20% methylene chloride-in-hexane
and discard these effluents. Elute the column
with 15'ml of 50% methylene chloride-in-
hexane and concentrate this effluent [55° C
water bath, stream of prepurified nitogren) to
about 0.3-0.5 ml,
- 9.9. Quantitatively transfer the residue '
(using methylene chloride to rinse the
container) to a silanized Reacti-Vial (Pierce
Chemical Co.). Evaporate, using a stream of
prepurified nitrogen, almost to dryness, rinse
the walls of the vessel with approximately 0.5
ml methylene chloride, evaporate just to
dryness, and tightly cap the vial. Store the
vial at 5°C until analysis, at which time the
sample is reconstituted by the addition of
tridecane. "
9.10 Approximately 1 hour before GC—MS
(HRGC-LRMS) analysis, dilute the residue in
the micro-reaction vessel with an appropriate
-quantity of tridecane. Gently swirl the
tridecane on the lower portion of the vessel
to ensure dissolution of the CDDs and CDFs.
Analyze a sample by GC/EC to provide
insight into the complexity of the problem,
and to determine the manner in which the
mass spectrometer should be used. Inject an
appropriate aliquot of'the sample into the
GC-MS instrument, using a syringe.
9.11 If, upon preliminary GC-MS analysis,
the sample appears to contain interfering
substances which obscure the analyses for
CDDs and CDFs, high performance liquid
chromatographic (HPLC) cleanup of the
extract is accomplished, prior to further GG-
MS analysis.
" 10. HPLC Cleanup Procedure.
10.1 Place approximately 2 ml of hexane
in a 50 ml flint glass sample bottle fitted with
a Teflon-lined cap.
10.2 At the appropriate retention time,
position sample bottle to collect the required
fraction. ' ,
10.3 Add 2 ml of 5% (w/v) sodium
carbonate to the 'sample fraction collected
and shake for one minute.
10.4 Quantitatively remove the hexane
layer (top layer) and transfer to a micro-
reaction vessel.
10.5 Concentrate the fraction to .dryness
and retain for further analysis.
11. GC/MS Analysis
11.1 The following column conditions are
recommended: Glass capillary column
conditions: SP-2250 coated on a 30 m long X
0.25 mm I.D. glass column (Supelco No. 2--
3714, or equivalent) with helium carrier gas'at
30 cm/sec linear velocity, run splitless.
Column temperature is 210°C. Under these
conditions the retention time for TCDDs is
about 9.5 minutes. Calibrate the system daily
with, a minimum, three injections of standard
mixtures. ,
11.2 Calculate response factors for
standards relative to 37C1-TCDD/F (see
Section 12).
11.3 Analyze samples with selected ion
monitoring of at least two ions from Table 3.
Proof of the presence of CDD or CDF exists if
the following conditions are met;
11.3.1 The retention time of the peak in
the sample must match that in the standard,
within the performance specifications of the
analytical system. - •
11.3.2 The ratio df ions must_agree within
10% with that of the standard.
11.3.3 The retention time of the peak
maximum for the ions of interest must
exactly match that of the peak.
11.4 Quantitate the CDD and CDF peaks
from the response relative to the 37C1-TCDD/
F internal standards. Recovery of the internal
: standard should be greater than 50 percent.
11.5 If a response is obtained for the
appropriate set of ions, but is outside the :
expected ratio, a co-eluting impurity may be
suspected. In this case, another set of ions •
" characteristic of the GDD/CDF molecules
should be analyzed. For TCDD a~good choice •
of ions is m/e 257 and m/e 259. For TCDF a
good choice of ions is m/e 241 and 243. These
ions are useful in .characterizing the
molecular structure of TCDD or TCDF. For
analysis of TCDD good analytical technique
would require using all four ions, m/e 257,
320, 322, 328, to verify detection and signal to
noise ratio of 5.to 1. Suspected impurities
such as DDE, ODD, or PCB residues can be
confirmed by checking for their major
fragments. These materials can be removed
by the cleanup columns. Failure to meet
criteria should be explained in the report or
the sample reanalyzed.
11.6 If broad background interference
restricts the sensitivity of the GC/MS
analysis, the analyst should' employ cleanup
^procedures and reanalyze by GC/MS.
^11.7. In those circumstances where these
procedures do not yield a,definitive ..
conclusion, the use of high resolution mass
spectrometry is suggested.
12. Calculations •
12.1 Determine the concentration of
individual compounds according to-the
formula: -- • ' '•_'••
Concentration, ug/gm = •
A x As
G x Ais x R{
Where: '- . \
A=ug of internal standard added to the
sample.6 ' ;
G=gm of sample extracted '
As=area of characteristic ion of the
compound being quantified
Als=area-of characteristic ion of the internal.
standard;
Rt=response factor
Response factors are calculated using data.
obtained from the analysis of standards •
accord^S to'the formula: . .. .
'Rf = •
s x Cte
AisxC,
6 The proper amount'of standard to be used is '
determined from the~calibration curve (See Section
6.0). ...
Where: . /|-... / '•.. •'..
CjS=concentration of the internal standard
C5=concentration of the standard compoun'd
12.2 Report results in micrograms per
gram without uorrection.for recovery data
When duplicate and spiked samples are
analyzed, all data obtained should be
reported. : " ' .
12.3 Accuracy and Precision. No data are
available at this time^ ' :
TABLE 1—Gas Chromatography of TCDD.
Column
Glass Capi
ary. '! ' • '
• Retention
time (rain.)
95
Detection
limit (ug/
kg)'
0.003
•Detection limit for liquid samples is 0.003. ug/l. This Is
calculated from the minimum detectable GC'.response being
equal to five times the GC background noise assuming a I ml.
effective final volume of the 1 liter sample.extract; and a GC
injection of 5 microliters. Detection levels apply to both'
electron capture and GC/MS detection. For further details
see 44 FR 69526 (December 3, 1979).' . . " . '
TABLE 2.--DFTPP KEY IONS'AND ION
ABUNDANCE CRITERIA '
Mass
51 •:. ,
68
70
127
197 ......:
198
199 :.....;.:
275
365..... .".......,
441 „„.„„•
442...',:
443..:. ..-.
Ion abundance criteria
30 to 60 percent of mass.198.
Less than 2 percent of mass 69;
.Do.
40; to 60 percent of mass 198.
Less than 1 percent of mass 198.
Base peak, 100 percent relative abundance.
5 'to 9 percent of mass 198.
Id to 30 percent of mass 198.
Greater than 1 percent of mass 198.
Present but less than mass 443....
Greater than 40 percent" of mass 198.
17. to 23 percent of mass 442. '
>J. W. Bch'elbarger, L. E. Harris, and W. L. Budde. 1975.
Reference compound to -calibrate 'ion abundance measure-
ment in' gas chrpmatography-mass spectrometry. Analytical
Chemistry 47:9951 \ -.. . ....
TABLE 3.—LIST OF ACCURATE MASSES MONI-
TORED USING GC SELECTED-ION MONITORT
" ING, Low RESOLUTION, MASS SPECTROM-
ETRY FOR SIMULTANEOUS DETERMINATION
OF TETRA-, PENTA-, AND HEXACHLORINATED
DiBENZO-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
CJass of -
chlorinated
dibenzodioxin
or
dibenzofuran
Tetra
.
Penta
Hexa
Number
'of
chlorine
sijbsti-
tuents
(xj
4
_!•*.
, 5
'• .''6
Moni-
tored M/
. z for
dibenzo-
furans
Coc\-
'319.897
'321.894
2327.885
3256.933
=258.930
'353 858
' 355.855
389816
391.813
Moni-
tored m/
z for
dibenzo-'
dioxins
'303 902
321.899
"337863
339.860
373 821
' 375.818
Approxi-
mate
theoreti-
cal ratio
expect-
ed on
Basis of
isotopic
ab'un- .
dance
0 74
1.00
21
-> .20
57
1.00
• 1 00
,. .87
1 Molecular ion peak.
2Cl4^1abelled sta dard pi
3 Ions whict) can
confirmation purposi
. leaks. . ""',_.
be monitored in TCDD analyses for*
-------
14528
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 65 / Monday* April f, 1983 / Proposed Rules
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
10. The authority citation for Part 264
reads as follows:
Authority: Sees, 1006,. 2002la)t 3004, and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
Amended by tho Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905, 0912;n}, 0024, and 6925).
11. In Subpart K of Part 264, add: the
following § 284.231:
§ 264.231 Special requirements for
hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, and
F023.
(a) Hazardous Wastes F020, F021, .
F033, and F023 must not be placed in a
surface impoundment unless the owner
or operator operates the- surface
impoundment in accordance with a
management plan for these wastes that
!s approved by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to- the standards
set out in this paragraph, and in accord
with all other applicable requirements of
this Part. The factors to be considered
are:
(1) the volume, physical* and chemical
characteristics of the wastes,, including
their potential to migrate through soil or
to volatilize or escape into the
atmosphere;
(2) the attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding s"oils or
other materials;
(3) the mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes;
(4) the effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
(b) The Regional Administrator may
determine that additional design,
operating, and monitoring requirements
are necessary for surface impoundments
managing hazardous wastes F020, F021,
F022, and F023 in order to reduce the -
possibility of migration of these wastes
to ground water, surface "water, or air so
as to protect human health and the
environment.
12. In Subpart L of Part 264, add the
following § 264.259:
§ 264.259 Special requirements for
hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, and
F023.
(a) Hazardous Wastes F020, F021,
F022, and F023 must not be placed in
waste piles that are not enclosed [as
defined in § 284.250(c)l unless the owjier
or operator operates the waste pile in
accordance with a management plan for
these wastes that is approved by the
Regional Administrator pursuant to the
standards set out in this paragraph, and
in accord with, all other applicable
requirements of this Part. The factors to
be considered are:
(1) the volume, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the wastes, including
their potential to migrate through soil or
to volatilize or escape into the
atmosphere;
[2) the attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils, or
other materials;
(3)' the mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes;
(4) the effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques,
(bj The Regional Administrator may
determine that additional design,
operating, and monitoring requirements
are necessary for piles managing
hazardous wastes F020, FQ21, F022, and
F023 in order to reduce the possibility of
migration of these wastes to ground
water, surface water, or air so as to
protect human: health and the
environment
13^ In Subpart M of Part 26.4, add the
following § 264.283:
§ 264.283 Special requirements for
hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022,and
F023.
(a} Hazardous wastes F020j F021,
F022, and F023 must not be placed hi a
land treatment facility unless the owner
or operator operates the facility in
accordance with a management plan for
these wastes, that is approved by the
Regional Administrator pursuant to the
standards set out hi this paragraph, and
in accord witkall other applicable
requirements of the Part. The factors to-
be considered are:
(1) the volume, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the wastes, including
thek potential to migrate through soil or
to volatilize or escape into the
atmosphere;
(2) the attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials;
(3) the mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes;
(4) the effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
(b) The Regional Administrator may
determine that additional design,
operating, and monitoring requirements
are necessary for land treatment
facilities managing hazardous wastes
F020, F021, F022, and F023 in order to
reduce the possibility of migration of
these wastes to ground water, surface
water, or air so as to protect human
health and the environment.
14.. In Subpart N of Part 264, add the
following § 264.317:
§264.317 Special requirements for
hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, and
F023.
fa) Hazardous wastes F020, F021,
F022, and F023 must not be placed in
landfills unless the; owner or operator
operates the landfill in accordance with
a management plan for these wastes
that is approved by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to the standards-
set out in this paragraph, and in accord
with all other applicable requirements of
this Part. The factors to be considered .
are:
PL) the volume, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the wastes, including
their potential" to migrate through the
soil or to volatilize or escape into the
atmosphere;
(2) tha attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials;
(3} the mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes;
[4] the effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
requirements.
[b) The Regional Administrator, may
determine that additional design^
*" operating, and monitoring requirements,
are necessary for landfills managing
hazardous wastes F020,.FQ21-, F022, and
F023 in order to reduce the possibility of
migration of these wastes, to ground
water, surface water, or air so as to
protect human health and the
environment.'
PART 265—INTERIM STANDARDS
FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORSOF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
15. The authority citation for Part 265
reads as.follows:
Authority: Seca. 1006, 2Q02(a), 300,4, and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
' amended by the Resource Conservation, and
Recovery Act of 1976, aa amended (42 UJS.C., •
6905, 6S12(a), 6924, and 6925). -
16.. § 265.1" ia amended by adding
paragraph (d).
§ 2S5.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
* * * * * r
(d) The following hazardous wastes
must not be managed at facilities
subject tcr regulation under this Part.
(1) EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020,
F021, F022, and.F023 unless:
(i) The waste is generated in a surface .
impoundment as part of the plant's
wastewater treatment system.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 65 /Monday, April 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
14529
, (ii) The waste is stored in tanks or
containers.
(in) The waste is stored or treated in
waste piles that meet the requirements
of § 264.250(0)" as well as all other
applicable requirements of Subpart L of
this Part. " -
PART 775 [REMOVED]
,17. The authority citation for Part 775
jeads as follows: . •
Authority. Sec. 6 of the Toxic Substances .
Control Act (TSCA) Pub. L. 94-469, 90 Stat.
2020 [15 U.S.C. 2605].
18. Title 40 is amended by removing
Part 775. .-•••'
[FR Doc. 83-7930 Filed 4-1-83; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
-------
I
.J.
4|
-------
-------
-------
Would you like
to know...
if ariy changes have been made to
the Code of Federal Regulations
or what documents have been
published in the Federal Register
without reading the Federal
Register every day? If so, you may
wish to subscribe to the LSA (List
of CFR Sections Affected), the
Federal Register Index, or both.
LSA «• List of CFR Sections Affected
The LSA {List of GFR Sections
Affected) is designed to lead users of
the Code of Federal Regulations to
amendatory actions published in the
Federal Register. The LSA is issued
monthly in cumulative form. Entries
indicate the nature of the changes-
such as revised, removed, or
corrected.
$20.00 per year
m
Federal Register Index
The Index, covering the contents of
the daily Federal Register, is issued
monthly in cumulative form. Entries
are carried primarily under the names
of the issuing agencies. Significant
subjects are carried as cross-
references. •
$21.00 per year
A finding aid is included in, each publication
wte/j Usts Federal Register page numbers
mth th» date of publication in the Federal
Register.
Nota to FR Subscribers: •
F3 Indexes and the LSA (List of CFR
Sections Aftocted) are mailed automatically
to rogutar FR subscribers.
Order Form
Mail To: Superintendent of Documenjs, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Enclo
D mo
Depo:
1 1 1
Order
sed is $ Q check, MasterCai
ney order, or charge to my VISA 3CC«
._ — . — . — . — . . — . /^~X~X ,H
i i i i i-i i rM«i^o^ f
• •-• • v_x_y HI
Nn.
'd and
. j Total charges S Fill in the boxes below.
spied.
' ' PmHit ( j • i !• , i —ii -r T
asuKaa r^n NO 1 i 1 I ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 . 1
VISA* \ :"
til,--/ Expiration Date | — i — i — , — ,
J Mpnth/Year 1 LJ 1 1
Please enter the subscription(s)
I have indicated:
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Company or Personal Name
II I I I I I I I I t I
LSA
List of CFR Sections Affected
320.00 a year domestic;
$25.00 foreign
Federal Register Index
$214)0 a year domestic;
$26'.25 foreign
For Office Use Only
Quantity
Charges
Publications
_. Subscription
Additional address/attention line , ,
I I I I I I I I 1 I I
Street address
Mill
City
Mill
(Of Country)
Mill
1
I
1
1 1
I |
1 1
1
I
1
i I I I
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 I
1 1
1 i
r
Stale
1
I
1 1
ZIP Code
| |
' 1 1
'I
|
1
Special Shipping Charges .
International Handling
Special Charges
OPNR ,
UPNS
Balance Due
Discount
Refund
882
------- |