TOP
Friday
December 30, 1988
-- lOPioP-FFFFF
Part X
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 260 et al.
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing; Proposed Rule
and Request for Comments
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing; Tentative
Petition Denial
-------
53282
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261,262,264,265,
270,271, and 302
[FRL-344S-2]
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Standards for the
Management of Specific Hazardous
Wastes and Specific Types of ,
Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities; Requirements for
Authorization of State Hazardous
Waste Programs; and Designation,
Reportable Quantities, and Notification
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
• Agency (EPA) is today proposing to
amend its regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) by listing as hazardous
three additional wastes from wood
preserving operations that use
chlorophenolic, creosote, and/or
inorganic (arsenical and chromium)
preservatives, and by listing as
hazardous one waste from surface
protection processes that use
chlorophenolics. Wastes from wood
preserving and surface protection
processes at facilities that previously
used chlorophenolics are also included.
within the scope of the new listings.
Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewators from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol is already
listed as a hazardous waste (EPA waste
K001). K001 wastes are not included in
today's proposed listings. Comments are
not solicited regarding K001 wastes.
Comments received that address such
wastes will not receive any response.
As stated above, the proposed listings
would regulate as hazardous wastes
generated from wood preserving arid
surface protection processes at facilities
that previously used chlorophenolics
and have changed to another
preservative. These wastes are included
due to the potential for them to be
contaminated by hazardous constituents
from chlorophenolic wastes. The Agency
recognizes that facilities exhibiting
cross-contamination can be cleaned or
can have equipment replaced, resulting'
in the removal of any contamination.
Consequently, the Agency is proposing
an equipment cleaning or replacement ..
performance standard'for, wood
preserving and surface: protection '
facilities that have changed
formulations. Once the standard is met,
the waste generated at that facility from
processes that do not use chlorophenolic
formulations will no longer meet the
listing description. However, the waste
may meet the description of another
listing or it may exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic.
The Agency is proposing to add three
compounds to the list of hazardous
constituents in Appendix Vffl of Part
261. Finally, EPA is proposing
amendments to regulations promulgated
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) at 40 CFR Part 302 that would
designate the wastes proposed for
listing as CERCLA hazardous
substances and would establish the
reportable quantities applicable to these
. wastes.
The effect of listing these four wastes
will be to subject them to the hazardous
waste regulations of 40 CFR Parts 262
through 266, 270, 271, and 124 of this
chapter; the notification requirements of
section 3010 of RCRA; and the
notification requirements under
CERCLA section 103,
DATES: EPA will accept public
comments on this proposed rule until
February 28,1989'. Comments received
after the close of the comment period
will be marked "late" and may not be
considered. Any person may request a
public hearing on this proposed
amendment by filing a written request
with EPA, to be received no later than
January 17,1989.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the RCRA
proposal should be sent in triplicate to:
EPA RCRA Docket Clerk (OS-332), 401
M Street, SW., Room S-205.
Washington, DC 20460.
All comments must be marked
"Docket Number F-88-WPWP-FFFFF."
Comments on the CERCLA proposal
should be sent in triplicate to:
Emergency Response Division, Docket
Clerk. ATTN: Docket No. RQ, Room
LG-100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Copies of materials relevant to this
proposed rulemakihg are located at U.S.
EPA. 401M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. The RCRA portions are
located in the sub-basement; the public
must make an appointment in order to
review them by calling (202) 475-9327.
The CERCLA portions are contained in
Room LG—100;. for an appointment call
(202) 382-3048. Both dockets are
available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,,
excluding holidays, the public may
copy 100 pages from the docket at no-'
charge; additional copies .are $0.15 per
page.
Requests for a public hearing should'
be addressed to Mr. Devereaux Barnes,
Director, Characterization and
Assessment Division (OS-300), Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW, *
Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at (800) 1
424-9348 or, in the Washington, DC
area, (202) 382-3000. For technical
information on the RCRA portion of the
proposal, contact Mr. Edwin F. Abrams,
Listing Section, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-333) at (202) 382-4787. For technical
information on the CERCLA portion of
the proposal, contact Ms. Ivette Vega,
Response Standards and Criteria
Branch, Emergency Response Division
(OS-210) at (202) 475-7369. Both are
available at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Regulation
A. Overview of the Proposal
B. Description of the Industry
1. Wood Preservatives and Surface
Protectanta
2. Wood Preserving and Surface Protection
Processes
a. Wood Preserving Processes
b. Surface Protection Processes
C. Description of Wastes
1. Types of Waste Included in Today's
Proposed Listing
a. Wastewaters
b. Process Residuals
c. Drippage and Drippage Residuals
2. Quantities of Waste Generated
3. Waste Management Practices
D. Basis for Listing
1. Summary of Basis for Listing
2. Waste Characterization and Constituents
of Concern
a. Wastes from Chlorophenolic Wood
Preserving Processes (F032)
b. Wastes from Chlorophenolic Surface
Protection Processes (F033)
c. Wastes from Creosote Wood Preserving
Processes (F034)
d. Wastes from Inorganic Woo'd Preserving
Processes(F035)
3. Health Effects of Concern
. 4. Constituents Proposed for Addition to .
Appendix VIII
5. Mobility and Persistence of Wastes from
Wood Preserving and Surface Protection
Processes
: E. Basis for Designating F032 and F033 as
Toxic (T) Rather, than Acute Hazardous
CH] ' ;
F. Technical Standards for Drip Pads
• 1. Part 264 Technical Standards.for Drip Pads
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No, 251.1 Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
53283
a. Requirements for Containment-Systems (40
CFR264.571)
b. General Operating Requirement (40 CFR
264.572) .' -. •: ••:•
c. Inspection Requirements (40 CFR
264.573) , . ,
d. Closure Requirements (40 CFR 264.574)
2. Part 265 Interim Status Standards •
G. Equipment Cleaning or Replacement
Standards for Wood Preserving and-
Surface Protection Facilities
1. Applicability
2. Equipment Cleaning OF Replacement
Performance Standard
3. Equipment Cleaning or Replacement
Requirements
4. Previous Equipment Cleaning or
Replacement Provision-:
5. Testing Requirement
6. Notification, Review, and Approval
H. Test Methods for Compounds Added to
Appendices VII and VIII of 40 CFR Part
261 • •
I. Applicability of RCRA Rules for Recycled
or Reclaimed Hazardous Waste •
HI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized^ States
B. Effect on State Authorization
1. HSWA Provisions
2. Non-HSWA Provisions
• 3. Special Provisions for Drip Pad Standards
Applicable to F032 and F033
IV. CERCLA Designation And Reportable
Quantities Adjustment ,
V. Compliance Cost And Economic Impact
• Analysis
A; Description of Affected Population
1. The Wood Preserving Industry
2. The Surface-Protection Industry
B. Regulatory. Assumptions Used in this
Analysis
t. Compliance Practices that Contribute to
incremental Costs
2. Compliance Practices that Do Not
Contribute to Incremental Costs
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
1. Facility Costs of Compliance
2. National Costs of the Proposed Rule
a. Methodology
b. Results '
3. Economic Impact-Analysis '
a. Methodology '
(1) Price Impacts
(2) Industry Impacts
(3) Employment Impacts
b.Results . , ,.....
• (1) Price Impacts
(2) Industry Impacts ..'..'
(3) Employment Impacts
4. Limitations '
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'
A. Methodology * •
B. Results
C. Conclusions
• D. Regulatory Options Considered by the
Agency
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Compliance Procedures And Deadlines
A. Section 3010 Notification ...
B. Compliance Dates .
1. F032 and F033
2.F034andF035
a. Interim Status in Unauthorized States.- - •
b. Interim Status in AuthorizedStates.-'. •'.
• 3. DripJPad-Permitting and interim.Status .,
Standards •.,.;.
a. Unauthorized States
b. Authorized States
4. Application of Phasing of Regulations
List of Subjects
IX. References '•
Appendix: Environmental Contamination
with Wood Preserving and Surface
Protection Wastes
I. Background
Pursuant to section 3001 of Subtitle G
of. the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (ICRA), this notice
proposes to list as hazardous three
wastes generated from wood preserving
processes that use either chlorophenolic.
creosote, and/or inorganic (chromium
and arsenical) preservatives. In
addition, the Agency is also proposing to
list as hazardous one waste that is
generated from surface protection
processes using chlorophenolic
formulations. Certain wastes from the
wood preserving industry are currently
regulated as hazardous or have been
proposed for regulation under RCRA
previously. The following discussion
provides a brief overview of prior
regulatory actions affecting wastes from
the wood preserving and surface
protection industries. Also provided is a
brief summary of the Agency's basis for
listing as hazardous the wastes covered
by this proposed rule.
On May 19,1980, EPA promulgated an
interim final .rule which listed as
hazardous numerous wastes from
specific and non-specific sources (see 45
FR 33084). Among others, EPA listed as
hazardous one waste that is generated
by wood preserving processes: EPA
hazardous waste number K001—bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol.
The Agency concurrently proposed to
add wastewaters from wood preserving
processes to the list of hazardous
wastes from specific sources (see 45 FR
33137). Later that year, EPA decided to
reopen the comment period on both the'
K001 listing and the proposed listing foe
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol. after receiving
additional information about those
wastes (see 45 FR 77435, November 12.
1980). EPA provided a notice
announcing the extended comment
period on November 24,1980 (see 45 FR
77466). White the Agency reopened the
comment-period on K001, the K001
listing remained in effect and was not
suspended. . '
Also, on May 19,1980, EPA
. promulgated final regulations for
identifying hazardous wastes by their
characteristics (i.e., the hazardous waste
characterisncsrruies). These rules.
included the Extraction Procedure (EP)
Toxicity Characteristic (see 45 FR
33137). Wastes exhibiting this
characteristic are subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA. Wastes from
wood preserving processes that use
inorganic preservatives can contain
significant concentrations of arsenic and
chromium which may cause solid
wastes to be considered
characteristically hazardous pursuant to
40 CFR 261.24. Consequently, the EP
Toxicity Characteristic caused many
wood preserving wastes to be subject to
the hazardous waste regulations.
On June 13.1986, as part of its
regulations implementing the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
the Agency proposed to amend the
Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity
Characteristic (40 CFR 261.24) by adding
38 additional organic compounds and
introducing a new leaching procedure:
The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (51 FR 21648). Among these 38
organics are cresols and
pentachlorophenol. If the proposed
toxicity characteristic is made final, it
may cause a number of wastes
generated by the wood preserving and
surface protection processes to be
designated as characteristically
hazardous because these toxicants—
namely creosols and
perrtachiorophenol—- are commonly
present in .wastes generated from wood
treatment proceeses using creosote and
chlorophenolic preservatives.
This proposed rule complies with a
consent decree filed July 27,1988. which
settled several elements of a civil action
filed on March 25. 1985 in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia
(Environmental Defense Fund and
National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas
et. al. No. 85-0974). One portion of this
consent decree reads as follows:
On or before December 31.1988, P.PA
will take tha following action with
respect to pentachlorophenol wastes
from the wood preserving industry:
Either
(A) EPA will issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register proposing regulations with
regard to sucK wastes (with such Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking stating that the
Agency shall use its best efforts either to
promulgate these regulations in final
form or to withdraw the proposed
regulations by June 30.1990):
(B) EPA will publish in the Federal
Register a notice announcing that the
Agency has .made a determination not to
-------
53284
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
propose such regulations. Such a
determination shall constitute final
agency action.
Although EPA believes that the rale
proposed today appropriately responds
to the consent decree, the Agency
acknowledges that the consent decree
neither requires that EPA regulate nor
mandates a specific statutory
framework under which any regulations
must be promulgated. The Agency will
continue to evaluate the benefits of
using other statutes, including FBFRA. to
control the wastes proposed today for
listing as hazardous. The Agency
specifically solicits comments on the use
of FIFRA or other statutes.
Furthermore, while EPA also believes
that similar risks ascribe to creosote and
inorganic preservatives, thereby
justifying their inclusion in the proposed
rule, the consent decree is silent with
respect to them. *
Today, EPA is proposing to amend
Part 261.31 by adding four waste
streams from wood preserving and
surface protection processes that use
organic and/or inorganic preservatives
to the list of hazardous wastes from
non-specific sources. The wastes (which
are more fully described later) include
wastewaters (including those proposed
for listing on may 19,1980, i.e.,
wastewaters from pentachlorophenol
and creosote processes], process
residuals, spent preservative
formulations, and drippage from treated
wood. Table 1 lists the constituents of
concern that are present in the proposed
listed wastes. The proposed listings do
not include wastes already listed as
K001, but would supplement the existing
K001 listing and increase the quantity of
waste from wood preserving processes
regulated-under Subtitle C of RCRA.
TABLE 1.—CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
CWoroohenols:
2.4,6-Trichiorophenol - -
PentachJoropheno)
PAHs:
Benzo{l<)florarrthene „ — „ — ."...„
CS5ofu(«,h)onthranceno ._.._ ,
NdPnthakHK* n 7-11— . „,-... ...r,,,,,,r.,,T,.-..r -•
Qioxins' and Furanx
Tatract^oda>enzo-/'-
-------
jFgdbrai Register / VoL S3. Mo. 251 / Friday. December 3O, 1988 / Proposed Rales 53g85
H.SE
nyof TheReguiatfaMt
A Overview of the Proposal
This notice proposes to add four
wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection processes to the list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources (40 CFR 261.31). The four wastes
are:
F032—Wastewaters, process residuals,
preservative drjppage, and discarded
spent formulations from wood
preserving processes at facilities that
currently use or have previously used
chlorophenolic formulations (except
wastes from processes that have
complied with the cleaning or
replacement procedures set forth in
§ 261.35 and do not resume or initiate
use of chlorophenolic formulations).
This listing does not include K001
bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewater from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenoL
F033—Wastewaters, process residuals,
protectant drippage, and discarded
spent formulations from wood surface
protection processes at facilities that
currently use or have previously used
chlorophenolic formulations (except
wastes from processes that have
complied with the cleaning or
replacement procedures set forth in
§ 261.35 and do not resume or initiate
use of chlorophenolic formulations).
F034—Wastewaters, process residuals,
preservative drippage, and discarded
spent formulations from wood
preserving processes that currently
use creosote formulations. This listing
does-not include K001 bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewater from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenoL
F035—Wastewaters, process residuals,
preservative drippage, and discarded
spent formulations from wood-
preserving processes that currently
use inorganic preservatives containing
arsenic or chromium. This listing does
not include K001 bottom sediment
sludge from the treatment of
wastewater from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenoL1
1 While wood preserving processes that currently
use inorganic preservatives do not generate K001
sludges per s», EPA believes that there may be
numerous facilities that previously used
chlorophenolic and/or creosote preservatives and
bays changed to. inorganic preservative* is recant
yean without thoroughly cleaning process
equipment.At such {acuities there may be KOOT
wastes that were generated prior to changing
pMsenativM. but that ta« not yet been actively
managed; These sludges are KOO1 waste and are not
included in the F035 listing.
EPA has found that these wastes
typically and frequently contain toxic
constituents, including some that are
carcinogenic, that, when mismanaged,
pose a substantial present or potential
threat to human health and the
environment In addition, the Agency
has compiled evidence to demonstrate
that the toxic constituents are mobile
and persistent in the environment and
are capable of reaching receptors in
harmful concentrations. The information
that supports these findings is
summarized in this preamble and is
presented, hi detail, in the Background
Document and other materials which are
available in the RCRA Docket for this
proposal.
Upon promulgation of these proposed
listings, all wastes meeting the
descriptions would become hazardous
waste. Waste generated prior to
promulgation, however, would not be
subject to numerous Subtitle C '
requirements until they are actively
managed.
The scope of the F032 listing covers
wastes from pressure and non-pressure
processes using pentachlorophenol
(PCP) as well as other chlorophenolic
formulations. In addition, this listing
covers wastes from creosote and
inorganic processes at facilities that
currently use or previously used
pentachlorophenol (or other
chlorophenolic formulations) because
the wastes may be cross-contaminated
with chlorinated dioxins and/or
dibenzofurans.
Note.—This listing excludes, as do F034
and F035, those wastes already covered by
K001.
The agency has concluded that cross-
contamination is highly likely to occur
under two circumstances: First, when
creosote or inorganic processes are
located at a facility where
chlorophenolic processes are or were
employed; and second, when creosote
processes or inorganic processes use the
equipment previously used for
chlorophenolic processes. A discussion
on the extent of cross-contamination at
facilities which use chlorophenolics (or
which previously used chlorophenolics)
is presented later in this preamble.
The Agency is proposing equipment
cleaning or replacement procedures for
generators of F032 wastes which no
longer use chlorophenolic preservatives.
These procedures are designed to
decontaminate and remove the dioxin
and dibenzofuran contaminants from
process equipment. Once the procedures
are carried out to the specified standard,
wastes generated in processes using
non-chlorophenolic formulations will no
longer meet the listing description of
FD32; however, these wastes may still be
hazardous (i.e., they may still meet the
listing description of F034 or F035 or
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics). Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements are also included in the
proposed rale and would have to be met.
Generators should note that residues
from the decontamination process will
be regulated hazardous wastes and must
be managed as F032.
The scope of the F033 listing would
cover wastes from wood surface
protection processes that currently use
or previously used chlorophenolics,
including those processes presently
using a preservative that is not among
those addressed by today's proposal.
Surface protection facilities that
currently use chlorophenolic
formulations may be able to change to
surface protection chemicals that are
not regulated by this proposed listing.
Wastes from these processes, however,
would continue to be regulated under
RCRA due to the cross-contamination
resulting from residues that remain on-
site (e.g., in process equipment) after the
change in formulation is made. The
Agency recognizes that cross-
contamination of wastes may be
avoided and is therefore proposing to
apply the same equipment cleaning or
replacement procedures and
recordkeeping, notification, and •
reporting requirements to F033 wastes
as would be applicable to F032 wastes.
If these procedures are employed,
wastes from surface protection facilities
generated in processes that use non-
chlorophenolic formulations may no
longer meet the listing description. (EPA
notes that this provision would not
prevent the Agency from taking action
to list wastes from surface protection
processes using non-chlorophenolic
formulations in the future, if such a
listing is deemed necessary). In addition,
wastes from non-chlorophenolic surface
protection processes may also be
regulated under RCRA as hazardous
wastes if they exhibit any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste.
The scope of the F034 listing would
cover all wastes generated by pressure
and non-pressure wood preserving
processes currently using creosote that
are not contaminated by constituents
from processes using chlorophenolic
preservatives. This listing would not
include wastes that are included in the
K001 or F032 listings.
The scope of the F035 listing would
cover all wastes generated by pressure
and non-pressure wood preserving
processes currently using inorganic
preservatives containing arsenic or
-------
53288 Federal Register / Vol. 53.. No. 251 / Friday. December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
chromium that are not contaminated by
constituents from processes using
chlorophenolic preservatives. This
listing would not include wastes that are
included in the K001 or F032 listings.
Each listing includes excess
preservative or protectant that drips or
exudes from treated wood while it is
stored or held at the wood preserving or
surface protection facility after
treatment (this includes long- and short-
term storage areas, such as "luck-back"
areas). This residual has been included
in the listings because of its high
concentrations of toxic constituents and
the documented incidence of
mismanagement by the industry. EPA
has found many cases where such
drippaga or "kick-back" has been
disposed of directly on the ground,
resulting in widespread soil, surface
water, and ground water contamination.
Drippage may be washed off treated
wood or may be carried away by
rainwater and spread to nearby streams
or other surface water bodies.
As a result of the proposed listing,
generators of treated wood diippage
would be subject to applicable
hazardous waste requirements. Because
information on waste management
practices for treated wood driippage
indicates that drip pads are often being
installed at new wood preserving and
surface protection facilities for purposes
of drippage management, today's
proposal includes provisions for
establishing a new type of hazardous
waste management unit: drip pads at
wood preserving and our surface
protection faculties.
Of course, generators may choose to
install other types of waste management
units to handle drippage (i.e., tanks or
surface impoundments). In all
anticipated cases, generators would
become owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities as a result of the
proposed listing. Today's rule also
includes a proposed amendment to the
90-day accumulation rule for generators
that operate drip pads at wocd
preserving and surface protection
facilities. Under this proposed
amendment, generators who remove
drippage from drip pads within 90 days
would not be required to obtain RCRA .
Fart B permits for their drip pads,
provided that the pads comply with the
proposed Part 365 technical standards
for drip pads and certain other
requirements (this aspect of the proposal
is discussed in detail later in this
preamble).
Residuals from the treatment, storage,
or disposal of wood preserving and
surface protection wastes that are
included in today's proposed listing
would also be classified as hazardous
wastes by the "derived from" rule (40
CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). These "derived-from"
wastes would include any treatment
residual other than K001 bottom
sediment sludges because the listing
definition specifically excludes K001.
For example, oil skimmings, oil
absorbent materials, and ash or other
residuals from treatment are subject to
today's proposed listings.
In response to suggestions made by
representatives of the wood preserving
industry, EPA considered regulating
wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection processes under
authorities provided by other statutes
such as the Clean Water Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Agency
chose however, to propose regulating
wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection under RCRA. We are
soliciting comment today supporting
that decision, presenting contrary views,
or presenting any pertinent information,
B, Description of the Industry
A wide variety of chemicals are
currently used to preserve wood. Those
most commonly used are
pentachlorophenol, creosote, and
inorganic arsenical and/or chromate
salts (inorganics). Wood preservatives
are used to delay deterioration and
decay of wood caused by organisms
such as insects, fungi, and marine
borers. Surface discoloration
(sapstaining) during short-term storage
can be adequately controlled by a
superficial application of preservative.
but, for long-lasting effectiveness,
penetration of preservative to a uniform
depth is required. This deep penetration
is usually accomplished by forcing
preservative into the wood under
pressure, so that "pressure treated" is
often used as a synonym for
"preserved."
Preserved wood production and
treatment chemical consumption are
summarized in Table 2. In 1985, three
major product groups accounted for 89
percent of the total production of
preserved wood in the United States: (1)
Lumber and timbers, mostly preserved •
with inorganic preservatives; (2) railroad
cross ties, switch ties and bridge ties.
almost all preserved with creosote; and •
1 (3) poles, 60 percent preserved with
pentachlorophenol, 23 percent with
creosote, and 17 percent with inorganic.
preservatives. The. remainder of 1985 • ••;
production consisted of fence posts,
piling, plywood, crossarms, and other •
products (Micklewright, 1987)... ••••
TABLE 2.—PRESERVED WOOD PRODUC-
TION AND TREATMENT CHEMICAL CON-
SUMPTION, 1985
Number of plants. —
Products treated:
Crossties,
switch and
bridge ties
(million
cubic
meters)
Lumber and
timbers
(million
cubic
meters)
Poles (million
cubic
meters)
Other (million
cubic
meters). ...
Total volume
of wood
preserved
(million
cubic
meters)
Treating chemical
consumed:
Creosote and
creosote/
coal tar
(million
liters) _.
Petroleum
solvent
(million
liters)
Pentachloro-
phenol
(million kg) ....
Inorganic salts
(million kg) ....
Preservative type
Cresote
solu-
tions
122
2.7
0.21
0.5
.'
0.27
3.7
390
49
Pentach-
lorophenol
113
0.008
0.08
1.3
0.1
1.5
153
11
Inor-
ganics
448
0
7.7
0.38
1.2
9.3
56
Source: Micklewright (1987).
The distribution of preservative use
by the wood preserving industry is
summarized in Table 3. Seventeen
percent of the plants treat with more
than one preservative. Wastes
generated at these plants.can be
contaminated with constituents of all
preservatives used at the plant.
TABLE 3.—DISTRIBUTION OF
PRESERVATIVE USE, 1985
Plants treating with
No. of
'plants
•Creosote ... .... -
Creosote/Pentachlorophenol .1
Creosote/Inorganics
Pentachlorophenol/lnorganics.._
Pentachlorophenol - -
Inorganics «.~
Creosote/Pentachlorophenol/lnorganics
Total .._..„..„..._ ...
53
24
21
24
25
379
24
•550
1 An additional 17 plants treated wood using non-
pressure processes. • •• - .. .
Source: Micktewright (1987). • - • ••
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53* No. ZSX / Friday, December 3O. 198* / Proposed Ride*
The American Wood Preservers
Institute (AWP!) reported-587 plants that
produced preserved wood in 1985 (14
additional wood preserving facilities
have recently been identified by AWPI).
Approximately 60 percent of these
plants are in the southeast and
southcentral portions of the United
States and account for 64 percent of the
production of treated wood. Most plants
that treat with creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol are more than 25
years old; several operating plants are
more than 75 years old.
Most surface protection takes place at
sawmills, where cut lumber is dip- or
spray-treated to prevent sapstain
formation during short-term storage. The
distinction between wood preservation •
and surface protection is not only the
process used, but also the depth to
which the preservation penetrates and
the duration of the protection.
In 1983, lumber production in sawmills
was approximately 87 million cubic
meters or 36.8 billion board feet (Lumber
Production and Mill Stocks, 1983, as
cited in DPRA, 1986). Approximately 10
percent of this production, or 8.7 million
cubic meters (3.7 billion board feet), was
surface protected, the majority with
aqueous solutions of sodium
pentachlorophenate. The Agency
believes that there may be up to 500
sawmills currently surface protecting
wood with chlorophenate formulations
and a total of 1,500 sawmills that have
protected wood with chlorophenates
within the past ten years.
1. Wood Preservatives and Surface.
Protectants
Pentachlorophenol is one of a group of
synthetic organic compounds called
chlorophenols that are commercially
manufactured by reacting chlorine with
phenol. Standard petroleum oils, similar
to #2 heating oil, are most frequently
used as solvents in preparing
formulations of pentachlorophenol.
Kerosene, mineral spirits, butane,
alcohols, and liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) are also used as solvents by a
small number of facilities.
Pentachlorophenol formulations applied
to wood typically contain 5 percent total
pentachlorophenol; however,
concentrations may range from 2 to 9
percent.,Pentachlorophenol has been
found to be contaminated with all PCDD
and PCDFhomologues except
tetrachlorodioenzo-p-dioxins (TCDDs)
(Palmer, 1986 and USEPA, 1987).
Tetrachlorophenol in its water soluble
chlorophenate form is often used in
. sapstain control formulations.
Commercial tetrachlorophenol has been
found to be contaminated with all ten
homologues of poly chlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins (PCDDs).and-dibenzofurans •••.
(PCDFsJ. 5
Creosote generically refers to
mixtures of relatively heavy residual
oils (liquid and solid aromatic
hydrocarbons) obtained from the
distillation of wood, coal tar, or crude
petroleum. Only creosotes from coal tars
are accepted for use as wood
preservatives. The majority of creosote-
based formulations consist of coal tar
creosote or blends of creosote and crude
coal tar.
The inorganic preservatives of
concern hi this listing consist of
arsenical and chromate salts dissolved
in water. The most commonly used
inorganic preservatives include
chromated copper arsenate (CCA).
ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA),
acid copper chromate (ACC), chromated
zinc chloride (CZC), and fluor-chrome-
arsenate-phenol (FCAP). In a 1984
survey of the wood preserving industry
(USEPA, 1987), 83 percent of wood
preserved with inorganic preservatives
was reportedly preserved with CCA, For
treatment purposes, CCA is typically
diluted in water to 1 to 2 percent total
CCA concentration, but treatment ,
concentrations can range from 0.9 to 8
percent total CCA in various treating
solutions {USEPA, 1987).
Production of wood treated with
inorganic-preservatives has more than
doubled since 1980. This increase is due
to the increased use of treated lumber
for decks, porches, and other exterior,
weather-exposed structures. The use of
inorganic preservatives, particularly
CCA, is increasing; as a result, most
new wood preserving plants are CCA
plants and facilities that treat
exclusively with inorganic preservatives
are (on average) only 10 years old.
Water solutions of the sodium or
potassium salts of pentachlorophenol
(pentachlorophenates) are used
extensively in the sawmill industry for
surface protection. Chlorophenate
formulations are produced by dissolving
chlorophenols in a slightly alkaline
(above pH 7) sodium hydroxide solution.
Commercial chlorophenates have been
found to contain PCDDs and PCDFs.
(Generally, these commercial
concentrates are diluted to 0.5 to 1
percent total pentachlorophenate and
applied to the wood by-dipping or
spraying.
An estimated 3OQ to 500 sawmills use
an approximate total of 680 kkg (1.5
million pounds) of sodium
pentachlorophenate to prevent
sapstaining of approximately 8.7 million
cubic meters (3.7 billion board feet) of
lumber annually. '
2. Wood Preserving and Surface
Protection Processes -
o. Wood preserving processes.
Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and
inorganic wood preservatives are all
applied to wood by similar processes.
More than 99 percent of the wood
preserved in the United States is
produced by pressure treatment
processes, which employ a combination
of air pressure, hydrostatic pressure,
and vacuum (Micklewright, 1987).
Pressure treatment takes place in sealed
pressure vessels known as cylinders or
retorts. A limited quantity of wood is
preserved using non-pressure treatment
processes in which the preservative is
allowed to diffuse into the wood; typical
non-pressure processes involve soaking
the wood in open tanks at ambient
pressure.
The prerservative penetration
required to preserve wood adequately
can only be achieved if the wood has
been properly conditioned; that is, if the
moisture content of the freshly-cut wood
is reduced to a point where the
preservative can penetrate and be
retained by the wood. Conditioning is
required before pressure and non-
pressure preservation processes, but is
not used for surface protection in which
a superficial application of preservative
is adequate. Conditioning is the major
source of was tewater in the wood
preserving industry.
Moisture reduction methods include
drying wood in yards, at ambient
temperatures (air seasoning); kiln
drying; steaming the wood at elevated
pressure in a retort followed by
application of a vacuum; heating the
stock in a preservative bath under
reduced pressure in a retort (Boulton
process); and heating of the unseasoned
wood in a solvent under pressure (vapor
drying).
Air seasoning and kiln drying
generate minimal amounts of
waste water. Thus, facilities that use
these conditioning methods, principally
non-pressure treaters and facilities that
use inorganic'preservatives, generate
little wastewater. Wastewaterfrom air
seasoning and kiln drying is often
contaminated with preservative by
mixing the wastewater with other
wastes later in the process. Boultonizing,
steam conditioning, and vapor drying
(conditioning methods used by pressure
treaters) produce-wastewater consisting
of the water that is driven out of the
wood in the same cylinder or retort that
is later used for preserving the wood.
Steam cnn'Hi tinning also produces a
considerable volume of steam
coridensate.The-volume-of wood
-------
53288
Federal Register / .Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1988 /Proposed Rules-
conditioning water varies according to
wood type, preservative formulation,
conditioning method, and other factors.
In general, from 84 to 1,200 liters of
water may be generated per cubic meter
(0.5 to 9 gallons per cubic foot) of wood
(USEPA,1987).
After the moisture content of the
wood has been reduced by conditioning.
the wood is preserved either by simple
non-pressure methods or by pressure
processes. Non-pressure processes
include brushing, spraying, dipping,
soaking, and thermal processes. These
processes involve the repeated use of
preservative in a treatment tank with
fresh preservative solution added" to
replace consumptive loss. The continual
reuse of preservative leads to the
accumulation of wood chips, sand,
stones, and other debris contaminated
with various hazardous constituents in
the bottom of the treating tanks. This
contaminated debris is the major source
of process waste for non-pressure
processes.
There are two basic types of pressure
treatment processes, distinguished by
the sequence in which vacuum and
pressure are applied. The first method is
referred to in the industry as the
"empty-cell" process. It is used to obtain
relatively deep penetration with limited
absorption of preservative. There are a
number of empty-cell processes;
generally, air pressure is applied to the
wood as preservative is pumped into the
treating cylinder or retort. Once the
desired level of retention has been
achieved, the unused preservative is
drained off and the excess preservative
is vacuum pumped away from the wood.
The second method, known as the
"full-cell" process, results in higher
retention of preservative but limited
penetration compared to the empty-cell
process. A high vacuum is created in the
treating cylinder and preservative is
pumped in without breaking the vacuum.
Once full, pressure is applied until the
wood will retain no more preservative.
There is no difference in the types of
wastes generated by full- and empty-cell
processes, although wood treated by the
full-cell process may produce more
drippage than wood treated by the
empty cell process. (The terras "empty"
and "full" are measures of the level of
preservative retained by the wood
cells.)
Typical pressure processes involve
recycling of preservatives from work,
storage, and mixing tanks to the •
pressure treating vessel. Fresh
preservative solution is added to replace
consumptive loss. Preservative
formulation lost with wastewater or
through drippage into the door sumps is
also sometimes collected and fed back
into the process. The continual reuse of
preservative formulation leads to
accumulation of contaminated sawdust,
wood chips, sand, dirt, stones, tar, and
polymerized oils. This material
comprises the bulk of wood preserving
process residuals (not including
wastewater) and is collected in treating
cylinders and tanks; in holding, work,
storage, and mixing tanks; in door
sumps; and in filters and separators
used to prepare preservative solutions
for reuse.
After both pressure and non-pressure
treatment, some unabsorbed
preservative formulation adheres to the
treated wood surface. Eventually, this
liquid drips from the wood or is washed
off by precipitation. If the wood has
been pressure treated, excess
preservative will also exude slowly from
the wood as it gradually returns to
atmospheric pressure (a phenomenon
commonly called kick-back).
Preservative formulation (especially
pentachlorophenol and creosote
formulations) may continue to exude
("bleed") from pressure and non-
pressure treated "wood for long periods,
even after the wood is shipped off-site
and installed for its intended end use
(Arsenault, 1976). Drippage from
pressure treated wood may be
minimized by steaming the wood after
treatment to wash off adhering
preservative or by applying a final
vacuum to the wood charge before it is
removed from the retort.
Management of drippage varies from
facility to facility and often depends on
the production schedule. A facility
producing near its capacity generally
removes a charge from the treating
cylinder and transfers it to storage
quickly. In these cases, most drippage
and kick-back will occur in the treated
wood storage yard. At facilities
operating on slower schedules, a charge
may be allowed to drip in the retort for
an extended period. Other facilities
have drip pads over which trams of
freshly-treated wood are allowed to sit
for one to three days. Drippage may be
routed to a sump and reused in the
treatment process or may be discarded.
b. Surface protection processes. The
surface protection of wood involves the
application by spraying or dipping of
sapstain control agents to wood.
Spraying can be performed manually or
with a continuous conveyor belt system
where the wood passes through a spray
box. The chlorophenolic spray is often
contained by means of flexible brushes
or curtains positioned at either end of
the box. The boxes may be kept at a
negative pressure with an exhaust vent
to remove the chorophenolic aerosols.
After spraying or dipping, the excess or
free liquid is drained from the wood-into
a catch basin, .where it is routed to a
screen or filter to remove sawdust and
other particles before it is returned to
the supply tank for reuse. As the freshly-
treated wood is moved from the
treatment area to the storage area it
continues to drip. .
Dip tanks may also be used to apply
surface protection chemicals to large
bundles of wood or to individual pieces
of wood in the production line. The
wood can be dipped using transport
chains, forklift mechanisms for large
jobs, or sequential submerging
techniques. Solution used in the dip
tanks for sapstain control is
occasionally recycled, otherwise it is
continually replenished. Recycled
solution is pumped through a filter or
screening device to remove sawdust and
debris before it is returned to the
storage/mixing tanks. At smaller-scale
facilities, sawdust and other debris
simply accumulate on the tank bottom.
C. Description of Wastes
Wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection processes consist of
wastewaters, process residuals
(including discarded preservative) and
drippage.
1. Types of Waste Included in Today's
Proposed Listing
a. Wastewaters. Wastewaters include
wastewater generated from steam
conditioning the wood in treatment
cylinders prior to applying the
preservative. Other sources of
wastewater include, but are not limited
to, preservative formulation recovery
and regeneration wastewater, water
used to wash excess preservative from
the surface of preserved wood
(especially poles), and condensate from
drying kilns used to dry preserved or
surface protected wood. Operations that
involve the rinsing of drums, storage
tanks, the process area, and equipment
also generate wastewater. Finally,
water, including rainwater, that
accumulates in door and retort sumps
and rainwater falling on or in the
immediate vicinity of the tre'ating
cylinder and work tank area is also
included in the proposed listing.
(Storage area rainwater is not included
in the listing definition. However, it may
become subject to regulation when it is
disposed together with drippage covered
by the listing). Water from the process
area is often collected and treated with
other process wastewaters and hence,
may become a process waste, subjecting
mixtures of rainwater and other wastes
or wastewaters to the "mixture" rule
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2). Collected
-------
Federal Register / Vok 53» No. 251 / Friday, December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules S35E3
rainwater is included in the effluent
guidelines definition of wood preserving
process wastewater. Wastewaters are
not already covered under the scope of
the K001 listing.
Wastewaters from wood preserving
and surface protection processes are
currently subject to permitting
requirements under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) or the national pretreatment
regulations, both promulgated under
authority of the Clean Water Act, as
amended. Upon promulgation of today's
proposed listing, Wastewaters from
wood preserving and surface protection
would also be subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA, except as
excluded under 40 CFR 261.4.
Section 261.4 provides exemptions
from treatment as a RCRA solid waste
for several types of materials, including
wastes that are mixed with domestic
sewage as they pass through a sewer
system to a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works —POTW— (see 40 CFR
261.4(a)(l)) and wastes that constitute
industrial wastewater discharges
subject to regulations under section 402
of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
261.4(a)(2)). Wastewaters discharged to
sewers and eventually to POTWs by
wood preserving and surface protection
facilities would therefore be exempt • '
from regulations under Subtitle C of
RGRA once discharged. They may be
subject to RCRA requirements prior to
discharge however, and they would be
subject to applicable Clean Water Act
pretreatment regulations. Similarly,
treated effluent from wastewater
treatment plants discharged from
NPDES-permitted wood preserving and
surface protection facilities would
qualify for exemption under § 261.4(a)(2)
(but would remain subject to all NPDES
permit provisions). The exemption
would not extend to activities that occur
prior to wastewater discharge at
NPDES-permitted facilities. Hence,
tanks and other units in which listed
wastewaters are collected, stored,
accumulated, treated, and/or disposed
at wood preserving and surface
protection facilities would be subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Under 40 CFR 261.4, however, tanks that
constitute wastewater treatment tanks
(in accoradance with the definition of
"wastewater treatment units" of 40 CFR
260.10) are exempt from RCRA Subtitle
C requirements.
b. Process residuals. Materials such
as sawdust, wood chips, sand, dirt, and
stones that are attached to the wood
when it enters the retort (in the case of
pressurized preservation processes), the
dip tank, or the spary booth (for surface
protection processes) can be washed off
the wood during the process. These
materials will form a residue in the
retort or dip tank. They may also settle
out of the preservative solution
elsewhere in the process (e.g., in work
tanks or sumps) or be removed during
filtration of the preservative prior to its
reuse. Tar and emulsified or
polymerized oils may also settle out in
the treating cylinder, treating tank, or
dip tank during wood preserving
operations using creosote or
pentachlorophenol. All of these wastes
are considered process residuals.
Specifically, process residuals include,
but are not limited to: Precipitated
preservative solution: tar; emulsified
polymerized oils; spent or discarded
formulation; treating cylinder, treating
tank, and dip tank sediments; filter,
screening, or exhaust residuals from
spray booths; hand spraying residuals;
residuals from drying kilns used to dry
preserved or surface protected wood;
residuals from holdings, work, storage,
mixing, or other tanks; residuals that
accumulate in secondary containment
surrounding tanks; door or cylinder
sump residuals; residuals from recycling
and regeneration of preservative; leaks
from process equipment; and residuals
from maintenance and cleaning of
process equipment. Process residuals
are not already covered under the scope
of the K001 listing.
c. Drippage and drippage residuals.
Drippage and drippage residuals may
accumulate on designated drip areas, on
pathways over which treated wood is
transported, and in treated wood
storage yards. Drippage and drippage
residuals include free drippage of
preservative from treated wood,
preservative that is washed off treated
wood by precipitation, and residuals
from collecting and recycling
presevative that drips off or is washed
off treated wood. Drippage and drippage
residuals are not already covered under
the scope of K001 listing.
2. Quantities of Waste Generated
Table 4 presents estimates of the
quantities of waste generated annually
by wood preserving and surface
preelection processes. These estimates
were prepared using production
normalized waste generation rates and
estimates of production of preserved
and surface protected wood. The waste
generation rates were derived from data
collected in the 1984 survey of the wood
preserving industry conducted by EPA
(USEPA, 1987), from data supplied
independently by the industry, and from
data collected in a sampling effort
carried out jointly by EPA and the State
of'Oregon at four Oregon sawmills.
Production estimates, in terms of
preservative used at a given facility,
were obtained from the AWPI Wood
Preserving statistics report for 1985
(Micklewright, 1987). In addition, the
production of surface protected wood
was estimated to be 8.7 million cubic
meters per year (3.7 billion board feet
per year). The assumptions and data
used to generate this estimate are
provide in detail in the Background
Document for this proposed listing.
TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE WASTE QUANTITIES (M;'/YR.)
Waste
Wastewater1
Process Residuals4 „
Drippage and drippage residuals '.
Total.. ..
. • i F032
\ 35-1 QOO
i 1 800
700
' 353 500
F033
2 5QQ 000
600
' 8,700
9 300
F034 FO'35
600 1 900-
350 100 • 2 300
1 Wastewater treatment residuals covered under the K001 listing are not included in these estimates. Wastewaters from process area runoff and from
contamination or mixing of nonprocess area runoff with listed wastes also are not included in these estimates. •
* Surface protection processes do not usually generate process wastewater. Precipitation that falls in the process area is included in the F033 listing. Precipitation
that falls in other areas of the facility (e.g., on storage yards) is not included in the F033 listing. However, it may become subject to regulation when mixed with other
listed materials such as preservative drippage. Assuming a one-quarter acre process area per plant and 40 inches of rain fall per year, about 1,000 cubic meters per
year per plant of surface protection wastewaters, consisting of run-off from process areas, are potentially generated. With 300 to 500 surface protection facilities
nationwide, this amounts for 300 to 500,000 m3/yr of wastewatera.
These wastewaters are often collected in catch basins and sumps and conveyed through ditches and conduits. Sediment and sludges collect in these devices at
a rate of approximately 4.84 X 10" 4 m3 of material per meter3 surface-protected wood. Assuming production of 8.7 million ma/yr of surface-protected wood, 4 200 m3
of sump, catch basin, and drainage ditch sediments are generated annually.
-------
Federal Regi.ter / VoL 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30.-198& / Proposed Huley ;
53290
Scores: USEPA, 1987.
The waste estimate for F032 includes
wastes from chlorophenolic wood
preserving processes, and wastes from
creosote, inorganic, and other processes
at facilities that treat with
chlorophenolics. Wastes from creosote
and inorganic processes at facilities that
formerly used chlorophenolicai are not
included in the volume estimates for
F032 (they are instead included in either
F034 or F035) because current EPA data
on preservative use cannot be
disaggregated by historical preservative
use. To the extent that preservation
facilities may have switched from
chlorophenolics to other formulations.
the total quantity of F032 may be slightly
underestimated and the quantities of
F034 and F035 overestimated.
An estimated 699,000 cubic meters per
year of wastewaters are generated by
the wood preserving industry. Further,
an estimated. 4.200 cubic meters of
process residuals, and 11,900 cubic
meters of drippage per year are
generated. By comparison, wastewater
treatment residuals covered under the
K001 listing are generated at a rate of
10,000 cubic meters per year, these are
not included in" the estimates in Table 4.
TABLE 5-WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WASTES PROPOSED FOR
FACILITIES (PERCENT)l
3. Waste Management Practices
To support this proposed listing, EPA
has compiled information on the waste
management practices currently used by
the industry. Two .principal information
sources were used: The 1984 survey
conducted by EPA (USEPA, 1987) and a
survey conducted by the American
Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI)
(landenheim. 1987). Management
- practices, reported for wastewaters,
wastewater treatment residuals, and
process residuals are summarized in
Table 5. Management practices reported
for drippage at wood preserving
facilities are summarized in Table 8.
LISTING AS REPORTED BY SURVEYED
Waste management practice
Discharged to POTW -
Discharged to surface water — • "
Reuso, returned to process
Removed by wasto contractor * „___. ••—
Thermal evaporation tn tanks * *
Storage in surface impoundments—...™ — . ~ : "
Storigst hi Tanks™.....-™.. — ~— ~v — ~— ~~~~ ••• "'
Burned Ui boilor/wood burner -ZZZ"'-"
Reclaimed for reusa 1 —
land fceatment™™..-™™™™..™™.™™'.™™--™"""""*""'"""" •*"• ••*'
Not spectfitd _™.™™,». — ~~~™...™... -—•—
Pentachtoro-
phenol and
creosote
wastewaters *
[Percent]
63
3
10
3
3
13
0
I:::::::::::::::::
8
e.
Pentactv
toro-
phenol
wood
preserv-
ing
process
residuals
[Percent]
70
7
3
3
13
10
Creosote
process
residuals
[Percent]
63
7
7
13
7
3
3
Inorganic
process
residuals
[Percent]
«84
0
5
0
7
2
" 2
* Inctuoes wastes removed by preservative chemical suppliers.
Source: Bacxground Document
TABLE 6-MANAGEMENTT PRACTICES FOR DRIPPAGE AT WOOD PRESERVING FACILITIES. BY PRESERVATIVE
USED
'
Number of plants surveyed :
Percent with surfaced drip pad ,„ •
Percent reusing drippaga from surfaced drip pad :
Percent with surfaced storage yard ••••• •• -
Percent allowing drfppaga In storago yard directly to ground * -.- : r
Pentach-
loropnenol
only and
creosote
plus
pentach-
loropnenol
15
47
86
13
87
Creosote
only
25
40
100
12
88
Inorgan-
ics only
82
91
91
38
62
Creosote
plus/or
pentach-
lorophenol,
plus
inorganics
' 15
73
47
13
> Calculated by difference (100%—% with surfaced storage yard).
Source: tbooahemv 1987).
Sixty-three percent of the 86 facilities
aurveyed in 1984 by EPA that reported
managing wastewater discharged their
wastewater to Publicly Owned,
that wastewater
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules §3291
discharged to POTWs was pretreated by
oil/water separation in tanks prior to
discharge. Ten percent of the facilities
reported using some type of aeration
wastewater treatment process and 3
percent reported using both aeration
and activated carbon filtration
^wastewater treatment processes.
Thirteen percent of the facilities
reported storage or disposal of process
wastewater in land-based units (i.e.,
land treatment units, evaporation ponds,
and surface impoundments).
Wood preserving facilities generally
manage their process residuals by
contracting with a commercial waste
removal company for their disposal
Some suppliers of inorganic
preservatives also provide this service
for their customers. Residuals from
pentachlorophenol and creosote treating
processes are also managed by storage
in surface impoundments or burning on-
site in an industrial boiler or wood
burner. These practices were not
reported for inorganic process residuals.
Forty to 50 percent of the facilities
that use pentachlorophenol and/or
creosote have a surfaced drip pad, while
91 percent of. the facilities that use
inorganic preservatives have a surfaced
drip pad. This larger fraction is believed
to be due to the fact that inorganic
plants are generally newer than other-
wood preserving facilities and are-
specifically designed for recovery and
reuse of preservative drippage. Drip
pads are used to route to collection
areas or devices, excess preservative
that drips from the treated wood when it
is removed from the treating cylinder.
Facilities that do not have surfaced drip
pads generally allow excess
preservative to drip directly onto the
ground. Most of the facilities that have
surfaced drip pads report reusing the
collected drippage. AWPI did not report
the management practices used by
facilities that do not reuse collected
drippage.
Only 12 to 13 percent of the facilities
treating with pentachlorophenol and/or
creosote have surfaced storage pads
(i.e., long-term storage yards) while 38
percent of facilities treating with
inorganic preservatives have some
surfaced storage area. Thus, the Agency
concludes that at the remainder of the
facilities (about 88 percent of
pentachlorophenol and creosote
facilities and 62 percent of inorganic
facilities), any preservative that drips off
stored, treated wood (and any
preservative that is washed off by
precipitation) is disposed of on the
ground.
No survey data were available to
describe waste management practices at
sawmills that surface-protect wood.
Some data, however, were obtained
from the facilities sampled by EPA in
conjunction with the State of Oregon.
Three of the four sawmills sampled by
EPA reported their practices for
managing process residuals. Two of the
facilities contract with a commercial
waste disposal company to transport
their dip tank sludges and spray booth
residuals to a solid waste landfill. The
third sawmill reported that its dip tank
sludge is burned in an on-site boiler
with waste wood. Disposal in on- or off-
site landfills, burning in pn-site boilers, '
or incinerating off-site are believed to be
common management practices for all
surface protection process residuals
(presumably, ash from boilers and
incinerators is disposed in landfills).
In contrast spills and releases of
surface protection chemicals and
drippage and drippage residuals are
typically allowed to fall or remain on
the ground. Some facilities have
installed concrete pads contiguous to
the dip tanks and sloping toward sumps
that collect drippage. Alternatively, a
charge of lumber may be suspended
over the dip tank to allow excess
.preservative to drip back into the tank.
However, surface-protected wood is
generally stacked over the ground
during storage and air seasoning. Thus,
the preservative that drips or is washed
off the wood is disposed of on the
ground.
D. Basis for Listing
1. Summary of Basis for Listing
Each of the four wastes from wood
preserving and surface protection
processes meet the criteria for listing as
hazardous presented in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3); consequently, EPA is
proposing that they be added to the list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources appearing at 40 CFR 261.31. The
wastes contain high concentrations of
toxic constituents. (As discussed later,
all the constituents of concern are
carcinogens and/or systemic toxicants,
many of which.appear on the list of
hazardous waste constituents at 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII. EPA is also
proposing to add to Appendix VIII the
three compounds that are constituents
of concern in wood preserving wastes
but do not already appear on Appendix
VIII). Tables 7, 8,9, and 10 list the
constituents of concern in wood
preserving wastes and the range of
levels at which they are present in the
wastes. Table 11,12,13, and 14 present
the average waste concentrations
(based on process residual and sludge
data, which EPA believes are
representative of all the listed wastes)
and demonstrate that toxic constituents
are present in wastes from wood
preserving and surface protection
processes at levels that far exceed the
health-based levels of concern. From
these waste concentrations,
hypothetical ground water
concentrations resulting from
mismanagement of the wastes have
been projected assuming three dilution
and attenuation scenarios. For all three
levels, nearly all constituents of concern
exceed established Agency health-biased
numbers. .
BILLING CODE 6560-5O-M
-------
53292
Federal Rijgister / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30; 1988 / Proposed Rales'
TABLE 7
F032 PENTACHLOROPHENOL HASTES FROM UOOB PRESERVING:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
RANGE OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
.
Pentachlorophenol
Benz(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
D1benz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)-
pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium
HASTEHATERS
(PPM)
0.01-310
0.03-10
0.007-10
0.1-1
.
0.006-10
0.003-33
0.004-14
PROCESS
SLUDGES
OR
RESIDUALS
(PPM)
40-34,000
5.1-2,800
54-1,100
50-310
16-130
NA
NA
PRESERVATIVE
FORMULATIONS
(DRIPPAGE)
(PPM)
14,000-52,000
75
50
7
4 T
NA
NA
•
TCDDs
PeCDDs
HxCDOs
HpCODs
TCDFs
PeCDFs
HxCDFs
HpCDFs
WASTEWATERS
(PPB)
0.001-8
0.008-20
0.03-200
0.009-80
0.0006-2
0.001-300
0.001-10
0.002-50
PROCESS
SLUDGES
OR
RESIDUALS
(PPB)
0.001-5
0.2-2
0.06-5,000
0.5-140,000
0.01-35
0.08-1,000
0.01-13,000
0.3-16,000
PRESERVATIVE
FORMULATIONS
(DRIPPAGE)
(PPB)
1
30-70
100-5,000
9,000-100,000
1-30
100-1,000
200-10,000
100-13,000
Source: Background document.
NA - Not Analyzed (No Data Collected).
T - Trace. Analytical data support qualitative analysis (I.e.,
Identification) but not quantitative analysis. Concentration
cited Is the detection limit of the analytical method used.
-37a-
-------
Federal Regbtec / Vol. 53. No,28* / Friday, December 30,1988 / Proposed Rules
TABLES
F033 PEMTACHLOROPHENOt HASTES FROM SURFACE PROTECTION:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
RANGE OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
Pentachlorophenol
2,3,4 ,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
SUMP, CATCH
BASIN AND
DRAINAGE
DITCH SEDIMENTS
(PPM)
1 - 310
0.1 - 130
0.1 U
PROCESS SLUDGES
OR RESIDUALS
(PPM)
880 - 160,000
570 - 4,000
3
PRESERVATIVE
FORMULATIONS
(DRIPPAGE)
(PPM)
40 - 1,900
300 - 950
0.4 - 1.0
•
TCDDs
PeCDDs
HxCDDs
HpCDOs
TCDFs
PeCDFs
HxCDFs
HpCDFs
SUMP, CATCH
BASIN AND
DRAINAGE
DITCH SEDIMENTS
(PPB)
"0.007 - 0.01
0.09 - 0.6
0.2 - 400
0.9 - 4,000
0.03 - 70
0.07 - 20
0.03 - 600
0.4 - 600
PROCESS SLUDGES
OR RESIDUALS
(PPB)
6-30
30 - 1,000
400 - 7,000
2B000 - 42,000
80 - 4,000
400 - 11,000
lflOOO - 12,000
800 - 9,000
PRESERVATIVE
FORMULATIONS
(DRIPPAGE)
(PPB)
0.4 - 3
1 - 200
10 - 10,000
20 - 70,000
4 - 1,000
30 - 8,000
50 - 28,000
4 - 50*000
In the analysis, a pH adjustment causes all pentachlorophenate to be converted
to pentachlorophenol. The analysis measures pentachlorophenol.
Wastewaters from surface protection with pentachlorophenate consist
essentially of the used preservative formulation. These data therefore also
represent what EPA believes are the constituents and constituent
concentrations for wastewaters from surface protection with
pentachlorophenate.
Source: Background Document.
U — Compound was analyzed for but not detected.
detection limit reported.
Value listed 1s the lowest
-37b-
-------
53294
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No* 251 / Friday. December 30,1988 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9
F034 CREOSOTE WASTES:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
RANGE OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz(k)f1uoranthene
D1 benz (a,h) anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Chromium
WASTEWATERS
fPPM)
0.03 - 10
0.007 - 10
0.02 - 4
0.1 - 1
0.006 - 10
0.1 - 400
0.003 - 30
0.004 - 10
PROCESS
SLUDGES
OR RESIDUALS
(PPM)
280 - 7,500
1.800 - 3,000
2,300
140 - 680
100 - 300
700 - 64,000
NA
NA
UNUSED FORMULATION
(DRIPPAGE) PPM
1,600 - 2,600
400 - 600
21,400
100 - 400
1,000
13,000 - 180,000
NA
kl A
NA
NA - Not analyzed (no data collected).
Source: Background Document.
TABLE 10
F035 INORGANIC WASTES:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND RANGE
OF DETECTED CONCENTRATION
PROCESS SLUDGES OR RESIDUALS
(PP«)
UNUSED PRESERVATIVE
(ppm)
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
5,300 - 760,000
70 - 33,000
5 - 290
5,500
6,200
NR
1 Presently. EPA does not have reliable waste characterization, datafor
wastewaters from Inorganic processes. The Agency believes that^the data
for unused preservative are representative of both drlppage and process
wastewaters from Inorganic processes.
NR - Not reported. ' .
Source: Background Document!
-------
FABLE 11
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF
. CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F032
AVERAGE HEALTH-BASED WATER
HASTE CONC. CONCENTRATION
i
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene
Indenofl ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Peritach 1 oropheno 1 "
Arsenic
. Chromium
UI
™ DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS6
TCDDs
PeCOOs
HXCCOs
HpCDDs
DIBENZOFURANS6
TCOFs
- . PeCDfs
HxCDFs
HpCOFs
DETECTED1
(ppm)
900
500
200
70
20.000
2,000
3,000
3 x IO"3
t x I0r3
2
30
2 x IO"3
0.5
3
4
LIMITS
(ppm)
1.1 x
3.0 x
7.1 x
2.0 K
\
0.05
0.05
2.3 x
4.5 x
5.6 x
2.3 x
2.3 x
2.3 x
2.3 x
2.3 x
10"5
10"6
10"7
10"3
to"8
10"'°
to"9
10"7
IO"8
IO"9
A
10"8
to'7
BASIS2
RSO
RSD
RSO
RSD
RfD
MCL
MCL
RSD
RSO
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
(Class B2)
(Class B2)
(Class B2)
(Class C)
(Class B2)
(Class B2)
(Class B2)
(Class B2)
(Class B2>
(Class B2)
(Class B2)
(Class B2>
THE
ESTIMATED
DRINKING WELL
CONCENTRATIONS3
(ppm)
DA tOO
9
5
2
0.07
200
• 20
30
3 x 10"5
1 x IO"5
0.02
0.3
2 x IO"5
5 x IO"3
0.003
0.004
DA 1.000
0.9
0.5
0.2
7 x IO"3
20
2
3
3 x IO"6
» X 10"*
0.002
0.03
2 x 10"6
5 x IO"5
3 x JO"3
4 x IO"3
DA 10.000
0.09
0.05
0.02
7 x IO"4
2
0.2
0.3
3 x IO"7
1 x 10~7
2 x IO"3
0.003
2 x IO"7 .
5 x IO"5
3 x IO"4
4 x 10'4
i
CALCULATED
CONCENTRATION TO
HEALTH-BASED
LIMIT RATIOS4 '
DA 100
820,000
1,700,000
2.600,000
350
200
400
.600
1,3000
22,000
3,600.000
1,300,000
870
2,200,000
1.300,000
170,000
DA 1.000
82,000
170.000
280,000
35
20
40
60 ' |
130
2,200
360,000
130,000
87
220,000
130,000
17,000
DA 10.QOO
8,200
17,000
28,000
3 5'
^* ^
2
^>
4
v •
220
36,000
13,000 ,
'
9 -
22,000
13,000
1,700
3.
a
-------
TABLE 11 (CONCLUDED) g
*?
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F032
en
w
1 Average concentrations calculated from process residuals or process sludge data.
2 Reference Dose (RfD), Risk Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MQL) are explained later
1n the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs. Class A, B, and C carcinogens are based on exposure limits
at a 10'5 risk level. .
•? Calculated for three dilution/attention (DA) levels. .
' ' i
4 Ratio obtained by dividing assumed drinking well concentration column by health-based water concentration
limit column, for all three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
5 This health-based water concentration limit may change following EPA review of the NTP carcinogen study.
"i
6 Waste concentrations presented for dloxlns and furans are for the total congener category specified
(e.g., the concentration Indicated for PeCDD 1s for all Isomers of PeCDDs found). The health-based water
concentration limit for each congener category 1s based on extrapolation using toxldty equivalency
factors relative to the toxldty of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. (See Risk Assessment Forum, 1986).
I
Source: Background Document.
I
-------
TABLE 12
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F033
ESTIMATED
AVERAGE HEALTH-BASED WATER DRINKING WELL
WASTE CONC.
DETECTED'
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT (ppm)
Pentachlorophenol5 20,000
2,4,6-rTrlchlorophenol 3
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 3,000
DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS6
TCOOs 2 ' x 10~2
PeCODs 0.3
HxCDOs 3
w HpCDDs 20
va ' '" . • -
DIBENZOFURANS6
TCDFs '
PeCDFs 3
HxCDFs . 6
HpCOFs 3
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATIONS3
LIMITS (PPm) .,.„..,
i
CALCULATED
CONCENTRATION TO
HEALTH-BASED
LIMIT RATIOS4
(ppm) BASIS2 DA 100 DA 1,000 DA 10,000 DA 100 DA 1,000 DA 10,000
1 RfD 200 20 2 - 200
1.8 x 10'3 RSD (Class B2) 0.03 0.003 3 x 10'4 20
I RfD 30 3 0.3 30
2.3 x 10~fl RSD (Class B2> 2 x 10~4 2 x 10'5 2 x 10"6 8,700
4.5 x 10'10 RSD (Class B2> . 0.003 3 x 10'4 3 x 10'5 6,700.000
5.6 x 10'9 RSD (Class B2) 0.03 0.003 3 x 10"4 5,400,000
2.3 x 10"7 RSD (Class B2) 0.2 0.02 0.002 870,000
2.3 x 10'9 RSD (Class B2) 0.01 O.OOt 1 x 10'4 4,300,000
2.3 x 10~9 RSD (Class B2) 0.03 0.003 3 K 10'4 4,300,000
2.3 x 10"fl RSD (Class B2) 0.06 0.006 6 x 10'4 2,600,000
2.3 x 10'7 RSD (Class B2> . 0.03 0.003 3 x 10"4 130,000
°
20' 2
2 0.2
3 0.3
-
t
870 87
670,000 67,000
540,000 54,000
87,000 8,700
430,000 43.000
430,000 43,000
260,000 26,000
13,000 1,300
1 Average concentrations based on process sludge or process residual data.
2 Reference Dose (RfD), Risk
1n the preamble, as are the
risk level.
. •
Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum. Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained latep
classes of RSDs. Class B carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 10"
'
!
f
I
1
I
#
f
•S.
t
a
z
0
s
I
p
d
CD
:ember 3
P
a
E.
CD
0|
-------
TABLE 12 (CONCLUDED)
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F033
3 Calculated for three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
4 Ratio obtained by dividing assumed drinking well concentration column by health-based water concentration
limit column for all three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
5 This level health-based water concentration limit may change following EPA review of the NTP carcinogen
study.
6 Waste concentrations presented for dloxlns and furans are for the total congener category specified
(e.g.', the concentration Indicated for PeCDDs 1s for all Isomers of PeCDDs found). The health-based
water concentration limit for each congener category 1s based on extrapolation using toxlclty equivalency
factors relative to the toxlclty of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. (See Risk Assessment Forum. 1986).
i°, Source; Background Document.
-------
TABLE 13
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F034
ESTIMATED
AVERAGE HEALTH-BASED WATER DRINKING WELL
WASTE COHC, CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATIONS3
DETECTED1 LIMITS (ppm)
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT (ppm) (ppm) BASIS2 DA 100 DA 1 ,000 DA 10,000
Benz (a) anthracene 4,000 1.1 x IO"5 RSD (Class B2) 40 4 0.4 3,
Benzo(k)f luoranthene 2,000 4.0 x I0~3 RSD (Class B2) 20 2 0.2
Benzo(a)pyrene 2,000 3.0 x 10~6 RSD (Class B2> 20 2 0.2 6,
Dlben;(a,h)anthracene 400 7.1 tt 10~7 RSD (Class S2> 4 0.4 0.04 5,
Indenod, 2,3-c,d)pyrene 200 2.0 x 10"J RSD (Class C) 0.5 0.05 5 x 10~3
Naphthalene 40,000 14 RfD 400 40 4
Arsenic 2,000 0.05 MCL 20 2 0.2
, Chromium 3.000 0.05 MCL 30 3 0.3
O
ut
i . . ' •
1 Average concentrations based on process residuals or process sludge data.
2 Reference Dose (RfD), Risk Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
CALCULATED
CONCENTRATION TO
HEALTH-BASED
LIMIT RATIOS4
DA 100 DA 1,000 DA 10,000
600,000 360,000 36,000
5,000 500 50
700,000 670,000 67,000
600,000 560,000 56,000
1,000 100 10
30 , 3 0.3
40 4 0.4
60 60 6
.-
k
are explained later
in the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs. Class B and C carcinogens are based on exposure limits at
a 10 risk level.
3 Calculated for three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
**• Ratio obtained by dividing assumed drinking well concentration column by
concentration limit column for all three dilution/attenuation levels.
Source: Background Document.
health-based water
2
ID*
$.
a?
|
1
«.»
a.
en
p
'as
0
p
In
^
i
Q,
F
b
CD
O
§
o*
!•*
CO
P
4
3s
•a
o
CO
8.
1
w
-------
-
IftDLC, J.«*
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F035
ESTIMATED CALCULATED
AVERAGE HEALTH-BASED WATER DRINKING WELL CONCENTRATION TO
WASTE CONC. CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATIONS3 HEALTH-BASED
DETECTED1 LIMITS ,„„, . LIMIT RATIOS4
rSWaW005 CONSTITUENT (pp*) (ppm) BASIS* DA 100 DA 1.000 DA 10.000 lu inn HA i nnn n. ,n «« •
Arsenic
Chroalun
c
Lead5
1 Concentrations
-
2
Reference Dose
in the preamble
3 , Calculated for
Ratio obtained
, 100,000 0.05 MCL 1,000 100 10 2,000 200 20
10,000 0.05 MCL 100 10 1 2,000 200 20
80 0.05 MCL 0.8 0.08 0.008 20 2 0.2
13
based on process sludge or residual data.
(RfD), Risk Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained later
, as are the classes of RSDs.
three different dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
by dividing assumed drinking well concentration column by health-based water concentration
limit column for all three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels. >
* the MCL for lead 1s currently undergoing EPA review.
Spurce; Background Document
BjU,INO CODE 6560-50-C
*
:
i
2s
§•
BL
a
1
8
I
01
w
j
M
s
I
a
1
|
p
^
I
t
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 53» No,-; 251; / Friday, December 3O» 19«8i /<- Peopoaecb Rfele*
lathe past, EPA'* selection of
constituents of nfMicfia foe listed-
hazardous wasted-Jus relied on
comparisons of nnnrimnm reported
waste constituent concentrations with
health-based levels of concern. In this
case, the Agency has found, as is shown
in Tables 11,12.13 and 14. that the
Concentrations of constituents of
concern in wood perserving wastes are
so high that even projections of ground
water contamination levels based on
average waste concentrations (rather
than maximum concentrations) exceed
health-based levels of concern. •
Tables 11,12,13, and 14 summarize
the Agency's analysis of the hazards
posed by the constituents of concern. In
this analysis, EPA examined projected
ground water concentrations for the
constituents of concern assuming three
dilution and attenuation factors: 100,
1,000, and 10,000. These three levels
encompass a broad range of dilution/
attenuation factors. The drinking water
well concentrations calculated for
dilution/attenuation levels of 100.1.000..
arid 10,000 assume that the
concentration of each constituent of
concern in the well water are 1 percent.
0.1 percent, and O01 percent,
respectively. The tables show that, in
the vast majority of cases, the
constituents of concern are likely to
appear in ground water at
concentrations that exceed the health-
based levels of concern by one to four
orders of magnitude using the extremely
liberal dilution and attenuation factor of
10,000, Thus, even if the Agency did not
evaluate the hazard conservatively,: -• •-
these wastes clearly would contain •—
concentrations of constituents of '
concern far in excess of safe levels.
Damage cases, described below and
in an appendix to this preamble, further
demonstrate that the constituents of
concern in the wastes proposed for
listing are sufficiently mobile and
persistent for past mismanagement to
have resulted in contamination of
ground water, surface water, and soils.
After considering all of the factors of
40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), because these
wastes contain high concentrations of
highly toxic constituents that are mobile
and persistent and are unlikely to
degrade in the environment before
reaching receptors, and because past
mismanagement of these wastes has
already resulted in serious
environmental damage and risk to
human health, EPA is proposing that
F032..F033, F034, andF035fae addedto.-
the list of hazardous, wastes from noa- -, •
specific sources;
2. Waste Characterization and
Constituents of Concern
The following section summarizes the
information concerning waste
characterization and constituents of
concern that EPA has gathered to
support this proposed listing. EPA has
selected constituents of concern based
on two principal factors: Their known
toxicity and their relevant
concentrations in the waste. Other
constituents were detected hi these
waste streams but were not selected as
constituents of concern; data on these
can be found in the Background
Document for today's proposal.
a. Wastes from chlorophenolic wood
preserving processes (F032J. Table 7
lists the constituents of concern found in
wastes from wood preserving operations
using chlorophenolic formulations as
well as the concentration ranges of
these constituents. Pentachlorophenol
averaged 15 mg/1 in wastewaters with a
maximum concentration of 310 mg/1.
Twenty-one different polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH} - .
compounds (only some of which are
constituents of concern) were found in
wastewaters from wood preserving
operations using pentachlorophenol
and/or creosote. The PAH contaminants
are believed to be derived from the use
of petroleum carrier solvents for the
pentachlorophenol formulation and/or
the current or past use of creosote wood
preserving processes. Arsenic
. concentrations in wastewaters from
facilities that are treated with
pentachlorophenol and/or creosote and
inorganic preservatives ranged from
0.003 to 33 mg/1. averaging S mg/1.
Chromium- concentrations ranged from
0.004 mg/1 to 14 mg/1. averaging 2 mg/L
The Agency believes that
pentachlorophenate may be used to
preserve wood, although its use is not
extensive. Wastes from wood
preservation processes that use
pentachlorophenate are expected to
contain the same chlorophenolic
constituents as wastes from
pentachlorophenol processes.
The average pentachlorophenol
concentration for process sludges was
about 1.6 percent. No analyses were
available of preservative formulation as
it drips from treated wood. Instead, in-
use pentachlorophenol wood preserving
formulation was sampled to obtain data
indicative of constituent concentrations-
in drippage because EPA believes that
drippage.either will be or will
substantially resemble preserving
formulations. The average
pentachlorophenol concentration was
26,000 mg/1 (2.6%); the maximum -
concentration was 52.000 mg/1 (5.2%).
All ten PCDD/PCDF homoJogue groups
were detected in non-wastewater
pentachlorophenol treating wastes.
However, 2.3,7,8-TCDD was not
detected in nine analyzed samples of
F032 wastes (process residuals and
preservative formulation believed
typical of drippage). Total TCDDs were
detected in eight of 20 analyzed
samples. Calculated equivalent 2,3,7,8-
TCDD concentrations for all cogener
groups detected averaged 200 ppb for
process sludges residuals and 300 ppb
for in-use treating solutions.
Within hazardous waste listing F032,
the Agency is proposing to include
wastes generated at facilities that
previously used chlorophenolic
formulations and wastes generated from
creosote, inorganic, and other processes
located within the same facility as a
chlorophenol process. Process'sludges
and wastewater residuals gradually
accumulate in wood preserving, surface
protection, and wastewater treatment
equipment. Periodically (annually.
semianually, monthly, or perhaps more
frequently, depending on the size and
operating practices of the facility) the
accumulated residuals are removed from
the equipment and then disposed. The
Agency has information (which is
available in the docket to this rule
making) that wood preserving facilities
regularly change the preservatives used
in a particular piece of process
equipment without removing
accumulated materials or in any way
cleaning the equipment.
EPA has gathered considerable
evidence that F032 waste (from
inorganic and creosote processes that is
either generated from equipment that
has been previously used in
chlorophenolic processes or generated
at facilities that have used or currently
use processes on the same site) is
contaminated by the constituents, of
concern from the chlorophenolic
processes. Such cross-contamination is
documented by the waste
characterization data available in the
Background Document. These data show
that constituents unique to
chlorophenolic wastes from
chlorophenolic processes were
identified in wastes that came from
creosote and inorganic processes. The
Background Document for this listing
presents many cases that describe
cross-contamination. The cross-
contamination is further documented by
information on the wastes and their
management practices collected by EPA
through site visits and surveys. Based OH
this information, EPA has concluded
that a serious, and significant degree of
cross-contamination exists due to
-------
53302
Federal RegJitter / VoL 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
common practices in the industry. EPA
has therefore included wastes from
inorganic and creosote processes that
may be cross-contaminated with
chlorophenolic wastes in the F032
listing.
Following are a few examples
identified by EPA where cross-
contamination as a result of normal
operating practices has occurred. More
examples are provided in the
Background Document.
At a U.S. Army depot in Memphis,
Tennessee, wood products were dipped
or steeped in a 5,000 gallon vat; of
pentachlorophenol solution. Treating
solution was stored in a %-inch steel
underground storage tank which
subsequently leaked. After a number of
years, the wood treatment process was
discontinued and an investigation of the
site undertaken. Various surfaces in the
treatment area were sampled and
analyzed for PCDD and PCDF content
Chips from the treatment building
dnderblock walls and concrete floor
contained 24.7 ppb and 42.3 ppb of toxic
equivalent 2,3,7,8-TCDD. respectively.
The storage tank was emptied, cleaned
and sandblasted. After sandblasting, a
100 cm2 wipe of the inside of the storage
tank showed 1.3 ppb toxic equivalent
2,3,7,8-TCDD. The tank was
hydroblasted and retested. The toxic
equivalent 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration
in a 100 cm2 wipe was then 0.13 ppb.
These data demonstrate that process
equipment used for preserving wood
with pentachlorophenol can be
contaminated even after accumulated
residuals are removed.
In addition, as part of EPA'a general
sampling and analysis effort, sediment
was collected from a treating cylinder
that had been used to treat wood with
pentachlorophenol until 2 to 4 months
prior to the sampling episode. At that
time, the preservative used in the
cylinder was replaced with creosote, but
the cylinderwas not cleaned. The
sediment in this wood treating cylinder
contained material that had
accumulated during pentachlorophenol
wood preserving operations amd
materials that had accumulated during
creosote wood preserving operations.
Analysis of the sediment showed 140
rag/kg of pentachlorophenol.
Pentachlorophenol has never been found
as a constituent of creosote or of
creosote wood preserving formulations.
Cross-contamination must therefore
have occurred.
The major cause of cross- .
contamination at facilities using more
than one type of preservative is mixing
of the wastes generated from the various
processes. Indeed, plants visited by EPA
that use more than one type of
preservative comingled wastes, and all
plants using both creosote and
chlorophenolic formulations comingled
wastewaters.
One facility surveyed by EPA
reported that wastewater from its
pentachlorophenol wood preserving
operations was routed to an oil-water
separator. The oil fraction was returned
to the pentachlorophenol work tank
while the separated water was used to
make up CCA treating solution. In
addition, this facility has one vacuum
pump used to create a vacuum on both
the CCA retort and the
pentachlorophenol retort. Cooling and
sealing water from the pump was also
used to make up CCA treating solution.
A second facility reported using the
wastewater (after oil/water separation)
from its pentachlorophenol treatment
operation to make up its ACA treating
solution. These practices resulted in
cross-contamination of inorganic wood
preserving wastes with chlorophenolic,
PCDD, and PCDF constituents.
EPA has also obtained reports of
other practices leading to cross-
contamination of wastes, such as the
use of common equipment for moving
treated wood, untreated wood, and
waste material and the use of common
tramcars for holding wood in the
treating cylinders. Also, creosote
process wastes have become
contaminated with chlorophenolic,
PCDD, and PCDF constituents at
facilities that use a common oil-water
separator for chlorophenolic and
creosote wastewaters when the
recovered oil is recycled back to the
creosote process.
Cross-contamination has occurred
even when treating cylinders or tanks
are dedicated to the application of one
preservative formulation. For example, a
California wood preserving facility that
treated wood with pentachlorophenol
and creosote in dedicated retorts
measured wastewater contaminant
concentrations of pentachlorophenol in
the creosote wastewaters of 32 mg/1
(Palmer, 1986). This cross-contamination
is believed to be the result of using other
equipment in common and
interconnecting piping. Thus, cross-
contamination may occur at facilities
that attempt to segregate chlorophenolic
from non-chlorophenolic wastes if the
processes, process equipment, and
process areas are not adequately
segregated.
The Agency's principal concern
regarding cross-contamination is that it
may result in wastes from creosote and
inorganic processes containing dioxins
and dibenzofurans that are not normally
present in wastes generated by these
processes. EPA recognizes that the
presence of dioxin contaminants in a
hazardous waste may reduce the
availability of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
that can or will accept the waste.
Since cross-contamination can be
eliminated through proper cleaning and
replacement of contamination
equipment, today's proposal includes
standards for equipment cleaning and
replacement. Generators of F032 who
change to another preservative and who
comply with the equipment cleaning and
replacement standards will generate
wastes that do not meet the F032 listing
once cleaning and replacement is
complete and provided that the
generator does not resume using
chlorophenolic formulations. Generators
should note that after successful
cleaning and replacement, their wastes
may continue to be subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA either
because they meet the listing
descriptions of F034 or F035 or because
they exhibit one or more of the
" characteristics of hazardous waste. The
equipment cleaning and replacement
standards are discussed in detail
elsewhere in this preamble.
b. Wastes from chlorophenolic
surface protection processes (F033).
Table 8 lists the constituents of concern
found.in wastes from surface protection
operations using chlorophenates as well
as the concentration ranges of these
constituents. Although no wastewater is
directly generated from surface
protection processes, precipitation that
comes into contact with process areas
can become contaminated with surface
protection chemicals. This contaminated
precipitation is collected in sumps and
catch basins and may be conveyed back
to the process, to wastewater treatment
(or, more commonly, to offsite discharge
_ via natural drainage or earthen ditches).
, No information quantifying the
amount of wastewater generated at
surface protection facilities was
collected by the agency during its study
of the industry. The quantity of
precipitation falling on the process area
at a surface protection facility is
estimated to be approximately 1,000,000
liters (270,000 gallons) per year,
assuming an annual rainfall of 100 cm
(40 inches) and a process area of 1,000
m2 (0.25 acre). For 300 to 500 surface
' protection facilities, this amounts to 300
to 500 million liters (80 to 130 million
gallons) per year.
Limited data were available to
characterize the concentration of
constituents of concern in surface
protection wastewater. One sample of
water taken from a drain near a dip tank
contained 14 ppm tetrachlorophenols
-------
Federal Regittter ? Vol. 53, Ha. 25r / Fridair/ O2cerebcr 30^ 19fl» / PtojxnHni Rnles^ 5J3O3-
andftpfropentachiozopfaenoLA*"•> . .
another faciKtyi a Mnapfeofwaatewater? •
collected fran*aditc&»ducir drained the1-;
dip tank area to a creek contained 0&
ppm pentachiorophenok The complete
data set, including ait constituents
detected, can be found in Appendix D of
the Background Document..
la process sludges or residuals (such
as working tank or retort sediments), the
concentration'of pentachlorophenol..
averaged 20;000 mg/kg, (2.0 percent).
TetrachlorophenoU are present in the
preservative formulation, either as the
active ingredient or a contaminant of
pentachlorophenates. The average total
isomer tetrachlorophenol concentration •
was 17,000 mg/kg (1.7 percent).
The pentachlorophenol concentration
in sludges that accumulate in catch
basins, sumps, and drainage ditches
averaged 95 mg/kg while the
concentration of 2,3,4,8-
tetrachlorophenol averaged 40 mg/kg.
No analyses of preservative formulation
as it drips from surface-protected wood
were available. Instead, in-use
chlorophenate surface protection
formulation was sampled to obtain data
representative of constituent
concentrations hi drippage. Wastewater "
from surface protection processes
consists principally of used preservative
formulation (i.e., the formulation in the
dip tank). EPA, therefore, believes that
in-use chlorophenate surface protection
characterization data are also '
representative of wastewaters from.
surface protection with chlorophenate
formulations. The average
pentachlorophenol concentration was
810 mg/1 with an average 2,3,4,6-
tetrachlorophenol concentration of 520
mg/1.
All ten PCDD/PCDF homologue
groups, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, were
detected in surface protection wastes.
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in 3 of 15
samples of F033 wastes analyzed for
2,3,7,8-TCDD (catch basin and drainage
ditch sediments, process residuals and
preservative formulation). Total TCDDs
(including 2,3,7,8-TCDD and all other
homologues) were detected in 7 of 16
samples of F033 wastes analyzed for
TCDDs. The average 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentration in process sludges was 8
ug/1 (ppb). The 2.3,7,8-TCDD
concentration measured in one sample
of sediment from a surface drainage
ditch was 7 ppt. Total equivalent 2,3,7,8-
TCDD concentrations were also
calculated from sampling data for the
various types of surface protection -
wastes. The equivalent concentration
averaged 700-ppb- for process sludges or
residuals, 4 ppb foEsludgea that -.-
accumulate in sumps and catch basin*
solutions^ The sampling data and-
Toxicity Equivalent Factors used tc^
calculate-these averages from-sampling
data are provided in the Background
Document.
The Agency anticipates that as a
result of today's proposed listings, many
sawmills that generate no hazardous.
waste except die residuals from
chlorophenolic surface protection
processes-will change preservative
formulations to avoid becoming
hazardous waste generators.
Generators of F033 wastes should .
note that the listing includes cross-
contaminated wastes, similar to the FD32
listing. Therefore, although a generator
may change preservatives to one that
has not been evaluated as part of this
listing, the wastes from the new
preservative would continue to be F033
wastes due to the potential for cross-
contamination. As for F032 cross^-
contaminated wastes, in order to
provide generators who are able to
change preservatives with ah
opportunity to eliminate the potential for
cross-contamination and hence, to have
their wastes generated from processes
using non-chlorophenolic formulations
no longer be F033 waste. EPA is
proposing standards for equipment
cleaning and replacement as part of
today's proposed rule. Generators who
change to another preservative (that is,
one not subject to the listing) and who
comply with the equipment cleaning and
replacement standards will generate.
wastes in these processes that are not
F033-listed waste. Generators should
note, however, that their wastes will
remain, subject to the hazardous waste
characteristic rules and. should they
exhibit one or more characteristics of
hazardous waste, would continue to be
subject to regulation under Subtitle C of
RCRA. The Agency notes also that the
equipment cleaning and replacement
standard does not in any way affect any
future listing determinations that EPA
may make regarding other surface
protection formulations not covered by
today's listing. Should the agency
promulgate a listing for such other
preservatives in the future, wastes
generated, although in compliance with
the equipment cleaning and replacement
standard could again be subject to
Subtitle C regulations. •
c. Wastes'from creosote wood
preserving processes (F034). Tables •
lists the constituents of concern found in
wastes from wood preserving operations
using creosote as well as the1
concentration ranges of these- ••
constituents: Pentachlorophenol, PCDDs,.
and PCDFs derive solely from wood •
• preserving-operaSonw using?- •, - ~ - • •'" -
chlorophenolies and are not present iar
wastes at facilities that have never used •
chlorophenolic formulations. Twenty-
five different PAH compounds (not all of
which are defined as constituents of
concern) were found in wastewaters
from wood preserving operations using
creosote. Naphthalene, the most
frequently detected compound, averaged
56 mg/1 in wastewaters. Phenanthrene,
also frequently detected, averaged
54,000 mg/kg [5.4 percent); in process
sludges or residuals.
No analyses of creosote preservative
formulations were available, either as
they drip, from treated wood or as in-use
formulations. However, initial free
drippage from creosote-treated wood is
expected to have the same composition
as unused creosote formulations
(mixtures of creosote and coal tar).
Literature data on creosote
formulations, presented in the
Background Document for today's
proposal, were available for eleven PAH
compounds with phenanthreae at
180,000 mg/kg (18 percent) present at the
highest concentration.
Toxic metals concentrations in wastes
from creosote processes are variable
and depend on the extent of cross-
contamination at a particular facility.
Data describing the extent of cross-
contamination between creosote and
inorganic processes are provided in the
Background Document developed in
support of this proposed listing:
d. Wastes from inorganic wood
preserving processes (F035). Table 10
lists the constituents of concern found in
wastes from wood preserving processes
using only inorganic formulations of
arsenic and chromium. It also lists the
concentration ranges of these metals in
the wastes. Arsenic/concentrations in
process residuals averaged 150,000 mg/ ,
kg (15 percent); chromium
concentrations averaged 14,000 mg/kg
(1.4 percent). Lead was also present in
samples of process sludges, at an
average concentration of 80 mg/kg. Lead
found in wood preserving wastes is
believed to be a .contaminant of the
arsenic component of the preservative
formulation. This listing applies only to
wastes from facilities that presently use
inorganic preservatives and are not
using or have not previously used
chlorophenolic preservatives as
previously discussed (those wastes from
inorganic facilities where
chlorophenohcs have been used are
covered under the proposed F032
listing). Consequently, the constituents
of concern for F035 do noMnclude
pentachorophenol, PCDDs, or PGDFs.
PAH compounds derive front creosote
-------
5330*- Federal Regurter / Vol. 53. No;-25I. A'Friday; December 30.M988? / Proposed Rules-
and from petroleum oils used a»
pentachlorophenol carriers and may be
present in residuals from inorganic
treating facilities that have always
previously used creosote preservatives
or are presently using both inorganics
and creosote preservatives on the same
site.
Information available to EPA
indicates that wastewaters from
arsenical or chromium wood preserving
processes are typically recycled. These
wastewaters are proposed to be listed
as hazardous waste and will be subject
to regulation when they are not recycled
(See generally, the Solid Waste,
Redefinition Rule, 50 FR 683, January 4,
1985).
No analyses of inorganic preservative
formulations, either as they drip from
treated wood or as in-use formulations,
were available. However, initial
drippage from wood treated with
Inorganic preservatives is expected to
have the same composition as unused
preservative solution, as specified by
the American Wood Preservers
Association. A 2.5 percent solution of
CCA-C, the most commonly used
inorganic preservative, has
approximately 5,500 mg/1 arsenic and
6,200 mg/1 chromium. Data supporting
these concentration estimates are
provided in the Background Document
developed to support this proposed
listing.
3. Health Effects of Concern
The Agency has obtained data
demonstrating that the constituents
found in the wastes generated by the
preservation and surface protection of
wood with chlorophenolics, creosote,
and inorganic formulations are systemic
toxicants and/or carcinogens. These
toxic constituents are present in
concentrations capable of causing
adverse health effects as shown by
Tables 11,12,13 and 14. The tables
demonstrate that even if only 0.01
percent of the average constituent levels
in the waste reaches environmental
receptors, the exposure concentrations
are often four orders of magnitude
higher than the health-based levels of
concern. If the Agency assumes more
conservative dilution and attenuation
factors (projecting that a larger portion
of the waste disposed would reach
environmental receptors) the exposure
concentrations would be even higher.
Given such high concentrations in the
waste, the potential for exposure to
harmful concentrations of the
constituents of concern is extremely
high.
For the purpose of listing waste as
hazardous under RCRA, the Agency
routinely uses three basic methods to
indicate measures of toxicity: (1)
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
(2) Risk Specific Doses (RSDs) for
known carcinogens; and (3) Reference
Doses (RfDs) for systemic toxicants.
Based on different criteria, each of these
methods give the maximum doses or
levels of exposure that are acceptable.
MCLs are final Drinking Water
Standards promulgated under Section
1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1974. as amended in 1984, for both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
compounds. In setting MCLs, EPA
considers a range of pertinent factors
(for example, see 52 FR 25697-98, July 8,
1987).
For many carcinogenic constituents
for which MCLs are not promulgated,
the Agency has developed oral RSDs.
The RSD is a dose that corresponds to a
specified level of risk of an individual
contracting cancer over a 70-year
lifetime because of the presence of the
toxicant in drinking water. To develop
an RSD, a risk level must be specified.
EPA specifies the risk level of concern
on a weight-of-evidence scheme.based
on the quality and adequacy of
experimental data and the kinds of
responses induced by a suspect
carcinogen. The carcinogenic
constituents of concern in F032, F033, '
F034, and F035 for which no MCLs exist
are either probable human carcinogens
(Class Ba), based on a combination of
sufficient evidence in animals and
, inadequate data in humans, or possible
human carcinogens (Class C), based on
limited animal evidence in the absence
. of human data. (Details on the other
. classes of carcinogens are given in the
Background Document.) The oral RSDs
for carcinogenic agents are presented at
the 10~8 risk level for Class A and B
carcinogens and the 10~5 risk level for
Class C carcinogens. This is consistent
with the risk levels used to delist
specific wastes.
Oral Reference Dose Numbers (RfDs)
are established for non-carcinogenic
constituents. An RfD is an estimate of a
daily exposure to a substance for the
human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that appears to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. If frequent exposures
that exceed the RfD occur, the
probability that adverse effects may be
observed increases. The method for
estimating the RfD for non-carcinogenic
end points was described in the
proposed rule for the Toxicity
Characteristic (51 FR 21648, June 13.
1986).
The hazardous constituents of
concern have.carcinogenic or other
chronic systemic effects on laboratory,
animals or humans and have been
determined to be present in the wastes-
from wood preserving and surface
protection processes.in sufficient
concentrations to pose a substantial
threat to human health and the
environment. As outlined here, EPA has
established RfDs, RSDs, or MCLs for all
of the constituents of concern in wood
preserving wastes. A brief summary of
the toxicity of these constituents is
presented in this preamble. A more .
detailed discussion is included in the
Background Document to today's
proposal.
The concentration limits for the
constituents of concern in Tables 11,12,
13, and 14 are based on tw.o
assumptions. First that the average
person has a mass of 70 kg and, second,
that a person drinks, on average, 2 liters
of water daily.
All the chlorophenols of concern (see
Table 1) for F032, F033, and F034 are
chronic systemic toxicants. One of them
2,4,6-trichlorophenolis also a Class Bz
carcinogen (based on animal toxicity
data) with an RSD of 1.8 X lO^ppm; it
has caused lymphomas, leukemias, and
carcinomas hi rats and mice, and has
been determined to be mutagenic.
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol is a systemic
toxicant and has been assigned an RfD
of 1 ppm. This is supported by
subchronic oral and reproductive
studies in animals; significant .
biochemical and clinical pathological
changes have been reported.
Previous studies of pentachlorophenol
have shown it to be highly toxic to
humans. Based on available data, EPA
has established an RfD for
pentachlorophenol of 1 ppm.
Pentachlorophenol causes contact
dermatitis, damage to vision, and, on
ingestion, lung, liver, and kidney
damage. Inhalation of
pentachlorophenol results in acute
poisoning, centering on the circulatory
system with accompanying heart failure.
Oral doses of 29 ppm have been
reported to be lethal to humans. Data
from a recent National Toxicology
Program bioassay, (McConnell, 1988).
however, provide evidence that
pentachlorophenol is also a carcinogen.2
The polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon constituents of concern in
F032, F033, and F034 (see Table 1) are all
chronic systemic toxicants; some are
also carcinogenic. Naphthalene has an
RfD of 14 ppm, pyrene an RfD of 4 ppm,
'The NTP bioassay would change the previously
established health-based number of 1 ppm for
pentachlorophenol. The final rule may be revised
following Office of Solid Waste's review of the
study.
-------
Federal .Register / VoL 53, N«J~ 251*^ Frid£yf December 3O^ 198* />ifiNipes«hMlHte*v. -~:
and benzo(k)fluoranthene an RfD of -
0.004 ppm. - -:.
Benz(a]anthracene is a Class B*
carcinogen; various studies on mice
have resulted in sarcomas, bladder
carcinomas, and malignant skin tumors.
The RSD, by ingestion, at the 10"6 risk
level, is 1.1 X 10~5ppm.
. Benzo(a)pyrene is also a Class 82
carcinogen; its RSD, by ingestion, at the
10"8 risk-level, is 3 X 10~6ppmin
drinking water. In animals, it has caused
stomach, skin, and lung tumors, lung
adenomas, and local tumors following
direct injection. In humans, clear
association between exposure and
occurrence of lung cancer has been ,
shown for several mixtures containing
benzo(a]pyrene. Skin exposure has
resulted in benign and reversible skin
lesions.
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene is also a Class
62 carcinogen. Its RSD, by ingestion, at
the 10" risk level is 7 X 10~7 ppm. Via
various routes of exposure,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene has increased the
occurrence in mice of lung, skin, and
mammary carcinomas, subcutaneous
sarcomas, pulmonary adenomas, and
hemangioendotheliomas. Indeno(l,2,3-
cdjpyrene is a Class C carcinogen; it has
an RSD of 0.002 ppm. Specifically, skin
carcinomas and papitiomas in mice have
resulted from subcutaneous injection of
and skin painting with indeno(l,2,3-
cd)pyrene.
Each of the inorganic .constituents of'
concern in F032,, F033, F034, and F035
(arsenic, chromium, and lead) has an
MCL of 0.05 ppm. Arsenic is a proven
carcinogen (Class A), has caused skin _
and lung cancer in humans and, through
occupational exposure, may cause
precancerous lesions. Chromium
compounds are acute systemic ' • •
toxicants, mainly affecting the skin and
mucous membranes. Lead is an
accumulative poison; it can cause a
number of human physiological effects
including kidney damage and
reproductive disorders. (The MCL for
lead is currently being reviewed by the
Agency.)
To date, EPA has established health-
based numbers for only two of the
PCDD constituents'of concern: 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p^dioxin and
hexachlorodibenzodioxin. Only limited
data exist on the other congeners. These
congeners differ in the number of
chlorine atoms they contain and the
relative positions of these chlorine
atoms on the. dioxin or furan molecules.
The similarity in structure,that some of
thesn congeners display indicates that
they are often present together as a-
complex mixture. The congener 2,3,7,8-
TCDD is the most widely studied
constituent of concern] It is a Class 82
carcinogen; its RSD, at the 10~s risk
level, corresponds to a water
concentration limit of 2.3 X 10~10ppm.
Exceptionally low doses of this
compound elicit a wide range of toxic
responses in animals (e.g., adverse
reproductive effects, thymic atrophy,
and a wasting syndrome leading to
death).
For those PCDD congeners and PCDFs
that do not have established RSDs, EPA
is proposing to use the health-based
numbers for 2,3,7,8-TCDD as an
indicator of their relative toxicity. This
is determined by using the toxicity
equivalence factors (TEFsJ assigned to
the relevant congener and applied to
risk levels associated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Limited data suggest that other PCDD
congeners have toxic effects similar to
those of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Further, data
indicate that some PCDF congeners
exhibit 2,3,7,8-TCDD-like toxicity.
Briefly, to determine TEFs,
concentration data are first obtained on
the PCDDs and PCDFs present in the
mixture. Then, reasoning on the basis of
the structure-activity relations and
results of short-term tests, the toxicity of
each of the components is estimated and
expressed as an equivalent amount of
2,3,7,8-TCDD. Combined with estimates
of exposure and known toxicity
information on 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the risks
associated with the mixture of PCDDs
and PCDFs can be assessed. The
Agency believes that, in the absence of
toxicological data on all the PCDDs and
PCDFs and, as an interim measure, this
method provides a reasonable estimate
of the toxicity (see Risk Assessment
Forum, 1986).
4. Constituents Proposed for Addition to
Appendix VIII
The majority of the constituents of
concern present in the wood preserving
and surface protection wastes already
appear on the list of hazardous
constituents (409 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VIII). This action proposes to
add three more constituents of concern
from such wastes which are not
presently listed on Appendix VIII to that
appendix, specifically: benzo(k)-
fluoranthene, heptachlorodibehzofurans,
and heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. The
known health effects of these waste
constituents are summarized in the
following discussion.
Benzo(k)flubranthene is classified by
EPA as a Class 62 carcinogen. Available
toxicity data (USEPA, 1987) demonstrate
that it is carcinogenic to animals and,
according to the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC),
benzo(k)fluoranthene is a probable
human carcinogen.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene has been
evaluated in dermal studies with mice,
in mouse-skin initiation-promotion
assays using TPA as a promoter, and in
a subcutaneous injection study of mice.
It has been shown to be active as an
initiator and produced injection site
sarcomas in the subcutaneous study.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene has also been .
shown to be mutagenic in standard
mutagenicity tests with.Sa/mane//a
typhlmurium strains TA100 and TA98.
Heptachlorodibenzorp-dioxins and
heptachlorodibenzofurans are members
of the large family of chlorinated dioxins
and furans. Certain of these chemicals;
most notably, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, have been
shown to be highly toxic. The Agency's
Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG)
has completed quantitative analyses
demonstrating that 2,3,7,8-TCDDs and
2,3,7,8-HxCDDs are among the most
potent animal carcinogens ever
evaluated by the Agency. Limited
experimental data, supplemented by
structure/activity analyses indicate
other chlorinated dioxins and furans.
such as heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
and heptachlorodibenzofuran may have
toxic effects similar to 2,3,7,8-TCDD at
very low doses (EPA, 1987). EPA has
therefore concluded that there is
sufficient evidence to conclude that
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
heptachlorodibenzo-furan are
constituents of concern in hazardous
wastes and should be added to 40 CFR
261 Appendix VIII.
5. Mobility and Persistence of Wastes
from Wood Preserving and Surface
Protection Processes
The toxic constituents from wood
preserving and surface protection-
processes have been found to migrate
from the wastes and; further, they-have
been found to have sufficient mobility
and persistence in the environment to
contaminate ground water (including
drinking water), surface waters and
sediments, and surface soils. The
solubilities and projected ground water
mobility of the selected organic
constituents of wood preserving wastes
are presented in Table 15. •
-------
53306
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
TABUE 15.—•GROUNOWATER MOBtuTv_AND PERSISTENCE OF CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
Constituents at concern
Cm-OROPHENOLS
2,<* S-Trichtorophenol ..•«••
23 < 6-Totrachlorophenol
p6ntachlofcph@nol *-.—.-.-..-« ..«•....-,
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
B-p4jioxin« •„_-__
HtvFi*chtoftx)a3anzo-p-°
Water
sokjMrty
(ppm)
800 • .
14
0.057
0.038
0.0043
0.0005
0.0005
31.7
0.0002
0.0001
0.000004
0.000002
Log'
K0w
3.61
4.1
5.04
5.61
6.06
6.06
6.84
6.50
3.29
6.84
9.65
10.44
11.50
Koc*
2,000
4,050
16,000
20.000
550.000
550,000
3.300,000
1,600.000
940
3,300,000
1,700,000
11,500,000
17,000,000
Mobility >
Slightly * contaminated
medium
tow
tow
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
tow
low
Highly * contaminated
medium
high.
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
Persistence *
high.
hign.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
• ROW - Octanof-waler partition: coefficient; See Background Document for Data Sources.
*Kec- Soil sorption coefficient. See Background Document for Data Sources.
» Qua! tatrva relabve evaluation of mobility and persistence, based on water solubarty, tog KOW, and!KOC- «,•,«,&,« of tha unelerfvina
4 SSgntty corrtarwoeted medfumi represents a mismanagement scenario whare release of hazardous constituents does not result m saturation of the underlying
,_... J _.^- ^ mismanagement scenario wnere release of hazardous constituents results in saturatiw of tre underlying soil by
"°tl ^t
oioxin.
• Data b*Md on properties ol lA3,4,7.8-Hexachlorodibenzo-^dioKin.
"» Data baiod on properties of 1^^A6i7,8^leptachtorodibenzo-p
-------
Federat Register /Vol. 53, No*. 28tr / Friday, December 30, 1988 A Proposed
533OF
reach environmental receptors at
hazardoua concentrations, .
The mobility parameters summarized
in Table 15 distinguish between low-
and high-contaminated soil medium. At
low contamination levels, leaching of
water soluble constituents from the
waste to the ground water predominates
with less water soluble constituents
being adsorbed by the surrounding soil,
or migrating through other less well-
understood mechanisms. However, as
the contamination level of the soil
medium increases, the soil becomes.
saturated, eliminating further adsorption
of the non-polar constituents and
creating a separate organic phase. This
organic phase dissolves the non-polar
constituents and facilitates transport
from the site.
The Agency considers a compound to
be persistent if it persists in the
environment long enough to be detected
since, if a chemical can be detected in
ground water, exposure to humans is
possible. All the constituents of concern
in waste streams, F032, F033, F034, F035
are adequately persistent to result in
human exposure if they are released
into ground water. The principal
processes that limit the persistence
(half-life) of chemicals in ground water
are hydroloysis and biodegradation.
None of the constituents are expected to
hydrolyze far water between pH 2 and 12
at ambient temperature at a rate fast
enough to be a factor'in limiting human
exposure. This is because none of the
constituents of-concern have structural
components that would be expected to
react with water under those conditions.
Biodegradation is probably the most
important degradation mechanism for
each of the organic constituents of.v
concern. Under certain aerobic
conditions (i.e., condition in which
oxidizing microorganisms are capable of
metabolism), organic hazardous
constituents are expected to be:
biodegradable as shown under
controlled laboratory conditions. Little
is known, however, about the
degradation of these compounds in the
real world or in anaerobic
environments. Under anaerobic
conditions (i.e.,, those in which
microorganisms capable only of
oxidative metabolism, cannot survive),
these compounds may persist for very1 •
long periods. In ground water therefore,
where microbial life and oxygen are
limited, to biodegradation of these
constituents is expected to be slow or
non-existent •'••.-
To substantiate the mobility and.
persistence of these compounds, over- •
100 cases of environmental^ , -
contamination- with-wood, preserving-,.;
and surface protection wastes are t- •
described in the docket supporting this <
proposed rulemaking. Selected cases-
describing environmental contamination
with pentachlorophenol, creosote, and
inorganic wood preserving wastes and
pentachlorophenate surface protection
wastes are presented in an appendix to
this preamble.
EL Basis for Designating F032 and FV33
As Toxic (T) Rather Than Acute
Hazardous (H)
EPA has previously listed wastes from
the manufacture of pentachlorophenol—
namely, F021 (wastes from the
production or manfacturing use of
pentachlorophenol, or of intermediates
used to produce its derivatives) and
F027 (discarded unused formulations
containing tri-, tetra-, or
pentachlorophenol or discarded unused
formulations containing compounds
derived from these chlorophenols)—as
acute hazardous waste. EPA
promulgated the listing for F021 and
F027 on January 14,1985 (see 50 FR
1978), as part of an action that involved
listing seven different acute dioxin-
containing wastes.
Today's action proposes to designate
wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection processes that use or
may be contaminated with
pentachlorophenol (F032 and F033,
repectively) as toxic (T) rather than as
acute hazardous (H) waste. EPA's
decision to designate F032 and F033 as
toxic is based primarily on new
information regarding the toxicity of
commerical pentachlorophenol products
contaminated with concentrations of
hexachlorodizbenzodioxin (HxCDD).
This new information also may affect
-the Agency's basis for designating F021
and F027 as acute hazardous.
Consequently, EPA may, in the future,
consider changing the designation of
F021 and F027 from acute hazardous to
toxic. Any such action would be the
subject of a separate rulemaking in the
future. The agency is hot soliciting
comments, on the basis for, or listing of.
hazardous wastes F020 through F023, or
F026 through F028 as part of this
proposal, and will not respond to any
comments received regarding these
listings. .
In the.preamble that accompanied the
January 14,1985. rale, the Agency stated
that 'The principal basis for listing the
pentachlorophenol wastes as acute
hazardous is the presence of substantial
concentrations of HxCDDs and HxCDFs"
(hexachlorddibenzofurans) * * *" (5O
FR 1980). On the basis of the toxicity
data available at the time of :
promulgation (i.e., that HxCDDs are .:-.-.
about 4 percent as toxic asr -•- • • >. > '-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxins (TGDDs), ..-.
equal in potency to Aflatoxin Bl, and
1,000 times more potent than ethylene
dibromide), EPA concluded that HxCDD
is one of the most potent carcinogens
ever identified by the Agency. The
Agency concluded therefore, that "* * *
because these wastes contain the potent
carcinogen HxCDD at levels of
regulatory concern, they meet the
criteria of 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2), and are
properly listed as acute hazardous
wastes* * *" (50 FR 1982). In making
this finding, the Agency relied on
toxicity data for HxCDD, provided by a
bioassay conducted by the National
Cancer Institute in 1983 as a surrogate
for the toxicity of mixtures of
pentachlorophenol and HxCDD found in
pentachlorophenol wastes.
In April of this year, the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) released a
draft report on the results of a study of
the toxicity of purified and technical
grade pentachlorophenol containing
measured levels of HxCDD as well as
other dioxin homologues in lower
concentrations (McConnell, 1988). EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group (GAG)
has reviewed the NTP report, found the
study, to be valid according to its
established criteria, and concluded that
the data from the study are valid for use
in calculating Ql* values for. the
mixtures studied.
The NTP draft report states that the
purified pentachlorophenol tested was
DOW EC-7 which contained 0.19 ppm
HxCDD. The technical grade
pentachlorophenol tested was a
composite mixture of equal parts of
products made by Monsanto, Reichhold.
and Vulcan; it contained 10.1 ppm.
HxCDD. The DOW EC-7 was also
reported to contain
tetrachlbrodibenzodioxin at greater than
0.04 ppm, heptachlorodibenzodioxin at
0.53 ppm, octachlorodibenzodioxin at
0.69 ppm, heptachlorbdibenzofuran at
0.13 ppm, and octachlorodibenzofuran at
0.15 ppm. NTP reported that the
technical grade mixture contained the
following additional dioxins and furans:
Heptachlorodibenzodioxin at 296 ppm,
;octachlorodibenzodioxin at 1,386 ppm,
pentachlorodibenzofuran at 1.4 ppm.,
hexachlorodibenzofuran at 9.9 ppm.
heptachlorodibenzofuran at 88 ppm, and
octachlorodibenzofuran at 43 ppm
(McConnell, 1988).
The results of the study demonstrate
that both grades of pentachlorophenol
tested show significant increases in liver
and kidney tumors in male B6C3F1 mice
and increases in vascular tumors in
female mice of the same strain. Using
linear low dose extrapolation, a report
completed for-Vulcan Materials Co. hi :
May of 1988 finds that, using the Crump
-------
53308 Federal Roaster A VoL 53, No> 251 / Friday. December 30, 1988 / Proposed Roles
Global 88 Multistage Procedure, the
purified pentachlorophenol exhibits a
Ql* for humans of 0.24S(mg/kg/day}-l
and the technical grade
pentachlorophenol exhibits a Ql*,of
0.788 (nig/kg/day)-! (Litt. 1988). These
values are approximately four to five
orders of magnitude lower than the Ql*
of 11,000 (nig/kg/day)-! for HxCDD
calculated from the data in the NCI
bioassay that served as EPA'a basis for
selecting HxCDD both as the basis for
listing F021 and F027 and as 'the basis
for designating F021 and F02I* as acute
hazardous waste.3 The data also
demonstrate that pentachlorophenol is
itself carcinogenic.
Based on the recent data provided by
NTP, EPA has concluded that the
assumption that HxCDD can serve as a
reasonable surrogate to indicate the
toxicity of pentachlorophenol wastes
may not be appropriate. The new data
indicate that the purified and technical
grades of pentachlorophenol (with
concentrations of HxCDD and other
dioxins and furans generally two orders
of magnitude higher, than the
concentrations found in F032) exhibit
significantly lower carcinogenic
potentcy than EPA had anticipated
when listing F021 and F027. Moreover,
the Ql* values generated from the liver
tumor data reported by NTP are
comparable to, or lower than, those
exhibited by the constituent'! of other
wastes that have been listed as toxic
hazardous waste by EPA. For example,
five waste streams from the production
of inorganic pigments (K002, K003, K004,
K005, and K006) are listed for their
Chromium VI content EPA'a CRAVE
presently reports a Ql* for Chromium VI
of 41 (mg/kg/day) ~'. EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K019, heavy ends; from the
distillation of ethylene dichloride in its
production, is listed for a number of
carcinogenic chlorinated organic
chemicals. The most potent of these,
ethylene dichloride has a QH* of 1.2
(mg/kg/dayl~* for inhalation exposures
and 0.6 (mg/kg/day)-1 for oral
exposures. As a third example, EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K041 (wastewater
treatment sludge from the production of
toxaphene) is listed on the basis of its
toxaphene concentration, which has an
EPA CRAVE-calculated Ql" of 1.1 (ing/
kg/day) ~* (Ratcliff, 1988). All of these
wastes are listed as toxic on the basis of
* la it* own evaluation of the NT? reports. EPA
hat calculated timilar Ql* values uiiing the data
reported for liver tenor*. H>A hn aho calculated
Ql* value* B*tag tht tUta for hema»glo*aicoma»
reported by NTP «nd may delcmdns that these data
provide « mcrs accurate estimate ol'tbe
cardnogenldty of th* two pentachlorophenol
mixture*. EPA'a calcola tton* ate available in the
pobMcttockatforUitorule. .
carcinogens that are as potent as or
more potent than the mixtures of
pentachlorophenol studied by NTP.
Waste characterization data obtained
by EPA for F032 wastes indicate that
these wastes contain a median HxCDD
concentration of 5,000 ppb (or 5 ppm),
less than one-half the maximum
concentration reported for the NTP
composite. Other dioxin homologues,
including tetrachlorodibenzodioxins,
pentachlorodibenzodioxins, and
heptachlorodibenzodioxins, are also
typically present in F032 and F033
wastes at concentrations one to two
orders of magnitude lower than the
HxCDD concentrations.
Pentachlorophenol concentrations in
F032 and F033 wastes range from 0.01
ppm to 160,000 ppm (median: 80,000
ppm). EPA therefore believes it may be
appropriate to assume that the toxicity
of the mixtures tested by NTP is similar
to the toxicity of F032 and F033 wastes.
The Agency solicits comments on this
assumption.
Although the NTP test mixtures differ
from the typical make-up of F032 and
F033 wastes, the concentrations of all of
the dioxin homologues reported by NTP
for their test materials are considerably
higher than those documented for dioxin
homologues in F032 and F033. Because
the Agency has concluded that the new
toxicity data indicate that mixtures of
pentachlorophenol and dioxin
homologues are dominated, in terms of
their carcinogenic potency, by .
pentachlorophenol, EPA further
concludes that a designation of toxic
rather than acute hazardous is
warranted for F032. and F033. Available
data-show that pentachlorophenol is
likely to be the principal determinant of
the relative toxicity of the waste. The
cited references and further discussions
of EPA's analyses appear in the docket
In listing a waste as hazardous, EPA
is not concerned solely with the toxicity
of individual waste constituents. Rather,
EPA must base listing decisions on a
consideration of both the potential
toxicity of a waste and the mobility and
persistence of waste constituents (i.e.,
their probability of reaching
environmental receptors in significant
concentrations). The Agency does not
now have data that demonstrate
conclusively how pentachlorophenols or
the dioxin and furan constituents of
F032 and F033 would move in the
environment and what their relative
ground water concentrations would be
in a representative environmental
setting. EPA has noted, however, that
considerable ground water
contamination has. been documented at
wood preserving facilities. Data
reviewed by EPA show that both the
pentachlorophenol and the dioxin and
furan constituents eventually migrate to
the ground water. EPA believes that
exposures to ground water consumed as
drinking water contaminated with F032
or F033 wastes would involve
simultaneous ingestion of
pentachlorophenol, dioxins, and
dibenzofurans at relative concentrations
similar to those present in the waste.
EPA solicits comment on this
assumption. The Agency believes that
the health risks associated with such
exposures are best represented by the
data from the NTP study.
EPA specifically requests comment on
the appropriate, designation of F032 and
F033 as toxic rather than acute
hazardous. Information received on this
issue may result in the Agency
Devaluating its proposal to designate
F032 and F033 as toxic. Again, the
Agency is not soliciting comment
regarding existing F listings; ample
opportunity for public comment
concerning the appropriate designation
of F021 and F027 will be provided if and
when a proposal to change the
designation is deemed appropriate*
F. Technical Standards for Drip Pads
The amendments proposed today
include additional standards applicable
to drip pads in treated wood storage
yards and in kick back areas used in
managing hazardous waste at wood
preserving and surface protection
facilities. These standards are intended
to provide for proper handling of treated
wood drippage.
At many wood preserving facilities,
treated wood is stored in open, unpaved
storage yards where excess preservative
drips from the wood or is washed away
by rain. The drippage and contaminated
rainwater are often allowed to run onto
the ground and may be collected in
ditches or ponds, or they are allowed to
run into nearby surface water, thereby
contributing to soil, surface water, and
ground-water contamination. The
hazards posed by contamination from
drippage that mixes with other wastes
or is contained in rainwater result from
this practice of allowing excess
preservative to drip or wash from
treated wood to the ground in wood
storage yards and are part of the basis
for including treated wood drippage in
the proposed listings.
Available data show that
considerable surface water, soil, and
ground water contamination presently
exists at wood preserving and surface
protection-sites. These data show that .
soils and sediments from accumulated
mixtures of drippage and waste or
-------
~A VoL. 53^ No> 251 /-Friday. December-30^ 198a-/ Proposed Rules 53388-
rainwater may contain significant
concentrations of the constituents of
concern, including pintadilbibpheriol,
PCDDs, and PCDFs. The data indicate
that significant environmental
contamination (and potential threat to
human health and the environment)
results where storage residuals (from
drippage) from wood preserving and
surface protection are allowed to
accumulate in surface impoundments,
ditches, or other collection units and
they support EPA's decision to include
drippage and drippage residual in the
proposed listings.
Generators of F032. F033, andFOSS
drippage (and any water or wastes that
become mixed with drippage) must
manage it in accordance with Subtitle C
requirements. Generators who dispose
of drippage on the ground must conduct
such disposal in accordance with
Subtitle C requirements, including the
prohibition on disposing liquids in
landfills (see 40 CFR 264.314 and
265.314). Generators of treated wood
drippage will therefore become owners
and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and/or disposal
facilities subject to the 40 CFR Part 264
permitting standards, the 40 CFR Part
265 interim status standards, and
associated standards for permit
applications and other requirements.
Under the existing Part 264 and 265
standards, generators may operate
either tanks or land disposal units to
manage their treated wood drippage.
Today's proposal would add Part 264
permitting and Part 265 interim status
standards for drip pads. In the event
that drippage is collected and is moved
from the drip pad within 90 days
following generation,, generators may
avail themselves of the 90-day
accumulation standards of 40 CFR
262.34, and would not need Part B
permits for their drip pads or tanks
(consistent with § 264.1(g)(3), 265.1(c)(7),
and 270.1(c)(2)(i)) provided that they
comply with the Part 265 standards, as
required by 40 CFR 282;34.
EPA recognizes that, at some wood
preserving facilities, concrete pads have
been installed to route drippage in kick
back and storage areas to collection
areas or devices. EPA believes that most
.drip pads are constructed so that
drippage runs off the pad, which is
sloped, and collects in a sump or in
some other-depressed: area (other than
land) associated with (or part of) the
pad. The drippage then accumulates-in
this collection area or device until
removed for. recycling, disposal, storage.
or treatment. '
These associated collection areas or
devices generally will meet the-.
definition of a hazardous waste storage
tank (see 40 CFR 260.10} and are
therefore subject to applicable
standards under 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265 Subparts J. EPA does not believe,
however, that the drip pads themselves
meet the definition of a tank. These pads
resemble floors, which are neither tanks
nor "ancillary equipment" for tanks, and
are not currently subject to regulation.
Because no management standards
currently apply to drip pads, EPA is
proposing to designate drip pads as a
new hazardous waste management unit
and to impose standards for the
operation of these pads. EPA is thus
proposing to add a definition to f 260.10
fqr drip pads at wood preserving and
surface protection facilities and add to
Part 264 technical permitting standards
and Part 265 interim status standards for
drip pads at wood preserving and
surface protection facilities. EPA is also
proposing amendments to the 90-day-
accumulator rule of § 262.34 that will
allow generators who operate drip pads
at wood preserving and surface
protection facilities to operate their drip-
pads without obtaining a RCRA Part B
permit, provided that they: (1) Remove
collected drippage from the drip pad and
associated collection area or device
within 90 days following generation, (2)
comply with the Part 264 technical
standards for drip pads at wood
preserving and surface protection
facilities, (3) label or mark each drip pad
with the words "Hazardous Waste", (4)
mark each drip pad with the date on
which accumulation began in a manner
that is visible for inspection; and (5)
comply with the requirements for 40
CFR Part 265, Subparts C and D and
§ 265.15 for preparedness and
prevention,'contingency plan and
emergency" procedures, and inspections.
EPA does not solicit, and will not
respond to, any comments regarding the
basis for, scope, or applicability of the
existing regulation at 40 CFR 262.34.
The proposed Part 264 technical
standards specify design and operating
requirements for drip pads at wood
preserving and'surface, protection
facilities. The standards include
requirements for containment systems,
inspections, and for preventing trackage
of drippage from kick back, drip, and
storage areas. The standards would also
• require that generators operating drip -
pads at wood preserving and surface-
protection facilities comply with all of
the general-requirements of Part264
Subparts A through H. The specific
technical requirements are discussed in
'.detail, later in.this section.
1. Part 264 Technical Standards for Drip
Pads (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart TJ
The technical standards for drip pads
have been designed to provide
substantial protection, and resemble to
a large degree the existing standards for
hazards waste tanks. The drop pad
standards add a novel requirement to
prevent the tracking of hazardous waste
off the pad by equipment or personnel.
The standard for preventing tracking of
waste off of drip pads is included
because information available to EPA
shows that tracking can cause soil
contamination and may be a significant
mechanism by which cross-
contamination occurs at facilities that
use more than one preservative at a
single location. The Agency requests
comment on all aspects of the proposed
technical standards.
a. Requirements for containment
systems (40 CFR 264.571). The proposed
standards for drip pads at wood
preserving and surface protection
facilities require that drip pads be
constructed of a curbed, impervious
base (e.g., concrete) that is sloped or
otherwise designed to drain
accumulated liquids resulting from
drippage and precipitation. Drip pads
and associated collection areas or
devices (systems) that are exposed to
rain must have sufficient capacity to
contain the water from a 25-year/24-
hour storm event The pad must also be
surrounded by a dike or berm to prevent
water from running onto it. Accumulated
materials must be removed from the
associated collection system at intervals
sufficient to prevent overflow onto the
drip pad. The standards for containment
systems further require that drip pads be
maintained in good condition (i.e.,
without cracks or visible signs of
leakage). Any pad that is visibly
cracked or otherwise not capable of
containing drippage must be repaired or
promptly removed from service.
b. General operating requirement (40
CFR 264.572). In order to prevent ;
hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents from being tracked from
treated wood drip.pads, the proposed
standards include a general operating
requirement which specifies that drip
pads must be operated and maintained
such"that tracking of drippage'off-site is
prevented. To comply with this
requirement, generators must have '.
equipment (e.g:, forklifts, tram cars, etc.)
that is dedicated for use on each drip.
pad and that does not leave the pad.
Personnel working on drip pads should
decontaminate any clothing or shoes
before they are taken off a drip pad site.
During the course of EPA's data and
-------
53310
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
information collection activities to
support this proposal. Agency personnel
received descriptions of and observed
wood preserving facilities that have
already initiated such practices in order
to prevent releases of wood preserving
chemicals (This information is available
in the docket for this rulemaking). .The-
Agency therefore anticipates that many
wood preserving facilities are already
* using practices that meet this
requirement
e, Inspection requirements (40 CFR
264.573). Today's proposed standards for
drip pads require that owners and
operators inspect their drip pads at least
weekly for signs of cracking or
deterioration that could lead to releases
of hazardous waste. The inspection
standard specifies that the entire surface
of all drip pads be inspected weekly.
This requirement is intended to ensure
that portions of the drip pad that are
covered by treated wood for extended
periods of time are inspected regularly
for signs of deterioration. At facilities
where treated wood is held for more
than one week, owners and operators
may need to move wood periodically so
that all parts of the drip pad can be
inspected on schedule. Under the
general requirements of Part 264, owners
and operators would also be required to
maintain records of their inspections.
d. Closure requirements (40 CFR
284.574). At closure, owners and
operators of drip pads would be
required to remove all hazardous waste
and hazardous waste residues from the
drip pad. The base and any
contaminated soil would also have to be
decontaminated at closure.
2. Part 265 Interim Status Standards (40
CFR Part 285. Subpart T)
The interim status standards for drip
pads at wood preserving and surface
protection facilities include all of the
same requirements as the proposed Part
284 standards.
G. Equipment Cleaning or Replacement
Standards for Wood Preserving and
Surface Protection Facilities
1. Applicability
As stated previously, documented
cases of cross-contamination following
a changeover of wood preserving or
surface protection formulations require
that both past and current use of a
formulation be included in the listing
descriptions. The Agency realizes that
generators can take measures following
a changeover of formulation to abate
cross-contamination. Consequently, the
Agency is proposing equipment cleaning
and replacement procedures that, if •
adhered to, would cause waste at these
facilities generated in processes that do
not use chlorophenolic formulations to
no longer meet the listing description of
F032. Such wastes, however, may meet
the description of the other wood
preserving hazardous waste listings,
such as F034 or F035 or exhibit one or
more of the hazardous waste
characteristics. Further, equipment
cleaning or replacement procedures
apply to facilities engaged in surface
protection processes that currently use
or previously used chlorophenolics.
Once the procedures are adhered to,
wastes from processes that do not use
chlorophenolics would no longer meet
the listing description of F033.
Consequently, these wastes would only
be regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA if
they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste.
Generators should note that the wastes
generated from equipment cleaning and
replacement, pursuant to this section,
must be treated as listed F032 or F033
waste.
EPA believes that the cleaning
procedures are necessary in order to
allow wastes known not to contain
PCDDs and PCOFs to be handled in
accordance with their potential hazard.
The Agency is concerned with these
wastes in particular, because of the
small number of permitted and interim
status facilities (and hence low
capacity) able to receive dioxin-
containing wastes. The existing capacity
shortage and the reported tendency of
hazardous waste handlers to turn away
any hazardous waste that may contain
chlorinated dioxins, regardless of its
regulatory status under RCRA, has
raised concerns about growing
quantities of waste for which there may
be no viable treatment or disposal
option. EPA is proposing the equipment
cleaning and replacement standards for
generators of F032 and F033 wastes as
one measure that can be taken to avoid
exacerbating the existing capacity
shortage. Today's proposal does not
include provisions for equipment
cleaning and replacement to alleviate
cross-contamination between creosote
and inorganic preservative processes
•because the hazardous constituents of
F034 and F035 do not raise the same
concerns. F034 and F035 thus are listed
by process rather than by facility. EPA
, solicits comment however, concerning
the potential benefits of a facility-based
listing description for F034 and F035 and
, of applying the equipment cleaning and
replacement provisions to such listings.
2. Equipment Cleaning or Replacement
Performance Standard
The performance standards require, .
that the owner or operator of the facility
must clean or replace all equipment that
may have come into contact with
chlorophenolic formulations or
constituents originally present in the
formulations. This must be done in a
manner that eliminates the release of
hazardous waste, hazardous
constituents, leachate, or hazardous
waste decomposition products from
prior use of chlorophenolics to the
environment (as detailed in the cleaning
and replacement requirements). If
equipment cleaning and replacement
procedures have been completed
satisfactorily, it can be demonstrated
that the wastes generated will no longer
meet the listing description of F032 or
F033 because there will be no cross-
contamination from the previous use of
chlorophenolics.
3. Equipment Cleaning or Replacement
Requirements
Generators must follow the equipment
cleaning or replacement standard
according to a plan written by the
generator or his representative. Once
the plan is carried out, it must be signed
by the generator and a copy of the
certified plan must be submitted to the
Regional Administrator along with other
information, as explained below.
The plan must stipulate methods to
remove all visible residues from
equipment including, but not limited to,
sumps, tanks, piping systems, drip pads,
forklifts, and trams. Further, the plan
must detail the use of solvent rinsing to
remove non-visible contaminants.
Rinsing must continue until no
chlorophenolics or dioxins are detected
in the final rinse using the testing
method required. Alternatively, the plan
may describe methods to replace all the
process equipment that may have come
into contact with chlorophenolic
formulations. The standard requires that
all residues from the cleaning operations
and all discarded equipment that has
not been decontaminated must be
handled as either F032 or F033
depending upon the type of process for
which the equipment was used.
4. Previous Equipment Cleaning or
Replacement Provision
If it can be documented that pervious
equipment or replacement, procedures
have been conducted, and that they '
meet the proposed standards of § 261.35,
this information, verified by the owner
or operator; may be used to fulfill the
equipment cleaning or replacement
requirements. If this alternative is used*
the generator must document (by
providing records of all the formulations
and existing processes used on-site) that
no further cross-contamination could
-------
Federat Register / Vot 53; Nor 25fc-/? Fridays December 3g 1S8&1. Proposed Ruler * 533Z&
have occurred folkiwicg the deaning^ or
replacement Further, generators mast •
submit documentation of prior
equipment cleaning or replacement and
continued use of non-ehlorophenolic
formulations to the EPA Regional
Administrator, along with a certification
of its authenticity, and must receive the
Regional Administrator's written
approval before the generator can be
considered to have complied with the
equipment cleaning and replacement
standards and the wastes can be
considered to no longer meet the listing
discription of F032 or F033, The Regional
Administrator will review the
information submitted to determine
whether all necessary equipment has
been cleaned or replaced and that
cleaning has been verified through
adequate and appropriate testing, aa
required by § 261.35.
5. Testing Requirement
The procedure also specifies certain
testing and recordkeeping requirements.
Following equipment cleaning, SW-848
Method 8290 must be used to analyze for
dioxins and dibenzofurans (Method 8290
has been proposed for addition to SW-
848 but has not been added in final form.
EPA expects that Method 8290 will be
final before this proposed rule becomes
effective. A description of Method 8290
is available in the docket for this rule).
Once the contaminants are no longer
detected in the solvent rinse using these
methods, the equipment is judged clean
and the equipment cleaning or
replacement standard has been met.
•6. Notification, Review, and Approval
Generators intending to use the
equipment cleaning or replacement
procedures so that their wastes will not
meet the F032 or F033 listing decription
must submit a notification of their intent
to clean and replace equipment to the
Regional Administrator 30 days before
cleaning and replacement activities
commence. Within 30 days following
completion of equipment cleaning and
replacement activities, generators must
submit copies of all records and the
cleaning and replacement plan together
with a signed certification to the
Regional Administrator. Under the •
proposed rule, the Regional
Administrator will review all
documentation provided and make a
determination concerning whether the
generator has fully complied with the
equipment cleaning and replacement
•standards.: " • •
In the event that the Regional
Administrator notifies the generator of a,
tentative determination that the . •
requirements for equipment cleaning
and replacement have not been met, the
generate* w& be allowedfeSa days to - ,
provide any additional information that •
would support a change in the
determination. After receipt of any
additional information, the Regional
Administrator must notify the generator
of the final determination within 30
days. A determination that all
equipment cleaning and replacement
requirements have been met becomes
effective immediately and the subject
wastes would then no longer meet the
listing description of F032 or F033,
provided that the generator does not
resume or initiate use of chlorophenolic
formulations. They may, however.:
continue to be RCRA hazardous waste
either because they meet other listing
descriptions [e.g., F034 or F035) or
because they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste.
H. Test Methods for Compounds Added
to Appendices VII and VIIIof4OCFR
Part 261
In order to analyze for the
constituents of concern present in.
today's proposed listed wastes,
appropriate analytical procedures must
be specified. Tables 1 and 2, in 40 CFR
Part 261, Apendix in list the analytical
methods authorized by the Agency for
organic and inorganic compounds.
These procedures are described in EPA
Publication SW-846: "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods," (U.S. EPA. 1986), a
copy of which is included in the docket
for this proposal. The detection limits
required for these analyses are those
specified by SW-848.
The majority of the wood preserving
and surface protection constituents of
concern already have analytical
methods assigned to them in Part 261.
Today's proposal will add
benzo(d)fluoranthene to Appendix HI.
Benzo(k)-fluoranthene can be analyzed
for using method numbers 8100, 8250,
8270, or 8310.
Today's proposal also adds
heptachlorodibenzo-pTdioxins' and
heptachlorqdibenzofurans to the list of
hazardous constituents of 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VIII. These two
chemicals belong to the family of PCDDs
and PCDFs already listed in Appendix
III. Method 8290, listed on Appendix III
as the method of analysis for PCDDs
and PCDFs, should be used to analyze
for heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and
heptachlorodibenzofurans. EPA notes
that Method 8290 has been proposed for
addition to SW-848. EPA expects that
the method will be added in final form
before the effective date of this
proposed-rule. A description, of Method •
8290 is available, in the docket for this
proposed rule., •• ' - ,• .
The tea* methods ace designed foe tss& •
in detecting specified substances by •
applicants who wish to conduct waste
evaluations in support of delisting
petitions (40 CFR 260.22), and by owners
or operators of hazardous waste
management facilities who must
conduct ground water or incinerator
monitoring (See, e.g., 40 CFR 264.99 and-
264.341).
/. Applicability of RCRA Rules for
Recycled or Reclaimed Hazardous
Waste
EPA recognizes that certain wastes
from wood preserving and surface
protection processes are recycled or .
reused at the generating site. For
example* information on waste
management practices collected by EPA
shows, that drippage from wood
preserving, particularly drippage
collected in kick-back areas, is often
recycled back to the process.
Wastewaters generated by inorganic-
wood preserving processes also are
commonly recycled on-site by return
them to the process.
Secondary materials that are used or
reused directly either as a feedstock or
as an effective substitute for commercial
chemical products are also not
considered to be solid wastes provided
that the reuse is not use constituting
disposal or use as a fuel (See 50 FR 685,
January 4,1985).
On January 8,1988, EPA proposed
amendments to the Definition of Solid
Waste (see 53 FR 519) regarding
regulation of recycled materials under
Subtitle C or RCRA. These proposed
amendments constituted EPA's response
to a ruling made by a panel of the
District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals in the matter of American
Mining Congress v. EPA,B24 F.2d 1177
(DC Cir. 1987). The amendments propose
to exclude from being solid wastes
certain in-process recycled materials
from the petroleum refining industry and
certain other sludges, by-products, and
spent materials that are reclaimed as
.part of continuous, on-going
manufacturing processes. Under the
proposed amendment, secondary
materials that are reclaimed and
returned to the original processes in
which they were generated are excluded
from Subtitle C regulation if any storage
that occurs before recycling takes place
in tanks and the return process takes
place through a "closed loop" that is
"* * * entirely connected with pipes or
other comparable enclosed means of
conveyance" (see 53 FR 529).
Information available to EPA
regarding the manner in which process
residuals are reclaimed hi wood
-------
presatvingimd surface protection!"'--
processes indicates that thw» materials- --.
are not typically reused directly. In:
addition, recycling does not take place
in closed-loop systems of the type
anticipated by the proposed
amendment. EPA therefore believes that
most on-site recycling at wood
preserving and surface protection
facilities would not quality for either the
existing or the proposed exclusion.
Generators should note that, under 40
CRF 281.8 (b) and (c), any recyclable
materials that are hazardous waste are
subject to the applicable requirements of
Parts 282 and 263 (standards for
generators and transporters of
hazardous wastes, respectively). Storage
of recyclable materials also is subject to
all of the applicable requirements of
Part 264, and generators are required to
comply with the notification
requirements of section 3010 of RCRA
and the requirements of 40 CFR 265.71
and 265.72 for use of the manifest and
manifest discrepancies. While
generation, storage, and transportation
of recyclable materials are regulated the
same as other hazardous waste, the
actual recycling process does not need a
RCRA permit
Additionally, EPA has previously
promulgated regulations for recyclable
materials that are used in a manner
constituting disposal (see 40 CFR 266.20
through 268.23) and standards for
hazardous waste burned for energy
recovery (see 40 CFR 266.30 through
268.35). Generators should note that, to
the extent that the wastes proposed for
listing today are recycled in ways that
constitute disposal or are burned for
energy recovery in boilers or industrial
furnaces that are exempt from
regulation under Subpart O of Part 264,
the appropriate standards of Part 266
apply.
III. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
Slates
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization. EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008.7003 and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in the
State. TneHPederalrequirementrnar- .^iw
longer applied in tha authorized State, • •
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in the State which the State
was authorized to permit When new,
more stringent Federal requirements
were promulgated or enacted, the State
was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames-.
New Federal requirements did not take
effect in an authorized State until the
State adopted the requirements as State .
law, however.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926{g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, the HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
Certain portions of today's rule are
proposed pursuant to section 3001(e) of
RCRA, a provision added by HSWA.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
add these requirements to Table 1 in 40
CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
identified in Table 1, as discussed in the
following section of this preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorization
As noted previously, certain portions
of today's rule are being proposed
pursuant to provisions added by HSWA,
while others are being proposed
pursuant to pre-HSWA authority. The
addition of F032 and F033 to the list of
hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources and the equipment cleaning and
replacement standards for F032 and
F033 wastes are proposed pursuant to
section 3001(e) of RCRA, a provision
added by HSWA. These standard will
therefore take effect in all States
(authorized and non-authorized) on the ,
effective date. Permitting and interim
status drip pad standards associated
with F032 and F033 wastes will take
effect on the effective date pursuant to
40 CFR 264.1(f)(2) and proposed
§ 265.1(c)(4)(iii) (see below). The
addition of F034 and F035 to the list of
hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources and the addition of test methods
•to Appendix III of Part 261 are not
immediately effective in authorized
pursuant'tortha HSWA; The permitting-;- •-
and interim status standards for drip- o"-
pads associated with F034 and F035
wastes will therefore only become
effective in authorized States when F034
and F035 become hazardous waste in
each authorized State and when the
State is authorized for the drip pad
standards.
1. HSWA Provisions
As noted above, EPA will implement
the addition of F032 and F033 to the list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources (and the standards for
equipment cleaning and replacement) in
authorized States until the States modify
their programs to adopt these rules and
the modification is approved by EPA.
Because this portion of the rule is
proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3006{g)(2) or
3006(b), respectively, on the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent to or equivalent to EPA's;
The procedures and schedule for State
program modifications for either interim
or final authorization are described in 40
CFR 271.21. It should be noted that all
HSWA interim authorizations will
expire January 1,1993 (see § 271.24(c)).
40 CFR 271.21(e) requires that States
having final authorization must modify
their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and must
subsequently submit the modifications
to EPA for approval. The deadline by
which States must modify their
programs to adopt this proposed
regulation will be determined by the
date of promulgation of the final rule in
accordance with § 271.21(e)(2). Once
EPA approves the modification, the
State requirements become. Sub title C
RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those proposed
in today's rule. Such State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to implement their
regulations as RCRA requirements until
the State program modification is
submitted to EPA and approved. Of
course. States with existing standards
may continue to administer and enforce
their standards as a matter of State law.
In implementing the Federal program,
EPA will work with States under
cooperative agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
-------
Federal Register / Vol.: 53. No, 254 / Friday, December- 30^ 198a / Proposed Rulea. . . 53323.
their efforts to implement their programs-
rather than take separate actions under
Federal authority. ..>•.. .
States that submit their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards are not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. However,
States must modify their programs by
the deadlines set forth in § 271.21(e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards
must include standards equivalent to
these standards in their application. 40
CFR 271.3 sets forth the requirements
States must meet when submitting final
authorization applications.
2. Non-HSWA Provisions
Other portions of today's proposed
rule will not be effective in authorized
States since the requirements will not be
imposed pursuant to the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These
portions include the addition of F034
and F035 to the list of wastes from non-
specific sources, the permitting and
interim standards for drip pads that
handle F034 and F035 wastes, and the
addition of test methods to 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix III. Just these
requirements will be applicable in those
States that do not have interim or final
authorization. In authorized States,
these requirements will not be
applicable until the States revise their '
programs to adopt equivalent
requirements under State law.
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modifications to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the
States must modify their programs to
adopt this proposed regulation will be
determined by the date of promulgation
of the final rule in accordance with
§ 271.21(e). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those proposed
in today's rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, States
are not authorized to carry out their
regulations as RCRA requirements until
State program modifications are
submitted to EPA and approved. Of
course, States with existing standards
may continue to administer and enforce
their standards as a matter of State taw.
States that submit their official-,
application for final authorization less •
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards are not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. However,
States must modify their programs by
the deadlines set forth in § 271.21(e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of those standards
must include standards equivalent to
these standards in their applications. 40
CFR 271.3 sets forth the requirements
States must meet when submitting final
authorization applications.
3. Special Provision for Drip Pad
Standards Applicable to F032 and F033
Under 40 CFR 264.1(f}(2), EPA may
issue permits hi authorized States if the
subject regulated unit was not regulated
under RCRA at the time of the State's
authorization and the standards for
permitting the unit were promulgated
after the State received final
authorization. At the time that today's
rale is promulgated, EPA will therefore,
under 40 CFR 264.1(f)(2), issue permits
for drip pads used in association with
F032 and F033 wastes in authorized
States.
Similarly, EPA is proposing to add
§ 265.1(c)(4)(iii) to be able to impose
Federal interim status standards on drip
pads that handle F032 and F033 wastes.
This section, which is an exact corollary
to § 264.1(f)(2], would subject to interim
status standards a waste listed under
HSWA and therefore hazardous within
the State until the State becomes
authorized for the listed waste and for
the management standards.
The standards for drip pads as they
apply to F032 and F033 thus will become
applicable in both .authorized and
unauthorized States upon promulgation.
EPA will not implement the standards
for permitting drip pads as they apply to
F034 and F035 wastes in authorized
States. These standards will become
effective in authorized States when the
State modifies its program in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(e),
presumably at the same time as the F034
and F035 listing become applicable in
authorized States.
IV. CERCLA Designation and
Reportable Quantities Adjustment
The wastes proposed to be listed as
hazardous in today's notice will, on the
effective date of the final rule,
automatically become hazardous
substances under section 101(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response,. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.
CERCLA section 103(a) requires that
persons in charge of vessels or facilities
from which a hazardous substance has
been released in a quantity that is equal
to or greater than its reportable quantity
(RQ) immediately notify the National
Response Center (at (800) 424-8802 or at
(202) 428-2675) of the release.
Under section 102(b) of CERCLA, new
RCRA hazardous waste listings with
constituents that have not been
previously designated as hazardous
under CERCLA have the statutorily-
imposed RQ of 1 pound unless or until
adjusted by regulation. In order to
coordinate the RCRA and CERCLA
rulemakings with respect to new waste
listing, the Agency today is proposing
regulatory amendments under CERCLA
authority in connection with the
proposed listing of wastes F032, F033,
F034, and F035. The Agency is jointly
proposing with the waste listings to: (1)
Designate wastes F032, F033, F034, and
F035 as hazardous substances under
section 102(a) of CERCLA; and (2) adjust
the RQs of wastes F032, F033, F034, and
F035 based on the application of a
proposed RQ adjustment methodology.
The Agency is proposing adjustments
from the statutory RQs established
under CERCLA section 102 based upon
the adjustment methodology described
in previous final rules (50 FR13456 .
(April 4,1985), and 51 FR 34534
(September 29,1986)) and a proposed
rule (52 FR 8140, March 16,1987). The
proposed RQs for newly listed
hazardous wastes are based on the RQs
of the hazardous constituents of the
newly listed hazardous wastes
identified under RCRA. Thus, if a newly
listed hazardous waste has only one
constituent of concern, and that
constituent is a CERCLA hazardous
substance, the waste will have a
proposed RQ that is the same as the RQ
for the constituent (whether statutory or
finally "adjusted). If the hazardous waste
has more than one constituent of
concern and all constituents are
CERCLA hazardous substances, the •.
lowest RQ assigned to any of the
constituents will be the proposed RQ for
the hazardous waste.
If the waste has both CERCLA and
non-CERCLA constituents, the proposed
RQ for the waste will be the lowest RQ .
of any of the constituents. The non-
CERCLA constituents will be evaluated
and given an RQ value for the purpose
of adjusting the RQ of the hazardous
waste (however, constituents cannot be
assigned RQs until they are designated
as CERCLA hazardous substances). If .
the RQ value for any of the non-
CERCLA constituents is lower than the
RQ values for the CERCLA constituents.
the waste will be proposed for
-------
53314 Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 251 / Friday, December 3ft 1988 / Proposed Rules
adjustment at this lower level. If the
waste has .onrynon-CERCLA -
constituents the RQ will be proposed for
adjustment at the level-of the lowest RQ
value of any constituent
EPA Las previously adjusted RQs for
wastes on the basis of hazardous
constituents that are not CERCLA
hazardous substances by attributing an
RQ to such constituents in order to
assign an appropriate RQ to the waste
stream (see 48 FR 23565, May 25,1983).
In other words, the Agency derives the
RQ for a waste stream based upon the
lowest RQ of all of the hazadous
constituents known to be in the waste,
regardless of whether the constituents
are CERCLA hazardous substances.
EPA is proposing to use tins adjustment
methodology for the waste* proposed
for listing today.The "RQ" developed
for non-CERCLA substan«es is used for
ranking purposes only; no releases of
such constituents need be reported to
the National Response Center.
The proposed RQs apply to the waste
streams, not just to the CERCLA
hazardous substances. CERCLA does .
not require persons in charge of vessels
or faculties to analyze wastes to
determine the concentrations of
individual hazardous constituents in a
mixture; however, if a person has
completely analyzed the waste and
determines that the amount released of
each constituent is below its respective
RQ, no notification is required (see 40
CFR 302£{b)). (See also 50 FR 13463
dealing with mixtures of hazardous
substances,) This does not mean that the
hazardous waste*stream trill have an
RQ other than the one listed on Table
302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302 for that
hazardous waste stream. This has been
a source of confusion for (he regulated
community and will be clarified in
future rulemakings.
Table 18 lists the proposed RQs for
hazardous wastes that an: proposed to
be designated as CERCLA hazardous -
substances as well as the RQs for each
hazardous constituent of line hazardous
wastes. Hazardous waste streams F032,
F034, andF035 contain constituents with
RQs oil pound. Therefore, the proposed
RQ for each of these hazardous wastes
is 1 pound. For hazardous waste stream
F033, the lowest RQ for a constituent
with an established RQ is 10 pounds.
There fore, the proposed RQ for waste
stream F033 is 10 pound*.
TABLE 18.—PROPOSED RQs FOR
CERCLA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hazard-
ous
sub-
stsnoo
Wasts
No.
F032.
Wasta
No.
F033.
Waste
No.
F034.
_
Waste
No.
F035.
Constituent
Amy^c
Benz (a) anthracene —
Benzo (a) pyrene
Chromium.....».~....~~
Dibenz ...
.......................................
^
AMnM^«
Chromium........'.. ........
RQ
(Ibs)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
10
1,000
••
"•
• «
• o
-------
Federal Register / Vol.. 53; Ncr. 251 / Friday, December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules §3&i§
Analysis is available in the publiq. ••,.,
docket for this proposal. - ,.-.....• .... -.
A; Description ofAffeete&Popalation
1. The Wood Preserving Industry
Those facilities in the wood
preserving industry that use
chlorophenolic formulations, creosote
formulations, or inorganic formulations
containing arsenic and/or chromium are
subject to the proposed rule. The wood
preserving industry produces about 380
million cubic feet of preserved wood per
year. Approximately 70 percent of the
wood preserving production is treated
with arsenical compounds; the balance
is treated~with creosote (21 percent) and
pentachlorophenol (9 percent).
In 1985,567 plants produced preserved
wood in the U.S. The American Wood
Preservers Institute reports that 14
additional plants have come into
operation since 1985. Approximately 60
percent of all wood preserving plants
are located in the southeast and
southcentral portions of the U.S. These
plants account for 64 percent of annual
U.S. production. Most plants that treat
with creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
are more than 25 years old; several
operating plants are more than 75 years
old. The use of inorganic preservatives
is presently increasing and, as a result,
most new wood preserving plants are
CCA plants. Facilities that treat with
inorganic preservatives exclusively are,
on average 10 years old.
2.' The Surface Protection Industry
The surface protection industry
consists of approximately 6,000
sawmills. EPA estimates that
approximately 1,500 sawmills have used
sodium pentachlorophenate to control
sapstain; these facilities are subject to
the proposed rule. Of these 1,500
sawmills, the Agency estimates that
approximately 250 to 300 sawmills
currently use chlorophenolic solutions to
control sapstain. Sapstain control
(surface protection) can also be
accomplished using: fl) Water storage of
logs, (2) rapid processing, of sawn
lumber and kiln-drying, or (3) use of
chemicals other than sodium
pentachlorophenate. Surface protection
facilities that have never used
chlorophenolic solutions are not subject
to the proposed rule.
B. Regulatory Assumptions Used in this
Analysis. '
As described previously, today's
proposed rule would add four wastes.
from the wood preserving and surface
protection industries, to the list of .
hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources. .Each of the hazardous waste
listings identifies four components:
wastewaters, process residuals,
preservative drippage, and discarded
spent preservative formulations.
Specific practices required for each
component under the proposed rule are
discussed below. These required
practices form the regulatory basis for
compliance cost and economic impact
analysis.
1. Compliance Practices that Contribute
to Incremental Costs
As a result of the proposed rule,
generators of F032, F033, F034, and F035
wastes will be required to collect and
manage treated wood drippage.
Generators may choose to use tanks or
surface impoundments, as well as drip
pads to manage drippage wherever it is
generated at wood preserving and
surface protection facilities, including
kick-back areas and treated wood
storage yards. EPA believes that
because many wood preserving and
surface protection plants have drip pads
in kick-back areas and some have
installed or are installing drip pads in
treated wood storage yards, most
generators will choose to maintain drip
pads throughout their facilities. Drip
pads are likely to be concrete pads.
They must have berms that effectively
prevent off-site migration of drippage
and drippage residuals. Drip pads will
likely have drainage systems with a
sump for collecting drippage and runoff
mixed with drippage. Drippage will be
managed either by being disposed of or
by being recycled.
Process residuals from plants using
creosote and inorganic preservatives are
assumed to be disposed of and managed
in permitted RCRA facilities. Process
residuals from facilities using
pentachlorophenol are assumed to be
incinerated in permitted RCRA
incinerators.
Unlike wood preserving facilities;
surface protection facilities may switch
to alternative chemicals that are not
hazardous to comply with the proposed
rule, and thereby avoid all compliance
costs except the cost of decontaminating
their facilities and the incremental cost
(if any), of using alternative methods to
achieve sapstain control. Surface
protection facilities that continue to use
sodium pentachlorophenate or choose
not to comply with the equipment
cleaning and replacement standards
must manage process residuals as
Subtitle C hazardous wastes.
Surface protection facilities that do
not currently use chlorophenolic .
solutions, but have used sodium
pentachlorophenate in the past, will be
required to decontaminate their
facilities to prevent contamination of
sawed wood, production equipment, and
wastes with pentachlorophenate
residuals, or manage their waste in
accordance with Subtitle C
requirements. This analysis assumes
that decontamination will be
accomplished by solvent rinsing until no
dioxins or dibenzofurans are detectable.
Wood preserving and surface
protection facilities that continue to
produce wastes subject to the proposed
rule, but that do not already have RCRA
permits, will be required to obtain them.
The Agency has only identified 25 wood
preserving facilities that do not already
have a RCRA permit or that will be
required to obtain a permit and to
comply, for the first time, with interim
status standards. Because RCRA-
permitted and interim status facilities
are subject to corrective action
standards, these newly permitted
facilities will be subject to corrective
action as a result of die proposed rule.
Accordingly, the potential cost of
corretive action for these facilities is
attributed to the proposed rule.
However, corrective action costs for
those wood preserving facilities that are
already permitted or subject to interim
status standards are attributable to the
corrective action regulations, and not. to
this rule.
2. Compliance Practices That Do Not
Contribute to Incremental Costs
Some of the wastes defined in today's
proposed rule are already regulated as
characteristic hazardous waste under
RCRA. Further, many of the facilities
affected by today's proposal may
already generate EPA waste K001.
Because wood preserving and surface
protection plants with these wastes
already manage tiieir wastes in regular
units, this analysis does not include the
costs associated with regulating these
types of wastes under the proposed rule.
For example, the majority of'
wastewaters generated by wood
preserving plants using creosote and
pentachlorophenol are co-managed with
K001 wastes in permitted RCRA units.
Wastewaters from plants using only
inorganic formulations are generally
recycled with zero discharge.
Generation of discarded spent
preservative formulation is negligible for
all segements of the wood preserving
industry. Accordingly, this analysis did
not include the incremental costs and
benefits of managing these wood
preserving waste stream components as
hazardous wastes.
Surface protection facilities that
currently use chlorophenolic solutions
can curtail generation of listed wastes
by switching to alternate chemicals or
-------
53316
Federal Ilegteter / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Propoged Rales
method* of sapetaln control and •
complying witii Ifae eUutdairda far-
equipment cleaning and replacement
This analysis assumea thai: affected
surface protection plants will-
decontaminate their equipment and
switch to didecyl dimethyl ammonium
chloride (DDAC), residuals of which are
not regulated as hazardous waste.
Another option would be to replace
contaminated equipment JBecause the
cost of decontamination is likely to be
less than equipment replacement, this
analysis assumes that in general,
generators will prefer equipment
decontamination to replacement
C, Costs and Economic Impacts
The cost and economic impact
analysis has three components: (1)
Estimation of compliance costs for
model facilities that represent the
affected Industry; (2) estimation of
national costs of the proposed rule on
the basis of model facility costs: and (3}
an assessment of effects oil prices,
employment, and the regulated.
industries.
1. Facility Costs of Compliance
Facility costs were estimated using a
three-step process. First, "model" small,
medium, and large facilities were
developed to represent segments of the
industry expected to have different
compliance costs. Criteria for small,
medium, and large facilities were
developed based on the distribution of
firms by size (i.e., by numbers of
employees) and the aize at which the
adverse economic impacts appear to rise
and fall substantially. Small facilities
were defined to be those having fewer
than 10 employees; medium facilities
were defined as those having more than
10 and fewer than 20 employees; and
large facilities were defined as those
having more than 20 employees. The
model facilities are described in detail
in the draft Cost and Economic Impact
Analysis. In the second step of the
analysis, compliance activities were
determined for each of thtt model
facilities and engineering (estimates
were prepared for each activity. Finally,
In the third step of the analyst*, the
resources required to pay for the
compliance practices resulting from the
proposed rule were estimated.
Individual facility compliance costs
were estimated based on an analysis of
the cash flow and vwste management
practices of model plants. Each model
facility is characterized by its annual
sales; thessmber of employees, me
volume of waste generated, and ite.
waste management practices. Both the
size (annual pxodncttoa) of a facility and
the preservatives used affect the cost of
complying with the proposed rote.
Compliance coat estimates for each
model facility include the cost of
managing the residuals described above,
plus initial administrative expenses,
additional closure costs, and, for four
model facilities which represent the
estimated 25 facilities that do not
currently have RCRA permits and are
not subject to interim status standards,
corrective action costs.
This analysis uses annual revenue
requirements to measure the combined
effects of different types of incremental
costs attributable to the proposed rule.
The annual revenue requirement (ARK)
is .the additional revenue required fay a
facility to cover the incremental costs of
compliance with trie proposed rule,
assuming that these costs are financed
and discounted over a set period of time.
A 20-year period and an 11.3 percent
nominal discount rate are used in this
analysis.
Table 17 shows the ARRs for each
model wood preserving and surface
protection facility. Individual wood
preserving facilities are projected to
incur total incremental annual costs
ranging from $24,000 to $808,000 as a
result of the proposed rule. In general,
larger facilities will have higher total
costs than small facilities. The ARRs for
model facilities subject to corrective
action regulations as a result of the,
proposed rule are substantially higher
than those for similar facilities that are
already permitted or currently subject to
interim status requirements, because the
corrective action costs are substantially
higher than compliance costs. The model
plant with the highest ARR. $608,000, is
a medium-size creosote plant not
presently subject to Subtitle C
requirements. The Agency believes that
there are six creosote plants (five small-
and one medium-size) and 19
pentachlorophenol plants {18 small- and
1 medium-size) that would be subject to
corrective action as a result of the
proposed rule. Again, for purposes of
this analysis, EPA has defined small
plants as those with fewer than 1<*
employees, medium plants a* those with
at least 10 brat fewer than 20 employees,
and large plants as those with 20 or
more employees.
TABLE 17— ANNUAL REVENUE RE-
QUIREMENT FOR MODEL WOOD
PRESERVING AND SURFACE PRO-
TECTION FACILITIES AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED RULE »•*
Model faciMy type (wood
preserving)
Creosote:
SmaH,,
Medium,..,,..,
Lar-g9............».«.._.»-...~_».
Pentachtoroplianofc
Small „ _
Medium ,™, ,.,..
Lfirfj"
Inorganic:
Small
Medium
Lafgfl.- -
Multiple preservatives
(medium we assumed):
Creosote/
pefrtaehtarophcnd —
Penfachtorcpnenol/
inorganic-...—.— ..—....-
jnofgaflic/croosols
Afl three preservatives
Surface protection fadifes
currant)* using pantach-
loraptenatB 12 months a
year*
Small i -
Medum ...
4 ifgff , » • ' •
largo Nortftwe*—
Surface protection (acuities
currently using pentach-
torophenato 6 months a
yean
Small
Medium...- ......._.... .
Permitted
ARfl
CDoUarsl
24,000
46,000
91.000
30,000
41,000
62,000
25,000
46,000
97,000
104,000
56,000
45.000
127,000
9,000
32,000
100,000
360,000
6,000
18,000
51,000
No
Permit
ARR
rOofiars]
369,000
608,000
N/A
375,000
386,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i These costs include engineering, corrective
action, admmislratwa, and closure costs.
2 The Annual Revenue Requirement (ARH) shown
here does not reflect anticipated price increases that
could offset the net revenue requirements tar model
facilities.
» ARRs for surface protection facilities are based
on switching to * more ejq>ensw» alternative chemi-
cal, DDAC.
NOTE.—N/A indicates thai there are no unpermit-
ted facilities in this preservative and facility size
category.
Table 17 shows that the ARRs for
eight model surface protection facilities
range from $6,000 to $360,000, depending
on the size of the facility and the
number of months a year the facility
uses sapstain-treating chlorophenolic
solutions. In general, these costs are
lower than compliance costs for wood
preserving facilities of comparable size.
2. National Costs of the Proposed Rule
a. Methodology. The national costs of
today's proposed rule were estimated
using a four-step approach. First, total
compliance cost* were estimated for
each model facility type. Next me
universe of'affected facilities was
categorized into ^onps based on
preservatives used and size. Third, for.
-------
Federal Beggkter / Vbfc S3, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1088 A Proposed Rate*
53317
each model facility type, pe^facilJty
compliance costs were multiplied by the
number of facilities represented by each
model plant type; Fourth, total coats
were estimated forthe affected facilities
in the wood preserrag and surface
protection industries by adding the total
costs for each facility category.
b. Results. The results of this analysis
indicate that the aggregate annualized
cost of the proposed rule to the wood
preserving industry is estimated to be
approximately $43 million (1988 dollars);
The aggregate annualized cost of
compliance for the surface protection
industry is estimated to be
approximately $311 million. The total
estimated cost of compliance with the
rule is approximately $54 million (1988
dollars). Because the aggregate annual
impact of the proposed rule is less than
the $100 million threshold set by
Executive Order 12291, the Agency has
determined that today's rale is not a
major rule.
3..Economic Impact Analysis
The economic impact analysis
assesses the impact of th§ proposed rule
on: (1) prices. (2) individual segments of
the wood preserving and surface
protection industries (including small
entities), and (3) employment levels. The
methodology used to assess these
impacts is briefly described below.
Readers requiring a more detailed
understanding are referred to the draft
Cost and Economic Impact Analysis.
a. Methodology—(1) Price Impacts.
The price of treated wood products can
be expected to change a* a result of the
proposed rule. Incremental potential
price changes for preserved and surface
protected-wood products are estimated
using a three-step methodology. First,
the price increase required to maintain
current profits is calculated for each of
the model facilities. Second, the ability
of each of the model facility categories
to raise the price of their products is
assessed using model plant estimates
and existing market data. Third, the
price of treated wood products is
estimated based on the results of the
first two steps.
(2) Industry impacts. The economic
impact of the proposed rule on
individual segments of the wood
preserving industry were assessed using
a three-step approach. First, the ratios of
estimated annual compliance costs for
model facilities to sales and pre-tax
profits (following estimated price
increases) were calculated. Second,
these ratios were compared with two
ecoBonfeiaqMci test criteria. The first
tea* » whether a model faciMty's
incremental ARR exceeds one percent of
-annual sales. The second tesUawhether
a model facflity'srreduction in profits
exceeds 20 percent of projected pre-tax
profits. If a model facility is projected to
exceed both of these ratio thresholds, it
is considered "significantly" impacted
by the proposed rule. If a model facility
is projected to exceed only one of these
thresholds, it is not considered to be
"significantly" affected by the proposed
rule.
In the third step, the number of actual
facilities represented by each of the
affected model facilities were estimated.
As part of this process, the number of
small entities subject to substantial
economic impacts was estimated.
(3) Employment impacts. Employment •
impacts were assumed to result from
facility closures. Facility closures are
difficult to predict for many reasons. For
example, the Agency does not have
information on the resources potentially
available to individual firms that
operate more than one wood preseving
facility. The potential for facility
closures was evaluated by subjecting
each of the model plants identified in
the industry impacts analysis to
additional financial tests. The first test
is whether the ratio of the ARR to the
estimated cash from operations is
greater than 0.5 for a model facility. The
second test is whether the capital
compliance costs exceed annual
investment These financial tests were
designed for the Agency to assess the
potential for firm closures as a result of
implementation of the small quantity
generator regulations (ICF Inc. and
DPRA Inc., 1985}. A range of potential
employment effects, corresponding to
the range of results of all of the financial
tests for model facilities, was developed.
b. Results—(1) Price impacts. Industry
data suggest that large facilities are the
price leaders in the industry. Because of
the large market share held" by large
wood preserving firms, this analysis
assumes that prices could be increased
to cover the estimated incremental
compliance costs of the large inorganic
and creosote plants. Thus, the wholesale
price of creosote-preserved wood would
rise 3 cents from $7.20 per cubic foot to
$7.23. The wholesale price of inorganic-
preserved wood would rise 5 cents from
$3.97 per cubic foot to $4.02.
The Agency is not aware of any one
large facility that uses
pentachlorophenol exclusively;
therefore, this analysis assumes that
medfom-sized plant* are the price
leaders in this segment and that product
prices wpuld_risejto_.coyer the
—inereme'nlal costs of medium-sized" .-.-
pentachlorophenol plants. The
wholesale price of pentachlorophenol-
preserved wood would rise 12 cents
from $4.84 per cubic foot to $4.96. For a
number of reasons discussed in the Cost
and Economic Impact Analysis,
incremental costs of corrective action
would not be transferred to customers in
the form of higher prices. As a result,
projected price increases will vary by
the preservative that is used in each
industry segment.
In contrast to the wood preserving
industry, the surface protection industry
is unlikely to transfer any of its
incremental costs to consumers in the
form of higher prices. This is principally
because most surface protection
facilities do not need to use any
chemicals to prevent sapstain, and
therefore could generally undersell
facilities that attempted to increase their
prices to recover incremental regulatory
costs.
The price increases described above
were not considered significant, and
therefore the proposed rule will not have
a major impact on prices for consumers.
or other industries using preserved or ,
surface protected wood.
(2) Industry impacts. The, effect of the
proposed rule on different seginents of
the wood preserving and surface
protection industries is examined by
comparing the projected ARR/Sales
ratio and the expected reduction in
profits with the criteria for identifying
"significantly affected facilities" that
were presented earlier. ARR/Sa'les and
revised reduction in profits (in percent)
for each of the model plants (after
projected price changes are taken into
account) are shown in Table 18.
Table 18 shows that the unpenr.iUed/
non-interim status model facilities,
assumed to incur corrective action costs
as a result of the proposed rule, are
projected to incur much greater adverse
economic impacts than the other
a-ffected facilities. This analysis
indicates that all small single
preservative facilities are projected to
incur significant adverse economic
effects as a result of the proposed rule.
Facilities using pentachlorophenoi aione
seem likely to sustain the greatest
economic impact of all model facilities
already subject to Subtitle C
requirements.
-------
53318
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 18.—ARR/SALES AND REDUCTION IN PROFITS FOR MODEL WOOD PRESERVING AN& SURFACE PROTECTION PLANTS
FOLLOWING EXPECTED PRICE INCREASES
•',-..-. • [in percent] •_ ..•.-•-.--• -
Model plant type (wood preserving)
Crtosot*
fjWporr) , , , ,,,,,,, , ,. , . , ,„,„ ,„„„ . „„„„ ,„
( nfTji> . , „ . , „.,„ ,.,.
Ptntftchioropfoenol:
Smflfl n it ,. t |MI|1| i.itt..i _ t , , t.iit
Mttftrm • • •.
LafQt 1 « • ... ...... ,,..... ............ ...
ISoorgranic ':
SmtH n.. .,....,. , ,„,„.' „.-„„-„„-,-,-,-,-., ,-,— -,-,-
Mwftjm , ..... . „,.,,,-,,-,
(,(^0* ! f (t .... ,,,,,,,r.tl.It. n...r 11
Multiple presarvativex
C/PModkrm* ,
P/IModkmi .., '.
l/CM^fftm „ - -
P/I/C Medium „»*, „ ,
Suriaca protection facilities (that currently use chlorophenotics 12 months a year):
*>frm3
MddttKn , . .'. t .. ...
I nfjjff Imij , j . ,. , , , .
Vary Ltrgf ,,, ,, , j.,., ,....,,.,.,..., ,.,,,,.,„,. ,,..,,
Surfica 'protection facttitios (that currarriiy use chlorophenolics 6 months a year):
Small ,,„ _... „
M^ftirp - , , ,„ .„,,:, ,f __
LftfQf , , , ,. • .... . . ,
~
Permitted
ARR/sates
1.3
0.6
0.5
3.6
2.3
1.8
2.1
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.5
Facilities
reduction in
profit
37
4
0
52
0
0
38
6
0
4.4
6.4
2.7
1.0
57
22
29
28
39
12
15
Unpermitted
ARR/sales
20
8
N/A
45
22
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
. N/A
Facilities
reduction in
profit
820
130
N/A
1,870
390
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 Impact based on model Inorganic plants that may have previously used pentachlorophenol. Plants that have never used pentachlorophenol would incur slightly
kswoc Impacts. ...
* Muttipl* preservative plants were assumed to be medium-sized plants in this analysis. '
Not*.—N/A bxBcatos that ad facilities, in this category have RCRA permits and would not require corrective action as a result of the proposed rule.
Criteria: Modal Plants are "significantly11 affected if: ARR/Sates Exceeds 1% and ARR/Profit Exceeds 20%.
Table 18 also shows that the small
surface protection model facility that
treats for sapstain control throughout
the year is significantly impacted by the
proposed rule. The Agency estimates
that approximately 50 to 75 small
surface protection facilities use
chlorophenolic solutions to, control
sapstain 12 months, a year, and would
incur signifcant adverse economic
effects as a result of the proposed rule.
Thus, the proposed rule will
significantly impact all small, single
preservative wood preserving facilities.
Nevertheless, since large, medium and
multiple preservative facilities produce
the overwhelming majority of all types
of preserved wood, the proposed rule is
not expected to have a significant
impact on the wood preserving industry.
Because most sawmill production is not
treated with any sapstain control agent,
the proposed rule is also not expected to
have a significant impact on the
sawmilling industry.
(3) Employment Impacts. Two
additional tests on model facilities
identified as subject to "significant
adverse impacts" in the Industry Impact
section (above) are used to.hetp assess
the potential for facility closures and
consequent employment impacts. The
capital cost of compliance wait
compared with annual investment to
assess the potential for incremental .
capital requirements to contribute to
firm closures. The annual revenue
requirement was compared with the
cash from operations to further assess
the potential .for incremental revenue
requirements to contribute to firm
closures. Table 19 shows the results of
these tests.
Table 19 indicates that the 25 facilities
represented by the model facilities
incurring corrective action costs are
judged to have a higher likelihood of
closure than the other facilities. The
number of employees in the 25 actual
facilities represented by these model
facilities is estimated to be between 150
and 200. The potential employment
impacts could thus range as high as 200
jobs, if all of the facilities that fail all of
these tests close as a result of the
proposed rule. Even if that should
happen, the balance of the industry is
expected to absorb the loss of
production from these facilities by
expanding production at many other
facilities currently operating at less than
full capacity. New jobs that may be
created at these larger facilities would
partially offset the potential
employment impact from-possible plant
closings. Based on these findings, the
employment impact of the proposed rule
is not considered significant.
TABLE 19.—ADDITIONAL TESTS FOR
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED RULE
Model
plants
Small
penta.
Small
creo-
sote.
Small
penta.
Small
creo-
sote.
Medium '
creo-
sote.
Medium
penta.
Small
inor-
ganic.
RCRA status
Permitted
Permitted
No permit
No permit
No permit
No permit
Permitted
ARR/
CFO
0.2
0.1
. 3.1
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.1
CCA/AI
9:1
4:1
9:1
4:1,
1.6:1
5:1
6:1
No.
plants
1
23
18
5
1
1
184
Criteria for Significantly Impacted: ARR/Cash from
Operations (CFO) > 0.5 or Compliance Capital Cost/
Annual Investment (CCC/AI)> 1:1.
4. Limitations
•. An important limitation on the '
analysis of potential employment effects
is the absence of information on firm
assets. If firms have additional
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
resources that can be used to help cover
compliance costs, tlhis analysis may
overestimate the potential economic
impact of die proposed rale. The Agency
requests additional information on the
financial status of the wood preserving
industry to refine it* analysis of
employment effects.
The economic impact analysis
described above does not take into
account the effects Hat other
regulations may have on the economic
performance of regulated entities. For
example, corrective action costs for
firms that already generate and manage
K001 waste, are not an incremental cost
of today's proposed rate, but may
adversely impact the economic
performance of the industries. Many
facilities that generate K001 could incur
corrective action costs at the same time
as they incur costs associated with
today's proposed rule. The economic
impact of corrective action on these
firms could be substantial. The
cumulative effect of these and other
rules is outside the scope of the draft
Cost and Economic Impact Analysis.
VI. Regulatory Ffex&ilirjr Analysis
The Agency is required, under the
regulatory Flexibility Act {KFAJ. to
assess whether a substantial number of
small businesses are significantly
. affected by a proposed rule. EPA
determines whether a rule wiH have a
"significant economic effect" on small
entities based on: The ratio of
incremental compliance costs to the
value of sales, the ratio of compliance
costs to profits, and the number of
facility closures mat could result from
the proposed rate. Based on EPA's
guidelines for conducting Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses {RFAsJ, a
"substantial number" of small entities
was defined to be 20 percent or more of
the small businesses m the regulated
industry.
The wood preserving industry is
characterized by the presence of many
small companies. Approximately 45
percent of the companies in the wood
preserving industry have fewer than 1O
employees* approximately 29 percent
have beenlOartdiS^mployees. and
only approximately 35 percent have 20
or more employees, m 1982, nearly 80
percent of the approximately 6,000
domestic sawmills had fewer than 1O
employees. Fifteen percent of these
.facilities had been ten and 19
percent of the sawmills bad 2O or mere
_
EPA gsidaace for camp&Hjce with the
UFA prorates the^Ageacy-. wish some
ftodbttrty m selecting * quantitative ort-
accordance with Agency guidance, EPA
based its small entity definition on the
distribution of firms by size in the
affected industries, and the size at
.which the adverse economic impacts
appear to rise or fall substantially
(USEPA, 1982). As discussed below,
EPA has examined several possible
definitions for small businesses for
purposes erf the regulatory flexibility
analysis and has consulted with the
Small Business Administration
concerning these definitions. The
Agency specifically requests comments
on the alternatives evaluated (or any
others) for defining small buSmess
entities in the wood preserving and
surface protection industries.
In accordance with the.Reguiatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agency
undertook a preliminary analysis to
determine whether the proposed rule
will cause a significant impact on small .
businesses. This analysis has two
principal components: (1) Determining
whether any small business segments
would incur significant impacts as a
result of the rule, and (2) determining
whether a significant number of small
businesses would sustain a significant
economic impact.* The analysis
indicates that, based on the Agency's
guidelines for Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, today's rule will significantly
affect a substantial Bomber of small
entities in the wood preserving and
surface protection industry.
A Methodology
The first component of the RFA
analysis is based on the financial
performance criteria used in the
Economic Impact Analysis reported
above, and additional guidance
provided in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and EPA policies on implementation
of the RFA (Russell. 1382).
Second, the number of small- entities
projected to incur significant impacts
was estimated by assuming that the
distribution of small entities within the
impacted industry segments is similar to
the distribution of smaU entities in the
regulated industries. Readers requiring a
more detailed explanalionbf the
methodology that was used are referred
to the .Cost and Economic Impact
Analysis.
B. Results
The Industry Impact Analysis,
provided previously, indicates that small
wood preserving facilities using
pentachmrophenol are expected to incur
the-greatestmh'erseecoTtojnicTmpacts
* For thiaauafyairtMiaittws&esteciBtiie wood
-prewHVfcgamJ sajwnfltlnjf hiduoWea wen^iefutn!
~as4h
-------
53320 ' Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.. 251:7 Friday, December 30, 1988. / Proposed Rules
solicits-comments on the besfcapproach
to defining small businesseKriThe: --
Agency is evaluating whethei: it is-
preferable to establish a small! business
cut-off based on an annual sales
threshold or on number of employees..
The goal of the annual sales threshold is
to establish a true "economic"
threshold; however, data upon which to
establish such a threshold are not
readily available. If alternative
regulatory options were made available
to small businesses, an employee-based
cut-off has clear implications because it
may create incentives for firrns to lay-off-
employees in order to avoid compliance-
with regulatory standards. However,
data on number of employees are more
readily available. A secondary issue the
Agency is considering is whether to
establish thresholds for defining small
businesses for the entire wood
preserving industry, or whether to
establish separate thresholds for
specific sectors.
EPA conducted the option analysis in
order to fulfill its obligation under the "
Regulatory Flexibility Act Two of the
options examined involve'exempting
certain small business entities from the
requirements for operating hazardous
waste drip pads in treated wood stprage
yards. These options were selected for
examination because available
information on waste management
practices shows that most wood '
preserving and surface protection
facilities already have drip pads in kick-
back areas. Most do not have drip pads
in treated wood storage yards.
Moreover, treated wood storage yards
are quite large (many acres) at most
facilities. EPA therefore concluded that
installation of drip pads in treated wood
storage yards would account for a large
portion of the compliance costs. The
Agency notes that under RCRA, EPA
does not normally make regulatory
decisions on the basis of economic
considerations. EPA therefore believes
that options providing exemptions from
certain requirements for small business .
entities in this case would be
inconsistent with its statutory mandate
under RCRA. As an alternative, EPA
considered using a risk-based
determination in conjunction with an
exemption for small businesses. Under
such an option the exemption would be
granted based on a consideration of the
relative hazard posed by an individual
facility.
Of the remaining options; two involve
" ' a delay in the effective date of the .
- regulation's and the third involves no
special provisions for small businesses.
All six options are discussed-briefly
belowl . »
Option 1- is full application of the
proposed rule to all wood preserving
and surface protection plants, regardless
of size. Because this option has the same
requirements for all wood preserving
facilities, it will provide the greatest
environmental benefits. However, this
option is expected to cause adverse
economic impacts for more small, single
preservative wood preserving firms than
the other regulatory options. Option 1 is
consistent with EPA's RCRA mandate.
Option 2 involves allowing all small
wood preserving and surface protection
facilities to comply with the proposed
rule on a delayed schedule. Under this
option, small businesses would be
allowed up to 5 years following the
effective date of the rules to come into
compliance. Although this option does
not reduce the economic impact of the
rules,-EPA believes that the delay may
provide time for small businesses to
investigate a variety of compliance
options1 and to seek any financial
assistance required to fund compliance
expenditures. Option 2 is also consistent
with RCRA..
Option 3 involves allowing small
businesses up to 10 years following the
effective date of the rules to come into,
compliance. This option would provide
an even longer period of time to
investigate and select compliance
alternatives; EPA believes that this 10-
year period may be sufficient to allow
for developing technological changes or
chemical changes to the wood
preserving process that may affect
compliance costs. Option 3 is consistent
with RCRA.
Option 4 would permit firms that use
only arsenical' formulations to obtain an
exemption from the proposed
requirement for operating drip pads in
treated wood storage yards if they met
the definition of small businesses. The
agency is considering two approaches to
defining small businesses under this
option. The definition would apply
either ta firms with an annual sales of
less than $1,170,000 per year, the
estimated annual sales level
corresponding to the small model
arsenic facility developed in the Cost
and Economic Impact Analysis; or to
firms with less than seven employees,
the size of many small facilities that
exclusively use arsenic. Option 4 is
inconsistent with EPA's authority under
RCRA.
Option 5 would permit any small
wood preserving firm to obtain an ,
. exemption from the proposed ,
requirements for operating drip pads in
treated wood storage yards. Option 5 is
also inconsistent with EPA'a authority
under RCRA.
Option 6 would allow small
businesses to apply to EPA for ari ;
exemption based on a demonstration
that the quantities of drippage generated
at an individual facility do not exceed
an established de minimis level. Under
this option, the Agency would need to
develop guidance concerning the
establishment of de minimis levels,
taking into consideration the constituent
concentrations in drippage, the size of
wood storage yards, the quantities and
rates of treated wood production, and a
variety of other site-specific factors.
While this option has the advantage of
being consistent with EPA's RCRA
authority, it also has significant
disadvantages. EPA would need to
conduct studies to develop methods for
evaluating drippage rates and
establishing de minimis levels:
Additionally because the determination
would be site-specific, the cost of
developing the information required to
support an exemption may be
prohibitive to small-businesses.
There are a number of approaches
that can be taken to define small
businesses under Options 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Approaches based on annual sales are
briefly noted below:
a. An annual sales level of $1,230,000,
which is the weighted average of sales,
• for the proportion of small model plants
that use each preservative.
b. Annual sales of less than $4,000,000,
which would encompass about, 65
percent of the industry.
c. An annual sales level for small
plants and for those using the specific
preservatives, i.e., creosote firms with
annual sales less than $1,800,000,
pentachlorophenol.firms with annual
sales less than $810,000 and arsenical
firms with annual sales less than
$1,170,000.
d. An annual sales level less than the
sales level at which firms are projected
to meet the criteria for incurring
significant adverse economic impacts.
Assuming that the economic impact
criteria, ARR/Sales and ARR/Pretax
Profits, are linearly related to the
number of employees at a firm, the cut-
off sales levels (at which significant
economic impacts are accrued in each
segm§nt) would be $3.8 million for firms
using creosote, $1.4 million for firms
using pentachlorophenol, and $2.0
million for firms using arsenic.
There are a number of factors to
consider in evaluating these approaches.
The first two approaches are easier to
implement—they involve only one cut-
off for the whole industry. The third and
fourth approaches more reasonably take
into account differences in average size
and .profitability between the three
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No: 251 / Friday. December 30,-1988 / Proposed-Rules
53323
segments of the wood preserving
industry. In particular, the fourth
approach would more equitably confer
relief to specific segments of the
industry at the point that they incur
adverse economic impacts. However,
this approach would also result in larger
creosote facilities being eligible for an
exemption than with the other
regulatory options.
The Agency is also considering (solely
for meeting the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act) an employee-
based cut-off to defining small business.
For the most part, these options parallel
those for annual sales thresholds and
are described below:
a. Finns with ten or fewer employees.
b. Firms with twenty or fewer
employees, which would encompass
about 65 percent of the industry.
c. Firms with fewer employees than
the number of employees in the
applicable model plant in the Cost and
Economic Impact Analysis, i.e., creosote
firms with fewer than ten employees,
pentachlorophenol firms with fewer
than eight employees, and arsenic firms
with fewer than seven employees would
be eligible for relief.
d. Firms with fewer employees than
the number of employees at model
facilities estimated to have economic
impacts; i.e., creosote firms with fewer
than 19 employees, pentachlorophenol
firms with fewer than 12 employees, and
arsenic firms with fewer than ten
employees.
e. Firms with fewer than 500
employees, an exemption based on the
Small Business Admiristration'(SBA)
definition of small business for the wood
preserving industry (500 employees).
The SBA definition is based on the size
(in number of employees) at which firms
can alter the price of preserved wood.
This approach would result in over 99
percent of the firms in the industry being
eligible for the exemption. This
•approach does not take into account
differences in the typical size of firms in
each segment of the industry; nor does it
take into account differences in the
significance of the economic impacts
that may accure to firms in different
segments as a result of the proposed
rule.
Similar considerations to those noted
for the different sales thresholds also
apply to approaches based on number of
employees. The major exception is that
an employee-based cut-off may create
incentives to lay off employees. The
Agency solicits comment on all the
approaches described above or any
others that may be more appropriate.
As noted previously. EPA believes
that only Options 1,2,. 3, and 6 are
consistent with its RCRA mandate and
therefore represent feasible regulatory
options. As a result, the Agency
anticipates that the only relief it can
provide to small businesses is a delay in
the effective date of the requirements for
drip pads in treated wood storage yards.
The Agency solicits comments on the
options presented here and on any other
options.
Based on a more detailed analysis of
these options and on comments
received, the Agency will continue to
evaluate the impacts on the wood
preserving industry.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The reporting, notification, or
recordkeeping (information) provisions
in this rule will be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under section 3504(b)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Any final rule will
explain how its reporting, notification,
or recordkeeping provisions respond, to
any OMB or public comments.
VIII. Compliance Procedures and
Deadlines
A. Section 3010 Notification
Not later than 90 days from
publication of the rule finalizing these
listings, all persons who generate,
transport, treat, store, or dispose of
waste which are covered by today's
proposed regulation will be required to
notify EPA (for F032 and F033 wastes) or
either EPA or a State authorized by EPA
to operate the hazards waste program
(for F034 or F035 wastes) of their
activities pursuant to section 3010 of
RCRA. Persons who previously have
notified EPA or an authorized State that
they generate, transport, treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous wastes and have
received an identification number (see
40 CFR 262.12, 263.11, and 265.11) need
not re-notify. Notification instructions
are set forth in 45 FR 12746, February 26,
1980, Persons without EPA identification
numbers are prohibited from generating,
transporting, treating, storing, or
disposing of hazardous wastes.
The Agency views the section 3010
notification requirement to be necessary
in this case because it is believed that
many persons that manage the wastes
proposed for listing today have not
previously notified EPA and received an
EPA identification number.3 • :
5 Under Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of
1980. (Pub. L. 9&-4S2) EPA was given the option of
waiving the notification requirement'under section
3010 of RCRA following revision of the section 30O1
regulations, at the discretion of the Administrator.
Notification is-not being waived in this case.
B. Compliance Dates
1. F032 and F033
Because HSWA requirements are
applicable in authorized States at the
same time as in unauthorized states,
EPA will regulate F032 and F033 until
States are authorized to regulate these
wastes. Thus, once these regulations
become effective in a final Agency rule,
EPA will apply those Federal regulations
to these wastes and to their
management in both authorized and
unauthorized States. Facilities that treat,
store, or dispose of F032 and F033, but
that have not received a permit pursuant
to section 3005 of RCRA and are not
operating pursuant to interim status,
might be eligible for interim status under
HSWA (see section 3005(e)(l)(A)(iiJ of
RCRA, as amended). In order to operate
pursuant to interim status, the eligible
facilities will be required to submit a
section 3010 notice pursuant to 40 CFR
270.70(a) within 90 days from the
publication of the rule finalizing these
listings, and will be required to submit a
Part A permit application within 6
months of such publication.
Under section 3005(e)(3), within 18
months of such publication, land
disposal facilities qualifying for interim
status under section 3005 (e)(l)(A)(ii)
also will be required to submit a Part B
permit application and certify that the
facility is in compliance with all
applicable ground water monitoring and
financial responsibility requirements. If
the facility fails to do so, interim status
will terminate on that date.
All existing hazardous waste
management facilities (as defined in 40
CFR 270.2) that treat, store, or dispose of
F032 and F033 and that are currently
operating pursuant to interim status
under section 3005(e) of RCRA, will be
required to file with EPA an amended
Part A permit application within 6
months of such publication. •
Under current regulations, a
hazardous waste management facility
that has received a permit pursuant to
section 3005 would not be able to treat,
store, or dispose of F032 and F033 until a
permit modification allowing such
activity is approved in accordance with
§ 270.42. Note that EPA has recently
amended the permit modification
requirements for newly listed or
identified wastes. See 53 FR 37912 et
seq. (September 28,1988),
2. F034 and F035 •>
a. Interim states in unauthorized
states. Facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of F034 and F035 wastes in
unauthorized States, but that have not
received a permit pursuant to section
-------
53322 Federal Register / Vofc 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
3005 of RCRA and are not operatiag--
pursuant to Interim status, might be
eligible for interim status under HSWA
(see section 3005(e)(l){A)fli) of RCRA.
as amended). In order to operate
pursuant to interim status,.th(S eligible
facilities will be required to submit a
section 3010 notice pursuant to 40 CFR
270.70(a) within 90 days from the
Subllcation of the rule finalizing these
stings, and to submit a Part A permit
application within 6 months of such
publication. Within 18 months of such
publication, under section 3005(e){3}.
land disposal facilities qualifying for
interim status under section
3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) also will be required to
submit a Part B permit application and
certify that the facility is in compliance
with all applicable ground water
monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements. If the facility fails to do
so, interim status will terminate on that
date.
All existing hazardous waiste
management facilities (as defined in 40
CFR 270.2) that treat, store, cr dispose of
F034 and F035 and that are currently
operating pursuant to interim status
under section 3005(e) of RCRA, will be
required to file with EPA an amended
Part A permit application witioin 6
• months of such publication.
Under current regulations, a
hazardous waste management facility
that has received a permit pursuant to
section 3005 would not be able to treat,
store, or dispose of F034 and F035 until a
permit modification allowing such
activity were approved in accordance
with § 270.42. Note that EPA has
recently finalized amendments to the
permit modification requirements for
newly listed or identified wastes. See 53
FR 37912 et seq. (September 28,1988).
b. Interim status in authorized'states.
Until a State is authorized to regulate
F034 and F035 (i.e., until F034 and F035
become hazardous waste under
authorized State law), no permit
requirements would apply and facilities
would not need to seek RCRA interim
status or a RCRA permit Any facility
treating, storing or disposing of these
wastes on or before the effective date of
authorization of the State to regulate
these wastes under RCRA might qualify
for interim status under applicable State
law. Note that in order to be no less •
stringent than the Federal program, the
State "in existence" date for
determining interim status eligibility
could not be after the effective date of
EPA's authorization of the State to
regulate these wastes. Any eligible
existing facility also would be required
to provide the required 3010 notification
as described above and to provide the.
State's equivalent of a Part A permit
application-as required by authorized •
State law.
Finally, RCRA section 3005(e)[3) or
any authorized State analog would
apply to land disposal facilities
qualifying for State interim status.
3. Drip Pad Permitting and Interim
Status Standards
a. Unauthorized states. The drip pad
standards would apply in unauthorized
States as of the effective date of EPA's
final rule adopting these standards. The
effective date for small businesses will
depend on which, if any, of the
regulatory options, discussed above in
Section VLB, is chosen.
b. Authorized states. The standards
for permitting drip pads associated with
F032 and F033 wastes would be
applicable in authorized States in
accordance with 40 CFR 264.1(f)(2) and
proposed 5 265.1(c)(4)(iii), as discussed
previously. The standards, as they apply
to F034 and F035 wastes, would not
apply after Agency publication of I
rule, until the State is authorized to
regulate these wastes as hazardous (and
presumably to implement the drip pad
requirements). States could not obtain
authorization for these requirements
prior to the effective date of EPA's
• regulations, which, for small businesses,
will depend on the adoption of
regulatory options specified in Section
VLB. However, States may impose
requirements that are more stringent or
broader in scope than EPA's regulations;
States may choose to impose such
standards prior to authorization as a
matter of State law.
4. Application of Phasing of Regulations
If EPA selects to phase
implementation in regard to small
business entities and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, EPA will authorize
States choosing not to delay regulation
of small businesses but will make the
effective date of authorization as it
applies to small businesses consistent
with the schedule selected for the
Federal program.
List of. Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping,
Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous materials. Waste
treatment and disposal, Recycling.
40 CFR Part 28Z
Administrative practice and
procedures, Hazardous materials.
Reporting and recordkeeping,
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous materials, Packing and
containers. Reporting requirements,
Security measures. Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control, Hazardous
materials, Packaging and containers.
Reporting requirements. Security
measures. Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal. Water supply.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedures, Air pollution control.
Hazardous materials, Reporting
requirements, Waste treatment and -.
disposal. Water pollution control, Water
supply, Confidential Business
Information.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential Business
Information, Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste, Indian
lands. Intergovernmental relations.
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control. Chemicals,
Hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous
substances. Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources. Nuclear materials.
Pesticides and pests, Radioactive
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund. Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control.
Lee Thomas,
Administrator.
Date: December 23,1988.
IX. References
Risk Assessment Forum. Interim
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated
with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzo-furans
(CDDs andCDFs). Washington, DC: U.S.
'Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. EPA/
625/3-87/012.
Micklewfight, James T. Wood Statistics,
1985, A Report to the Wood Preserving
Industry in the United States. American
Wood Preservers' Institute, January, 1987.
.Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc. (DPRAJ. Draft Final
Preliminary Cost and Economic Impact
Analysis of Listing Hazardous Wastes Under
RCRA for the Wood Preserving and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No, 251 / Friday. December 3O, 1988 / Proposed Rules - 53323
Sawmilling Industries. Prepared for
Economic Analysis Branch. Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November, 1986.
Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc. (DPRA). Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Listing of Certain
Wood Preserving and Sawmilling Industry
Wastes as Hazardous Under RCRA.
Prepared for Economics Analysis Branch,
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "August, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). Final Engineering Analysis of
Wastes from Wood Preservation and Surface
Protection Processes. Prepared for Waste
Characterization Branch, Office of Solid
Waste, July, 1987.
Arsenault,.R.D. Pentachlorophenol and
Contaminated Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins in
the Environment. Proceedings of the
American Wood Preservers' Association. Vol.
78. Page 1,1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA]. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste. Volume IA: Laboratory Manual
Physical/Chemical Methods. Washington,
DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. November, 1986, 3rd Edition.
Palmer, Frank. Environmental Residues—
California, Draft Report. 1986.
McConhell, E.E., DVM, Chemical Manager,
NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and
Carcinogenisis Studies of Pentachlorophenol
(CAS No. 87-88-5) in B6C3F1 Mice. Peer
Review Draft. National Toxicology Program.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
April, 1988. NTP TR 349.
Ratcliff. L. March 1988. Summary of
CRAVE Work Group Verified Carcinogenic
Slope Factors and Unit Cancer Risks. USEPA.
Lindenheim, Victor. Personal
Communication with Edwin F. Abrams,
Office of Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regarding AWPI Survey,
1987.
Russell, Milton. Additional Guidance on
Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel,
1982.
AWPI Letter to Dr. John H. Skinner (Past
Director, EPA's Office of Solid Waste).
Walter G. Talarek, AWPI, January 10.1985.
Litt, Bertram D. Pentachlorophenol
Carcinogenicity Risk Issue: Comparison of
Findings from NTP Bioassay ofPCP with NCI
Bioassay ofHxCDD. for Vulcan Materials
Company. May 18,1988. Washington, DC.
U.S. E.P.A. Health and Environmental
Effects Profile for Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
August, 1987.
DPRA Incorporated; Preliminary Cost and
Economic Impact Analysis for Listing Wood
Preserving Waste. August, 1988b.
U.S. E.P.A. EPA Implementation of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. February 9,1982.
ICE Inc; and DPRA Inc. Economic Analysis
:of Resource- Conservation and Recovery Act
Reguiohs.for Small Quantity" Generators.
•June, 1985.: , ,
Russell, Milton. Additional Guidance on
, Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 1962- . .
Appendix—Environmental
Contamination from Wood Preserving
and Surface, Protection Wastes
Past mismanagement of the wastes listed in
today's notice (F02, F033, F034, and F035) has
resulted in significant environmental damage
which the Agency has documented
extensively. As shown in Table 20, a total of
36 wood preserving and surface protection
facilities representing all of the proposed
listings are on the National Priority List.
The following examples typify the many
cases that EPA has identified regarding
environmental contamination. They
demonstrate that wastes from wood
preserving and surface protection processes
are capable of persisting and moving in the
environment to reach environmental
receptors in potentially harmful
concentrations. The Background Document to
today's proposal contains further examples of
damage cases.
A. Environmental Contamination with
Wastes from Pentachlorophenol Wood
Preserving Processes
At a facility located in southwestern
Montana (that is included on the National
Priorities List (NPL)) poles were pressure.
treated with Pentachlorophenol dissolved in
diesel oil. Untreated retort condensate was
discharged through an unlined ditch to an
unlined pit. Ground water approximately 15
feet below the surface has been found to be
contaminated with a floating oil layer that
contains 650 ppm pentachlorophenol and 200
ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents. This
ground water is hydraulically connected to a
creek 0.4 miles downgradient from the site.
Approximately 49,000 gallons of oil has been
recovered from interceptor trenches and
recovery wells. The total 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic
equivalent concentration of the recovered oil
was 700 ppb. Soils in the process area were
contaminated at a depth of 12 to 24 inches
with pentachlorophenol (5,250 ppm) and
PCDDs and PDCFs (total 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalent concentration was 20 ppb). Off-
site soils were also contaminated,
presumably by runoff carrying drippage from
contaminated surface soils. Off-site surface
soils contained a total 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalent concentration of 26 ppb. This case
clearly demonstrates that unless properly .
managed on-site, ground water and soil
contamination can result from the wastes
generated from wood preserving processes
using pentachlorophenol. .
Contamination of residential drinking
water wells with pentachlorophenol, FCDDs,
and PCDFs has also been demonstrated at a
50 acre site in southern Montana. Wood
preserving operations at this facility began in
the late 1940s. Pentachlorophenol dissolved
in oil was applied to wood by pressure and
non-pressure methods (the site was added to
the NPL in 1984). In the past, the facility
discharged pentachlorophenol-contaminated
ground water to an adjacent creek through a
ditch. Soils and shallow ground water were
contaminated via leaking pipes and a:
deteriorated wastewater sump. Two •
contaminant plumes have been identified.
The first'plume consists of pentachlorophenol
dissolved in oil that floats on top of the water
table. This plume oozed from the ground in a
pasture downgradient from the facility There
is also a plume of pentachlorophenoi
dissolved in ground Water that has
contaminated two drinking water wells on
neighboring property with PCDDs and
PCDFs. One well contained 0.8 ppt and the
other 2 ppt total 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic
equivalents.
B. Environmental Contamination with
Wastes from Pentachlorophenate Surface
Protection Processes
During 1986 and 1987, Environment Canada
conducted a 4-month field study at five
sawmills and two lumber export terminals
(Krahn, Shrimpton, and Glue, 1987). The
object of the study was to measure the extent
to which rainfall could be contaminated with
chlorophenols leached from treated lumber.
The studied sites represented typical lumber
handling and treatment methods including
dip tanks and low pressure and high pressure
spray systems. Leachate dripping directly
from the wood and yard was analyzed for
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol and
pentachlorophenol.
It was found that leaching from treated
lumber began' after 1.0 to 1.5 mm of
continuous rainfall. Dip treated-lumber
leached up to 160 mg/1 and generated
drippage averaging 0.3 to 0.5 mg/1 total •
chlorophenols. Low pressure sprayed lumber
leached up to 580 mg/1 total chlorophenols.
High pressure sprayed lumber leached up to
9.8 mg/1 and generated average yard runoff
with up Jo 2 mg/1 total chlorophenols.
Chlorophenols were found to leach from.
treated lumber under all conditions of
exposure to rainfall. Conditions studied
included up to 8 days of drying, 13
consecutive days of rainfall and 18 days of .
alternating wet and dry periods. This study
documents that drippage of preservative
formulation from surface protected wood and
preservative is washed off treated wood by
precipitation, and, thus, can migrate into the '
environment.
A sawmill located in northwest Oregon
documents the contamination of on-site soils,
ground water, and surface water sediments
with chlorophenols. PCDDs, and PCDFs. In
1983, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality detected
chlorophenols in water samples collected
near the mill. The chlorophenols apparently
derived from the application of an anti-
sapstain (surface protection) solution
containing tetruchlorophenol and
pentachlorophenol to lumber intended for'
export. At this mill, a continuous processing
line is used to dip-treat, cut lumber. A roller
system moves bundles of lumber to the dip .
tank, the wood is submerged for less than a
minute, then allowed to drip into the dip tank
for a few minutes. Next, excess preservative
is mechanically shaken off the lumber and
the wood transported to a storage yard.
Soil samples collected in 1983 from the dip
tank area were found to contain 940 ppm
total chlorophenols (pentachlorophenol plus
tetrachlorophenols) at the surface. In the path
over which the treated lumber was
transported to the storage yard, the total
chlorophenols concentration was 2,520 ppm
-------
53324-" Federal Rfegjsfer / Vbk 53, Nbv 2SEf Friday^ Deceg&efr 3% 1988* /
at a depth offt to 8 Inches. So3.fa»tbft treated
wood storage yard was also contaminated.
At a depth of throe feet thn total chlorpphenol.
concentration was 1.4 ppm.
Drainage front the dip tank area ty an on-
slto creek contained 0.3 ppm- ••;;
pentachlorophenol. Gronnd watemear the
dip tank was found to contain 0.1 ppm total
chlorophcnoli demonstrating that diips and
spills from surface protection processes can
contaminate surface water and ground water.
Samples collected during 1985 were
analyzed for PCDDa and PCDFs as well as
chlofophenols. Sediment collected from the
on-site creek near the dip tank contained 2
ppt 2A7.6-TCDD. The total 2A7.8-TCDD
equivalent concentration was 500 ppt The
average toxic equivalent concentration found
in three other creek sediment sampF.es was
300 ppt This contamination is attributed to
runoff from spills and drips of chlorophenate
preservative solution near the dip-treating
area. Soil that received drippage from the
paved treated wood storage year was also
contaminated. The concentration ol: total
chlorophenols was 63 ppm. The total 2.3.7,8-
TCDD equivalent concentration was 4.000 ppt
(4 ppb).
Contamination of on-aite soils with FCDDs
and PCDFs was also documented in a study
conducted by the California State Water
Resources Control Board. Soil samples were
collected in the area of treatment operations
at three northern-California sawmills.
Presumably, these soils were contaminated
by spills, leaks and especially drippage from
lumber dipping operations. Concentrations of
up to 10,100 ppm total chloropheno!s
(pentachlorophenol and tetrachlorophenol)
were measured in the soil
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin was not
measured above the analytical detection
limits, but all other PCDD and PCDE
homologues were detected. The maximum
total 2,3,7.8-TCDD toxic equivalent
concentration was 40 ppb.
C. Environmental Contamination with
Wastes from Creosote Wood Preserving
Processes
The contamination of ground water,
surface water and sediments, and on-site-
soils with toxic constituents from creosote
wood preserving wastes has been
demonstrated by a facility located in
southeastern Wyoming that was added to the
NPL in 1982. The facility began operations in
the 1880s, and has been treating railroad ties
with creosote since 132& The facility ia
located on the flood plain of a river used for
irrigation and recreation. Wood preserving
wastewaters were disposed of in unlined
surface impoundments. Sludges that were
cleaned out of the wood treating retorts were
buried in the porous alluvial soils on which
tha facility was built.
As a result of past operating and waste
disposal practices, it is estimated that 250,000
cubic yards of soil are saturated vrith 5 •
million gallons of oily material The -
contamination hai-attained greatest depth
around th* beating area, surface
impoundments, and buried waste. The oily
contamination in ihe alluvium is-bordered by
a fringe of contamination dissovled in gound
water, which extends into the bebrock.
Measured ground w«te* concentrations of .
contaminants IncludB-lOeog/lrfluoranthene
and 1,400 ug/1 pyrene; compounds that arr
major constituents of creosote. Free oil also
was observed discharging from the saturated
alluvium to the river and creosote
constituents were measured in river water
and sediments.
A facility located in northwestern Ohio
' also demonstrates the contamination of
ground water and surface soils with creosote
constituents/Wood has been treated with
creosote at this facility since the early 1900s.
Process wastes and wastewater treatment
residuals (listed waste K001) were disposed
of in at least one unlined sludge disposal pit.
approximately 13 feet deep. At a depth of 25
feet, ground water in a monitoring well
installed adjacent to this pit was
contaminated with 71 mg/1 anthracene, 58
mg/1 naphthalene, 24 mg/1 pyrene and other
compounds which are major constituents of
creosote. The depth at which this
contamination was detected indicates that
the creosote constituents are migrating
through the blue-clay soil that underlies the
sludge disposal pit The volatile organic
compounds benzene, toluene, and
ethylbenzene were also measured in the
ground water, at concentrations of 3 mg/1.0.6
mg/1 and 03 mg/1, respectively.
At this same facility, creosote-treated
wood was stored on-site in a 7 acre storage
yard. Soil from a low area in which drainage '
from the treated wood storage yard collected
was sampled and analyzed. Pyrene [230'mg/
kg), chrysene plus benz(a)anthracene (120
mg/1), and fluoranthene (110 mg/kg) were
detected, along with other creosote
constituents, indicating that creosote that had
dripped from treated wood was carried out" of
the storage yard by surface runoff.
D. Environmental Contamination with
Wastes from Inorganic Wood Preserving
processes
Contamination-of ground water has been
demonstrated at a California facility where
on-site soils and surface drippage with
arsenic and chromium from wood preserving
wastes occurred (The facility was added to
the NPL in 1982). Wood was treated on an 18
acre site in the San Joaquin Valley,
'California, .since 1936. At various times, the
facility used pentachlorophenol, FCAP. CCA,
and copper-8-quinolinate. Excess
preservative that dripped from treated wood
was allowed to run into drainage and
percolation ditches. Wastewater was allowed
to drain into dry wells, while retort sludges
and other wastes were placed in a 50-foot
diameter unlined pond and in a sludge pit
with hydraulic conductivity with ground
water. These waste management practices .
.resulted in contamination of ground water
and soils on-aite. Arsenic and chromium have
been measured in the ground water at
concentrations of 0.05 and 9 mg/1,
respectively; compared to maximum
contamination levels (MCLs) of 0.05 mg/1 for
eachmetaLThecoaiaimuiatedaquiferifl
used as drinking water by 10,000 people.
Surface soil concentrations range to 9,800.
mg/kg arsenic and 10,100 mg/kg. of total'
chromium. At a depth of 1O to 20 feet, both.
arsenic and chromium are present at up to 4* ~
mp/kg. The arsenic concentration measured
in standing water tat the treatment area wa»
10 mg/1 and chromium was present at O.-e-mgjf •
1. demonstrating that soil contaminants can •
be transferred to the standing water:
Vineyards that border two sides of the site
have received runoff contaminated with
drippage and other solid wastes.
Data from another case-demonstrate that
contaminated runoff from storage yards used
to hold wood treated with CCA can be
contaminated with drippage containing
arsenic and chromium. The facility, located in
northwestern Alabama, was sampled in 1985
when CCA was the only preservative used.
Although no wastewater was generated from
the actual CCA treating process, runoff from
the yard used to store CCA-treated wood
was collected in a drainage pond. No water
from the tank or retort area, tracks in front of
the retort or any wastewater treatment
system drained into the pond. Water in the
pond contained 4 mg/1 arsenic and 0.79 mg/1
chromium. Pond sediments contained 1,200
mg/kg arsenic and 1,900 mg/kg of chromium,
demonstrating that metal contaminants can
be washed off treated wood and/or the soil
on which inorganic preservative has dripped.
Ground-water near the drainage pond was
not sampled. However, ground water 71 feet
below an evaporation pond that had been. .
used to treat wastewater from a discontinued
steam conditioning and pentachlorophenol
treatment process, contained chromium at a
concentration slightly higher than the
drinking, water standard of 0.05 mg/1.
Presumably the metal contaminants
originated from pentachlorophenol
wastewater cross-contaminated with
chromium and arsenic that had infiltrated
into the ground water below the evaporation
pond.
Several cases of off-site contamination of
ground water have been documented. A
surface impoundment (that had been used to
store process wastes) was closed in 1977 by
draining the pond, spreading its contents over
the site; mixing the waste with soil and
placing the waste mixture in the
impoundment. A wet-weather spring
sediment sample showed 2 trig/kg arsenic
and 12 mg/kg chromium, further evidence of
ground-water contamination.
At a facility located in central South
Carolina (also on the NPL), FCAP and CCA
wood preserving solutions dripped onto the
ground in the loading yard and drip shed over
20 years of operation. The State reported that
high levels of chromium were detected in
many neighboring private wells, at
concentrations up to 80 m'g/1.
At a small site outside of Baltimore,
Maryland, tank overflows have resulted in
the overland flow of CCA treating solution.
The facility had a surfaced drip pad which
did not contain all preservative dripping from
treated wood, and allowed drippage to
' overflow onto the ground. As a result, surface
soils are contaminated with up to 5.700 mg/kg
arsenic afid 3,100 mg/kg chromium. Ground
water on-site is also contaminated (800 mg/l
arsenic,. 130 mg/I chromium) and high
chromium concentrations were reported in a .
neighbor'swelL • •.-•••' •••.-—*.,
As a 7.5 acre site one-half mile from the
Russian River in northern California (added
-------
Fi*i«nlt ReyM«r / VoL 53, ISte. 251 / Friday, December 3O, 1988 f
Ihzfe*
to ifee Kft, -1* ttB& Mife and grand w*ter
"
spilIsaiidleak»£rocLA«fiiciiity'8CCA
preservative and wastewater reeyd!ng
system. ConcentraSona of chromium in
ground water near the process area reached
120 mg/1. Ground water contamination
migrated off-site. Contaminant levels in the
plume were 0.5 ing/1 arsenic and 0.6 mg/1
chromium, compared to MCLs of 0.05 mg/1 for
both metals. Ground water in. the area
supplies domestic, agricultural, and industrial
users.
Environmental contamination from wood
preserving operations that use inorganic
preservatives can be long-lasting. This ia
documented by a site in. Texas on the Texas-
Arkansas border. A wood preserving facility
operated on this 61 acre site from 1939 to 1961
and used peniachlorophenol, creosote, and
CCA. Wood preserving wastes were stored in
a surface impoundment on the site where
ground water is 10 feet below the surface. In
1984, a housing development and a sand and
gravel pit occupied the site. A sediment
sample from a creek adjacent to the site
contained 4 mg/fcy arsenic mifci 3 nig/Teg '
.chroxnnivfc px&snmably. contaminated: bv *
drippage carried by surface mnoff. Ground
water leachate collected in the quarry area
contained 440 mg/1 arsenic (chromium
concentration was not reported), 23 years -
after wood preserving operations on. the site
were discontinued.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR Parts 260,261, 262,
264,265,270,271, and 302 are proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 USC 6905, 6912(1), 6921
through 6927, 6930,6934,6935,6937,6938, and
6939.
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
adding the definition of "Drip Pad", in
alphabetical order, as follows:
§26ft1O DMMflon*
*•••!» «' « '
"Drip Pad" is a curbed, impermeable
base installed to assist collection of
drippage and accumulated precipitation
in drip or kick-back areas at wood
preserving facilities or in treated wood
storage yards.
* * * a *
PART 26f— IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 USC 6905, 69l2(a), 6921,6922,
and 693%
4. Section 261.31 is amended fay
adding the following hazardous waste
listing in alphanumeric order to read as
follows:
§ 261.31 Hazardous waste* from non-
specific sources.
Incftjstnr antf
EPA
hazardous Hazardous waste
waste No. ' • ' • .
Hazard
code
F032
Wasteweters, process reseduafe, preservative drippage. and discarded spent formtdafems from wood preserving processes at facilities that
currently USB or hav* previously used chloropnenolic formulations (except wastes from processes that have complied with the cleaning or
replacement procedures- sal forth in ,S 261.35 and do not resume or initiate use of chloropnenolic formulations). This listing does not
include K001 bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or
. . • •
Wastewalars, process residuals, pretectant drippage, and discarded spent formulations from wood surface protection processes a« facilities
that cumrrtly IB» or nova previously used chlorophenolic formulations (except wastes from processes that have complied! with the cleaning
or replacement procedures set forth in § 261 .35 and do not resume or initate use of chlorophenolic formulations).
Wastewaters, process residuals, preservative drippage, and discarded spent formulations from wood preserving processes using creosote
tormulaSons. This ferting does not include K001 bottom sediment stodge from the treatment of wastewater from wood preserving processes
th«t us* creosote and/or pentachlorophenoL
Wastewater* process sesidoalSi preservative drippag*. and discarded spent formulationa from wood preserving processes using inorgsiic
preservatives, containing arsenic or chromium. This listing does not include KOOt bottom sediment sludge tarn the treatment oi wastewate»
from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachtorophenot
(7)
(T)
(T)
(T)
5. Section 261.35 is added to read as
follows:
§261.35 Equipment cleaning or
replacement standards for hazardous
wastes listed in §§ 261.31 and 261.32 of this
chapter.
(a) Applicability, Equipment cleaning
or replacement standards are applicable
to generators of the listed hazardous
wastes F032 and F033. Wastes from
wood preserving and surface protection
facilities generated in processes that do
not resume or initiate ase of
chlorophenolic formulations wilt not
meet the listing definition of F032 and
F033, respectively, once the conditions
in § 261.35 (b) through (f) are met. These
wastes may, however, continue to meet
another hazardous waste listing
description or may exhibit one or more
of the hazardous waste characteristics.
(b) Equipment cleaning or
replacement performance standard. The
owner or operator must-clean or replace
all equipment that may have come into
contact with chlorophenolic
formulations or constituents thereof, in a
manner that:
(1) Minimizes or eliminates the escape
of hazardous waste, hazardous
constituents, leachate, contaminated
drippage, or hazardous waste
decomposition products to the ground
and surface waters, and to the
atmosphere, and
(2) Complies with the equipment
cleaning or replacement requirements of
this section.
(c) Equipment cleaning or
replacement requirements. Generators-
must either clean or replace all process
equipment that may have come into
contact with chlorophenolic
formulations pr constituents thereof,.
including, but not limited to, treatment
cylinders, sumps, tanks, piping systems,
drip pads, fork lifts, and trams by
conducting the following activities:
-------
53326
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
(1) The generator must prepare andj-
algn a written equipment cleaning or
replacement plan that describes the
equipment to be cleaned or replaced,
how the equipment will bo-cleaned or
replaced in accordance with 5:281.35{b)
and (c), and the appropriate solvent
chosen for use in § 261.35{c)(3);
(2) The generator must remove all
visible residues, including free and
attached residues, from process .
equipment;
(3) The generator must rinse the
process equipment with an appropriate
solvent until dioxina and dibenzofurans
are not detected in the final solvent
rinse when tested in accordance with
the testing requirements of § 261.35{e);
and
(4) The generator must manage all
residues from the cleaning process and
any discarded equipment as F032 (for
wood preserving operations) or F033 (for
surface protection operations).
(d) Previous equipment cleaning or
replacement provision. Generators that
can document previous equipment
cleaning or replacement which was
performed in accordance with the
, requirements in § 261.35{c) and which
occurred after a change in preservative
or surface protectant may us« this
documentation to fulfill the equipment
cleaning or replacement requirements in
§ 261.35{c). Wastes from wood
preserving and surface protection
facilities generated in processes that do
not resume or initiate use of
chlorophenolic formulations, for which
generators submit information from
previous equipment cleaning or
replacement activities, will no longer
meet the listing definition of F032 or ,
F033 provided that the conditions listed
in paragraphs (d) (1), (2), and (3) of this
section have been met and provided that
the generator does not resume or initiate
use of chlorophenolic formulations. The-
wastes may, however, continue to meet
another hazardous waste listing
description or may exhibit one or more.
of the hazardous waste characteristics.
(1) The generator must sufcimit to the
Regional Administrator the required
documentation together with; the
following statement signed by the '..
generator or his authorized
representative: *
I certify under penalty of law that all
process equipment required to be
cleaned or replaced under 40 CFR 261.35
was cleaned or replaced as represented
In the accompanying materials. I am
aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of"
fine or imprisonment
(2) The Regional Administrator finds,
after a review of the material provided.
by the generator, that the procedures
used for equipment cleaning or- -
replacement meet the-requirements of •
§ 261.35 (fa) and (c). and
[3) The Regional Administrator
notifies the generator, in writing; of this
finding.
(e) Testing and Documentation
Requirements.
(1) Any person seeking to meet the
equipment cleaning requirements of
§ 261.35(c) must test the rinsate from the
final solvent rinse and demonstrate that
dioxins and furans are not detected
when tested according to the method
specified in § 261.35(e)(2).
(2) Dioxin and dibenzofuran
concentrations must be determined
using SW-846 Method 8290.
(3) Generators seeking to meet the
equipment cleaning or replacement
requirements of § 261.35 (c) and (d) must
collect the following information for
submission to the Regional
Administrator:
(i) The name and address of the
facility;
(ii) Formulations previously used and
the date on which their use ceased in
each process at the facility;
(iii) For F033, a statement certifying
whether the facility currently uses a
surface protection formulation that has
no listed hazardous wastes associated
with it;
(iv) Formulations currently used in
each process at the facility;
(v) The equipment cleaning or
replacement plan;
(vi) The name and address of the
person conducting any cleaning
operations required under § 261.35(c);
(vii) The dates of the cleaning or
replacement;
(viii) The name and address of the
laboratory facility performing the
sampling and testing;
(ix) The dates of sampling and testing;
(x) A description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques,
including techniques used for extraction,
containerization, preservation, and
chain of custody of the samples;
(xi) A description of the tests
performed, the" date the tests were
performed, and the results of those tests;
(xii) The name and model numbers of
the instalment used in performing the'
tests; and
(xiii) QA/QC documentation.
(f) Notification, Review, and
.Approval.
(1) Generators intending to use the
equipment cleaning or replacement
procedures so that then- wastes do not
meet the listing description of F032 or
F033 must notify the Regional
Administrator 30 days prior to
equipment cleaning or replacement
(2) Within 30 days following
completion of all equipment cleaning or
replacement activities, generators must••
submit to the Regional Administrator
copies of all information required under
§ 261.35{e), a copy of the equipment
cleaning and replacement plan required
under § 261.35(c)(l), and the following
statements signed by the generator or
his authorized representative:
I certify under penalty of law that all
process equipment required to be
cleaned or replaced under 40 CFR 261.35
was cleaned or replaced in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 261.35.1
am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of
fine or imprisonment.
(3) The Regional Administrator will
review the information provided to
determine whether the generator has
complied with the requirements of
§ 261.35 (b) and (c).
(4) In the event that the Regional
Administrator provides written
notification of a tentative determination
that the requirements of § 261.35 [b) and
(c) have not been met, the generator
may provide any appropriate additional
information addressing the basis for the
tentative determination within 30 days
of receipt of the written notification.
(5) Within 30 days following receipt of
additional information from the
generator, the Regional Administrator
will provide written notification of his
final determination.
(6) Upon issuance of a final
determination that the requirements of
§ 261.35 (b) and (c) have been met, the
subject wastes will be considered to no
longer meet the listing descriptions of
F032 or F033, provided that the
generator does not resume or initiate use
of chlorophenolic formulations. The
waste will continue to be regulated
hazardous waste if it meets another
listing description or exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
Appendix III—[Amended]
6. In Part 261, Appendix III, Table 1 is
amended by adding the following
compound in alphabetical order as
follows:
TABLE 1—ANALYSIS METHODS FOR OR-
GANIC CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-
846
Compound
Method
numbers
8enzo(k)fluorantnene 8100, 8250,
8270,8310
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, Nm. 251 / Friday. December SO, 1988 / Proposed Roles
7. In Part 261, Appendix VBis
amended by adding the foRowfng waste
streams in atphanunaexic order as ..
followK
Appendix Vn—Basta For Listing
Hazardous Waste
EPA,
hazsnf*
ow Hcwtottsccinstaue«s.«0f which Isterf
wasta • .
No.
F032 ..
F033
F034
F035
imteiict1,Z,3-
cd)pyrene. pentacWofoptienoJ, arsenic.
chrofvrfunv tefts% pcnt&v rte?®-B hop*
tacMoMX»8iiB^Miean« tefe*-. penta-
. toca-, hepfacNorodifaenzoiuran*.
Pentechtocofrtienol, • 2.3.4,6-tetraefilor*.
2,4,6-lrfcWoroptienot,
haptaMonx£
dioxins. tetra-, pent*-, hexa-v hepeach-
loroditenzofunins.
cdjpyrena. napWhatene, arsenic, ehro-
mwrn
lvstnc.ctnaium.iBai
8. In Part 261, Appendix VHI is
amended by adding the following
hazardous constituents in alphabetical
order as foflows:
Appendix VEX—Hazardous Constituents
Commonnama
No.
BenzoWauorarthw SUM.
• - • • •
Heptactilorodi-
benzofurans.
IteptatMomB-' .
benzop-
3)7-08-9
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
a The authority citation for Part 282
continues to read as follows:
AuOaiirje42 U&C 690% 8M2.6922,892*.
6925iaad89S7. -. .
10. Secdon 28t34 nairagrapa (aJClJ is
revised to read as for
,
(1) The waste is placed hi containers
and the generator complies with Snbpart
I of 40 CFR Part 265, or the waste is
placed in tanks and the generator
complies with Subpart J or 40 CFR Part
265, except § 285.197fc), and § 265.20O,
or the waste is placed on drip pads and
the generator complies with Subpart f
of 40 CFR Parties, b addition, snch a
generator is exempt from all the
requirements of Subparts G and H of 40
CFR Part 285. except for §§ 285.111 and
265.114.
*•*•*.*
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AMD OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
12. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Seca. 1006k 2002.-30M. and 3005
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 197B, as amended (42 U.S.C69G5.
6912(aJ. 692$, and 6925).
ia The table ef contents for Part 264
is amended to add Subpart T and
§ § 264.570,264.571.284.572,234.573, and
264.574 as Follows:
* * • » «
Subpart T—Drip Pads
Sec.
264.570 Applicability.
264.571 Containment
284.572 General Operating Requirement
264.573 inspections.
264.574 Closure.
!«. Part 264 is amended by adding
Subpart T as follows:
Subpart T—Drip Pad*
§264.570 Applicability.
The requirements of this Subpart
. apply to owners and operators of
facilities that use drip pads to assist
collection, storage, or treatment of
treated wood drippage that meets the
listing description of Hazardous Waste
Numbers FD32, F033, F034, or IF035 of 40
CFR 261.31.
§264.571 Containment.
Drip pads must meet the following
requirements!
- (a) Drip pads, mus1.be constructed of a
curbed base having an, impermeable
surface capable .of containing drippage
and accumulated precipitation whSe.
routed to an associated collection area
or device (systemfc
(b) Drip pads must be maintained
such that they remain free of cracks,
corrosion, or other deterioration, that
could cause hazardous waste to leak
from the drip pad;
(c) The drip pad and associated
collection system must be designed and
operated to collect and drain liquid
resulting from drippage or precipitation
in order to prevent run-off; and mast b@
: designed and maintained so as to be
capable of containing precipitation from
a 25-year/24-hour stonn event if
exposed to rainfall;
fd) Run-on onto the drip pad and
associated collection system must be
prevented unless the system has
sufficient excess capacity to contain anj?
run-on that might enter the system; and
(e) Drippage and accumulated
precipitation must be removed from the
associated collection system as
necessary to prevent overflow onto the
drip pad.
(f) As specified in die permit, if the
owner or operator detects a condition
that could lead to a release of hazardous
waste, the condition must be repaired
within a reasonably prompt period of
time following discovery, or the pad
most be removed from service.
• (Note: See 12fi4.571(f} for remedial action
required if deterioration or leakage ia
detected.)
§264.572 General operating requirement,
Drip pads must be operated and
maintained in a manner to prevent
tracking of hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents off the
drip pad by personnel or equipment.
§264.573 Inspections.
Drip pads must be inspected
thoroughly for visual signs of
deterioration or cracking. Facility
inspection programs must involve
inspection of the entire drip pad surface
-at4east-weekly: . ; . •
(Note: See S 284.57110 for remedial action
required if deterioration or leakage is
detected.)
§264.574 Closure.
, At closure, all hazardous waste and
hazardous waste residues must be
removed from the drip pad. The pad and
any soil containing or contaminated
with hazardous waste or hazardous
waste residues most be decontaminated
or removed, ,
-------
53328 Federal Register / Vol. 53t No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
PART 265-INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
15. The authority citation, fur Part 265
remains as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006,2002(a], 3004, 3005,
and 3015 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as-amended (42 UJ3.C.
6905.6912(n), 6924.6925, and 69315).
15. The table of contents for Part 265
is amended by adding Subpart T
consisting of §§ 265.440,265.441, 265.442,
265.443 and 265.444 as follows:
SubpmrtT—Drip Pads
Sec.
265.440 Applicability.
265.441 Containment
265.442 General operating requirement
265.443 Inspections.
265.444 Closure.
16. Section 265.1 is amended to add
paragraph {c)[4)(iii), to read as follows:
§ 265.1 Purpoa*, scop*, and applicability-.
(o) * * •
(4) * * *
(lii) To a person who treats:, stores, or
disposes of hazardous waste in a State
authorized under Subpart A or B of Part
271 of this chapter at a facility which
was not covered by standards under this
part when the State obtained
authorization and for which EPA
promulgates standards under this part >
after the State is authorized. This
paragraph will apply only until the State
Is authorized to implement interim
status standards for such facilities under
Subpart A of Part 271 of this chapter.
17. Part 265 is amended by adding
Subpart T as follows:
SUBPART T—DRIP PADS
§265.440 Applicability.
The requirements of this Subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that use drip pads to assist
collection, storage, or treatment of
treated wood drippage that meets the
listing description of Hazardous Waste
Numbers F032, F033, F034, or F035, of
§ 261.32 of this chapter.
§ 265.441 Containment
Drip pads must meet the following
requirements:
(a) Drip pads must be constructed of a
curbed base having an impermeable
surface capable of containing drippage
and accumulated precipitation while
routed to an associated collection area
or device (system);
(b) Drip pads must be maintained
such, that they remain free of cracks.
corrosion, or other deterioration that
could cause hazardous waste to leak
from the drip pad;
(c) The drip pad and associated
collection system must be designed and
operated to collect and drain liquid ,
resulting from drippage or precipitation
in order to prevent run-off; and must be
designed and maintained so as to be
capable of containing precipitation from
a 25-year/24-hour storm event if
exposed to rainfall;
(d) Run-on onto the drip pad and
associated collection system must be
prevented unless the system has
sufficient excess capacity to contain any
run-on that might enter the system; and
(e) Drippage and accumulated
precipitation must be removed from the
associated collection system as
necessary to prevent overflow onto the
drip pad.
(f) If the owner or operator detects a
condition that could lead to a release of
hazardous waste, the condition must be
repaired within a reasonably prompt
period of time following discovery or the
pad must be removed from service.
§ 265.442 General operating requirement
Drip pads must be operated and
maintained in a manner to prevent ...
tracking of hazardous waste of
hazardous waste constituents off the
drip pad by personnel or equipment.
§265.443 Inspections.
Drip pads must be inspected
thoroughly for visual signs of
deterioration or cracking. Facility
inspection programs must involve
inspection of the entire drip pad surface
at least weekly.
(Note: See § 265.342(f) for remedial action
required if deterioration or leakage is
detected.)
§265.444 Closure
At closure, all hazardous waste and
hazardous waste residues must be
removed from the drip pad. The pad and
any soil containing or contaminated
with hazardous waste or hazardous
waste residues must be decontaminated
or removed.
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
Iff. The authority citation for Part 270
continues to read as-follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912,6925,6927,
6939. dnd 6974.
19. Subpart B of Part 270 is amended
by adding § 270.22 to read as follows:
§270.22 Special Part B Information
requirements for drip pads. -
Except as otherwise provided by
§ 264.1 of this chapter, owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities that
collect, store, or treat hazardous waste
on drip pads must provide the following
additional information:
(a) A description of the drip pad and
associated collection system sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of §§264.353 and 264.354.
This information must include the
following at a minimum:
(1) Basic design parameters,
dimensipns, and construction materials.
(2) How the design promotes
collection and drainage of drippage and
materials mixed with drippage to an
associated collection area or device
(system).
(3) The capacity of the drip pad .and
associated collection system.
(4) For drip pads and associated
collection systems exposed to
precipitation, a demonstration that the
design capacity of the drip pad and
associated collection system is capable
of containing the precipitation from a 25
•year/24 hour storm event..
(5) For drip pads and associated
collection systems protected from
precipitation, a description of the
structures or structure that will provide
protection from precipitation, including
basic design parameters, dimensions,
and construction materials.
(6) A description of structures that
will prevent run-on to the drip pad and
associated collection system or a
demonstration that the capacity is
sufficient to contain any run-ori that
might enter the drip pad or collection
system.
(7) The interval at which drippage and
other materials will be removed from
the associated collection system and a
statement demonstrating that the
interval will be sufficient to prevent
overflow onto the drip pad.
(b) A description of operating
practices and procedures that will be
followed to ensure that hazardous waste
or waste constituents are not tracked off
the drip pad by personnel or equipment.
(c) A plan demonstrating how the
owner or operator will ensure that all
portions of the drip pad are inspected
weekly for signs of deterioratioaor
cracking, including provisions for
moving any treated wood that is stored
on,a pad for more than one week.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, "December 30,1988 / Proposed Rules' S3323
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
20. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a). and 6926.
§271.1 [Amended]
21. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING
THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Prnmntefltinn ™e Federal
rtata re9"la- Register
date lion reference
[Insert date Tha xxffixx.— [Insert
of listing effective
publics- of . date.]
tion]. wastes
from
the
wood
pre-
serving
and
surface
protec-
tion
proc-
z These regulations implement HSWA only to the
extent that they apply to the listing of Hazardous
Wastes Nos. F032 and F033 and the equipment
cleaning and replacement procedures. Listings of
Hazardous Waste Nos. F034 and F035, test meth-
ods for benzo(k)fluoranthene, and technical stand-
ards for drip pads do not implement HSWA.
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
22. The authority citation for Part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 102 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9602; sees. 311
and 501{a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
§302.4 [Amended]
23. In § 302.4, amend Table 302.4 by
adding the waste streams F032, F033,
F034, and F035.
(a) * < *
-------
,**
Federal Kegjito'f VoL- 53,- Not 251. / Friday.. Dece^bg 3ft 198tt / Propes^ Safer*
. TA8l.E^02.4r-LlST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND RERORTABLE QUANTtTHES
' • • :r •• • [Sea footnotes at end of table 302.4] ;
Statutory
Hazardous substance CASRN s^nymsf RQ ^^
RCRA.
waste ,
number
Final HQ
Category Pounds (Kg)
F032.»
Wastewatore. process residuals, |>reservative dnppage. and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood preserving processes at
facilities that currently uso or have previously used chlorpphon-
olic formulations (except wastes from processes mat have
compKad with the cleaning « replacement procedures set
forth in 526t 35 and do not resume or initiate use of chlorc-
phorxUfe formulations). This fisting does not include K001
bottom sediment sludga from the treatment of wastewater from
wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentacn-
lorophanol.
Wastewaters7process residuals, protectant drippage; and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood surface protection proc-
esses at (Kitties that currently use or have previously used
chtorophanolic formulations (except wastes from processes
that hava compiled with the cleaning or replacement proce-
dures sat forth in § 261.35 and do not resume or initiate use of
chtorophenoTic formulations).
. preservative dnppage, and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood preserving processes
that currently use creosote formulations. This listing does not
tocfodo K001 bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewater from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachtorophenol.
Wastewatars, process residuals, preservative, drippage, and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood preserving processes
using inorganic preservatives containing arsenic or chromium.
This listing does not include K001 bottom sediment sludge
from the treatmonl of wastewater from wood preserving proc-
esses that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol.
10
...... 1 *
4 F032 X....
1 (0.454)
4 F033 X
1 (0.454)
4 F034 X .....
I (0.4541
4 F035 X..... ' 1 (0.454)
IFR Doc. 88-30078 Filed 12-29-88; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ CODE 8560-50-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-3500-6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Tentative Petition
Denial
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. , *-
ACTION: Tenati% -'aetermination to deny
petition for rulemaking; request for
comments. .
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or Agency)
today is issuing a tentative
determination to deny a petition from
the American Wood Preservers Institute
(AWP1), to: (1) Reconsider the Agency's
interpretation that EPA hazardous
waste K001 may form from application
of wood preserving wastewaters to
spray irrigation fields and (2) more
clearly define K001 by specifying the
concentrations of listing constituents
that identify a wood preserving
wastewater treatment sludge as K001. If
EPA finds that K001 can form in spray
irrigation fields, the petitioner requests
that owners or operators of such
facilities be given six months from the
date of EPA's response to comply with
the regulations. EPA also has
determined tentatively to deny, this
request. The Agency has, however,
provided in this Federal Register notice
a description of how EPA Hazardous
Waste K001 applies to spray irrigation
fields. This guidance is intended to
provide additional assistance to
generators in Jndentification of K001.
The Agency bases today's tentative
determination to deny the petition on (1)
the listing description. (2) the
information provided in the docket
supporting the K001 listing and (3) EPA's
examination of the data submitted by
the petitioner, to support their claim that
spray irrigation fields used for the land
treatment of wood preserving
wastewaters do hot generate
wastewater treatment sludges and that .-
any wastes that are so generated do not
contain significant concentrations of the
constituents of concern specified for
K001 in 40 CFR Part 261. Appendix VII.
It is the Agency's tentative
determination that the K001 Background
Document and the data submitted by the
petitioner support the conclusion that
wastewater treatment sludges that meet
the K001 listing description may be
generated, treated or otherwise.
managed in spray irrigation fields.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the
K001 listing applies to sludge that forms
in spray irrigation fields used for the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol. Further, the
Agency believes it provided adequate.
notice to wood preservers who use
spray irrigation fields of the description
of K001 by publication of a notice of the
listing in the Federal Register and by
providing opportunities for public
comment on the listing. For this reason,
the Agency does not propose to give
these facilities additional time to come
into compliance with RCRA regulations.
Accordingly, the Agency tentatively
denies the AWPI petition.
------- |