United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA/530-SW-91-058
Agency (OS-305) July 1991
&EPA Report to the
Senate Appropriations
Committee
Regulation of
Wood Preserving
Wastes
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 2 199'
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Chairwoman, Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Mikulski:
I am pleased to transmit the Report to the Senate
Appropriations Committee on Regulation of Wood Preserving Wastes,
The report examines the potential advantages, costs, and risks
associated with a multistatute approach to regulation of wastes
from wood preserving operations.
The report qualitatively examines the elements of the
multistatute approach and compares them to analogous elements of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The report
also examines the costs and risks of the multistatute approach
and compares them to those of the RCRA Subtitle C approach.
As you read this report, you may want to keep in mind that
since promulgation of this rule we have worked through a number
of implementation issues that will allay the industry's most
significant concerns while protecting the environment. A fact
sheet on those actions is also enclosed for your information.
Please let me know if you would like additional information
on our regulation of this industry.
Don
Assistant A
istrator
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Jake Garn
Printed on Recycled Pat
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Section 1
Page
ES-1
Section 2
Analysis of the Advantages and
Limitations of the Multistatute Approach
Background 2
Description of the Multistatute Approach.... 7
RCRA Section 1006(b) - Integration With
Other Acts 10
Potential Regulation Under the Clean Water
Act 11
Effluent and Pretreatment Standards.... 12
Best Management Practices 14
Stormwater Management Regulations 16
Wastewater Management and Other Aspects
of the RCRA/CWA Interface 17
Potential Regulation Under FIFRA 20
FIFRA Options 20
FIFRA Enforcement Powers 22
RCRA Regulation Under the Multistatute
Approach 24
Regulation Under the RCRA-Based Approach As
Compared to the Multistatute Approach 25
Costs and Benefits of the Multistatute
Approach
Costs and Benefits of the Multistatute
Approach 30
Costs and Benefits of the December 6,
1990, Rule 30
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Comparison of the December 6, 1990,
Rule and Multistatute Approach 33
Some Similarities Between the
Approaches 33
Some Differences Between the
Approaches 35
Conclusion 40
Exhibit 1 Comparison of Basic Requirements Included
Under Wood Preserving December 6, 1990, Rule
and Multistatute Approach 41
Exhibit 2 Annualized Cost of Liners/Leak Detection and
Process Area Cleanup for Model Facilities... 43
Appendix A Basis for Listing A-l
Appendix B Executive Summary to the Regulatory Impact
Analysis B-l
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 15, 1990, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule designating three
categories of wastes from wood preserving operations as hazardous
waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). This rule was promulgated under a court-ordered
deadline to complete a listing determination for these wood
preserving wastes by November 15, 1990. The Agency determined
that the subject wastes met the criteria for listing set forth in
Section 3001(a) of RCRA.
Earlier, in September 1990, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations had directed the Agency to submit by March 15,
1991, a Report regarding the potential advantages, costs, and
risks associated with a multistatute approach to regulation of
wastes from wood preserving operations. As EPA regards the
multistatute approach, which was proposed by the wood preserving
industry during development of the final rule, the approach would
employ three statutory authorities to control wood preserving
wastes in the following manner:
1) Clean Water Act (CWA) - regulation of wastewaters and
stormwaters;
.2) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) - regulation of treated wood drippage and the
establishment of drip pad management standards;
3) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -
regulation of process residuals.
ES-1
-------
This Report is in response to the Committee's directive to
look at the advantages, costs, and risks of the multistatute
approach. To do so, the elements of the multistatute approach
are examined qualitatively in Section One. As part of this
examination, a comparison of the multistatute elements to
analogous RCRA elements is included at various points. In
Section Two of the Report, the costs and risks of the
multistatute approach are examined, including a comparison to
those of the RCRA Subtitle C approach.
As one of the fundamental elements of the multistatute
approach, the Report examines the use of CWA authority for
regulation of wastewaters from wood preserving operations. Use
of effluent guidelines and standards, pretreatment standards,
best management practices, and stormwater management regulations
is considered. Although these CWA authorities can provide
substantial protection, the Report identifies two limitations in
use of the CWA: 1) a lack of specific groundwater protection, and
2) the fact that while the timber products processing industry is
among the categories under consideration for future revision, the
promulgation of revised effluent guidelines for discharges from
wood preserving facilities would not likely occur for several
years. Finally, the Report examines the permit application
requirements for storm water discharges from industrial
activities such as wood preserving facilities that were
established under CWA authority in a November 16, 1990, rule.
ES-2
-------
The Report also considers the use of FIFRA authority to
regulate drippage from wood preserving operations. Specifically,
label changes and new regulations are considered. Major issues
surrounding the use of FIFRA include the ability to obtain 100%
participation of wood preserving facilities in a voluntary label
change and the time required to implement mandatory label changes
or to promulgate new regulations to achieve the necessary levels
of protection. The number of enforcement options, type of
enforcement actions, and penalties under FIFRA authority are
examined, as well as comparable provisions under RCRA authority.
Finally, because RCRA would be used to regulate process
residuals under the multistatute approach, the Report analyzes
this element. The wood preserving industry suggested listing of
these wastes under RCRA Subtitle C, which was done in the final
wood preserving rule.
The Report then discusses the RCRA-based framework for the
management and tracking of hazardous wastes from generation
through treatment and disposal. Several provisions of the
regulations under RCRA addressing comprehensive protection of
groundwater are noted, including corrective action, contingency
plans, waste management standards, and closure requirements. A
brief discussion of the final rule provisions is presented,
including: 1) the management and clean-up standards for both
existing and new drip pads (the major waste management units of
concern); 2) the staggered phase-in period provided to wood
preservers for the upgrading of existing drip pads to new drip
ES-3
-------
pad standards to account for a wide variability in the ages and
conditions of existing drip pads and to allow for reasonable
upgrade schedules; and 3) the 90-day generator provision for
those who utilize drip pads. A comparison of the RCRA-based
approach to the multistatute approach must necessarily factor in
these provisions, which bear directly on the scope of RCRA
requirements that any particular wood preserving facility may
have to meet.
In examining the potential costs and benefits of a
multistatute approach, the comparative analysis looks at a "less
stringent" multistatute approach and a "more stringent"
multistatute approach, as compared to the requirements
promulgated in the final rule of November 15, 1990. Both costs
and benefits under the "less stringent" multistatute scenario
would be less than those under the wood preserving final rule
primarily due to differences in three areas of requirements: l)
liners and leak detection for drip pads; 2) no drippage off drip
pads; and 3) soil cleanup. Costs and benefits under the "more
stringent" multistatute scenario would be less than those under
the final rule primarily due to differences in requirements for
soil cleanup. Either type of the multistatute approach therefore
provides different levels of protection (especially of
groundwater) than the final rule promulgated under RCRA
authority.
In summary, the EPA has evaluated the multistatute approach
to regulation of wood preserving wastes and compared it to the
ES-4
-------
RCRA-based approach. A major element of the evaluation was
whether adequate protection of human health and the environment
was achieved, particularly in regards to groundwater protection.
Areas of concern related to groundwater protection include
remediation of leaks and spills, closure of waste management
units such as drip pads, and control of wastes through a
comprehensive management and tracking system. Although the
multistatute approach to regulation of wood preserving wastes
could have provided some environmental protection at a lower cost
than the RCRA-based approach, the Agency believes that the
multistatute approach would not protect human health and the
environment as well as the RCRA-based approach in this case.
It should not be construed that the RCRA-based approach in
this instance signals a precedent against future regulation under
a multistatute approach. Nor should it be construed that the EPA
will use a multistatute approach where a RCRA-based approach is
warranted under statutory obligations. The EPA has no objection
to use of the multistatute approach when the environmental
protection provided is consistent with statutory mandates. In
this regard, the Agency has instituted a "cluster" approach to
regulation of industries in which regulations written under the
various statutes are coordinated to most efficiently achieve
multi-media environmental regulation.
ES-5
-------
SECTION 1
ANALYSIS OF THE ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
OF THE HULTISTATUTE APPROACH
-------
BACKGROUND
The wood preserving industry consists of approximately 700
pressure and non-pressure treating plants. The geographic
concentration of these plants is primarily in the Southeast and
Northwest. Plant sizes range from one to greater than one
hundred acres. The industry is characterized by a predominance
of small businesses with low profit margins.
Both past and present waste practices in the wood preserving
industry have resulted in significant environmental damage in the
form of soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination by
toxic constituents present in wood preserving chemicals.
Approximately 54 wood treatment facilities are Superfund sites on
the National Priorities List and over 80 are currently subject to
the RCRA corrective action process. Although many past practices
which resulted in environmental damage have been discontinued
(such as the use of unlined surface impoundments), many wood
preserving facilities continue to manage wastewaters, process
residuals, drippage and other spent formulations in a manner that
is not protective of the environment. Such failures include lack
of drip pads, a commonly used waste management unit in the wood
preserving industry that is designed to collect excess
preservative from treated wood, or use of inadequate drip pads.
These practices result in the direct or indirect discharge of
toxic chemicals to soils and represent a threat to groundwater
and surface waters.
-------
On November 15, 1990, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule designating three
categories of wastes from wood preserving operations as hazardous
waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The Agency determined that the subject wastes met
the criteria for listing set forth in Section 3001(a) of RCRA
because these wastes contain high concentrations of toxic
constituents that are mobile, persistent, and because past
mismanagement of these wastes has resulted in serious
environmental damage and risk to human health. The basis for
listing these wastes is described in the preamble to the December
30, 1988, proposed rule and an excerpt of the preamble is
included in this report as Appendix A. This rule was promulgated
under a court-ordered deadline to complete a listing
determination for these wood preserving wastes by November 15,
1990. [Note: although signed by the Administrator on November
15, 1990, the final rule was not published in the Federal
Register until December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50450). Hereafter, the
final rule will be referred to as the "December 6, 1990, rule"].
The three categories of waste designated as hazardous in the
December 6, 1990, rule were as follows:
o F032 - wastes from wood preserving processes at
facilities that use or previously used chlorophenolic
formulations;
o F034 - wastes from wood preserving processes at
facilities that use creosote formulations;
-------
o F035 - wastes from wood preserving processes at
facilities that use inorganic preservatives containing
arsenic or chromium.
Each of these categories included wastewaters, process residuals,
preservative drippage, and spent formulations. In addition to
the listings, the rule contained requirements for drip pads at
wood preserving plants. In lieu of mandatory, automatic
permitting for these drip pads, the Agency incorporated
regulatory provisions for operation without a full RCRA permit
provided that operators of wood preserving plants limit
accumulation of wastes to a time period of 90 days or less, meet
the drip pad management standards, and comply with certain
recordkeeping requirements.
As part of the preamble to the December 6, 1990, rule, EPA
addressed the issue of an alternative multistatute approach
raised in comments by the American Wood Preservers Institute -
(AWPI) and the Society of American Wood Preservers (SAWP). The
suggested multistatute framework would utilize elements of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the
Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) in lieu of primary reliance on RCRA to regulate
hazardous wastes from the wood preserving industry. RCRA would
be used to regulate only process residuals, which account for
only a small percentage of the hazardous waste generated at wood
preserving facilities. Specifically, under the multistatute
approach, as presented by the AWPI and the SAWP, control of wood
preserving wastes would have consisted of the following:
-------
1. regulation of wastewaters and storm waters under CWA;
2. regulation of drippage from treated wood and the
establishment of drip pad management standards using
voluntary label changes under FIFRA;
3. regulation of only process residuals under RCRA.
The AWPI and SAWP contended that the multistatute approach would
impose a lesser economic burden on the wood preserving industry
than regulation under a RCRA-based rule and would also provide
equivalent protection of human health and the environment.
The December 6, 1990, rule discussed the suggested
multistatute approach in some detail, and presented EPA's
decision to regulate all of the wood preserving wastes under RCRA
rather than regulating different wastes under the various
statutes identified in the multistatute approach (55 PR 50461-
63). In addition, the December 6, 1990, rule contained several
other elements of significance here, some of which differed from
the rule as first proposed. As in the proposed rule, the
December 6, 1990, rule established management standards for drip
pads but, in contrast to the proposed rule, the December 6, 1990,
rule did not mandate the placement of drip pads in wood
preserving storage yards. Drip pads are mandated only where
drippage occurs in greater than de minimis quantities.
Additionally, the December 6, 1990, rule established a two to
fifteen-year phase-in period for compliance with full drip pad
standards. Finally, full RCRA permitting would not be necessary
at wood preserving facilities that held wastes on drip pads for
less than 90 days (i.e. met the 90 day accumulator exemption) and
-------
complied with the drip pad management standards. Elements of the
December 6, 1990, rule that differed from the proposed rule were
not available for consideration when the wood preserving industry
submitted its comments on the proposal outlining a multistatute
approach (e.g., no requirement for drip pads in the storage areas
was contained in the final rule). It should be noted, therefore,
that some of the industry's reasons for advocating a multistatute
approach may no longer be applicable.
An administrative stay of portions of the December 6, 1990,
rule was signed by the Administrator on June 5, 1991 (and
published in the Federal Register on June 13, 1991), as a result
of the Agency's determination that a significant portion of the
wood preserving industry could not comply with the June 6, 1991,
effective date. The effective date of the drip pad requirements
was extended until February 6, 1992, for existing drip pads and
May 6, 1992, for new drip pads. The applicability of the F032,
F034, and F035 waste listings was stayed in process areas of wood
preserving plants in accordance with the extended effective dates
for drip pads. The extension of the effective date was made
conditional on two requirements: 1) that notification of intent
of course of action (i.e. upgrading of existing pad, construction
of new pad, current compliance with Subpart W, or cessation of
operations) be made by August 7, 1991; and 2) that proof of
ability to comply (i.e. an estimate of the cost of compliance and
evidence of adequate financing) be provided by November 7, 1991.
Additionally, the following elements of the wood preserving
-------
regulations were stayed: the requirements for an impermeable
surface for new drip pads; the applicability of the F032 waste
listing to past users of chlorophenolic formulations who
currently generate F034 or F035 wastes; and the applicability of
the wastewater listing to wastewaters that do not contact
preservative or other listed wastes.
Prior to issuance of the December 6, 1990, rule, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, in September 1990, had directed the
Agency to submit by March 15, 1991, a Report regarding the
potential advantages, costs, and risks associated.with a
multistatute approach to regulation of wastes from wood
preserving operations. This Report responds to that directive
and examines the advantages, costs, and risks of the multistatute
approach. As part of this examination, a comparison of
multistatute elements to analogous RCRA elements is also included
at various points.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MULTISTATUTE APPROACH
The industry proposed regulating wastewaters under the CWA
in lieu of RCRA. Specifically, it was suggested that: (1) direct
discharges of conventional pollutants be controlled through
effluent limitations based on the Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT); (2) direct discharges of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants be controlled through effluent
limitations based on the Best Available Technology Economically
-------
Achievable (BAT); and (3) indirect discharges be controlled
through development of CWA pretreatment standards. This approach
would involve an Agency reevaluation of the industry-wide process
wastewater pollutant limitations and standards previously
promulgated under the authority of the CWA and development of new
effluent limitations for storm water runoff. This reevaluation
would also include a complete review of industry practices,
procedures, waste characterization, waste treatment, costs of
control, economic impact, and other factors. The industry also
urged that the Agency develop Best Management Practices (BMPs)
under the CWA for wood preserving operations. BMPs are defined
in 40 CFR 122.2 as schedules of activities, prohibitions of
practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices
to prevent or reduce the pollution of "waters of the United
States.11 BMPs are the most practical and effective measures or
combination of measures which, when applied to an industrial
activity, will prevent or minimize the potential for release of
toxic and hazardous pollutants in significant amounts to surface
waters.
The industry also proposed that stormwaters containing
drippage runoff be regulated under the CWA. Specifically, it was
recommended that the Agency regulate stormwater in conjunction
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES)
stormwater regulations currently being developed, and develop a
management standard consistent with the CWA BMP program.
8
-------
The industry proposed that drippage from treated wood be
regulated under FIFRA, and not under RCRA. They urged
development of a BMP, or standard, requiring containment,
collection, and recycle of process-related drippage within the
production process area (i.e., within the drip pad). Voluntary
pesticide label changes proposed by the industry would require
the use of drip pads for collection, containment, and recycling
of drippage.
Spill residues were considered by the industry as
appropriate for regulation only under FIFRA, except as currently
regulated under RCRA and/or CERCLA as commercial chemical
products. It was recommended that a BMP, or standard, be
developed for containment of all potential production process
spills (i.e., tank farm, retorts, door pits, piping, etc.).
The industry also recommended that process residuals and
wastewater treatment residuals be regulated under RCRA authority.
These were the only wastes for which the industry believed
regulation under RCRA was appropriate. The industry recommended
that wastewater treatment residuals be regulated when they are:
(1) removed from wastewater treatment processes; (2) intended for
disposal; and (3) exceed established risk/concentration-based
levels of contamination. The industry considered oil-water
separators and other preservative recovery units as part of the
production process and, therefore, appropriate for regulation
under FIFRA with regard to the recovery and reuse of excess
pesticide or preservative. Consequently, the Agency was also
-------
asked to regulate specific process residuals under RCRA only when
they leave the production process, are intended for disposal, and
exceed established risk/concentration-based levels of
contamination.
RCRA SECTION 1006(b) - INTEGRATION WITH OTHER ACTS
Section 1006(b)(1) of RCRA governs integration of RCRA
regulations with regulatory development under other environmental
statutes. This provision states that "such integration shall be
effected only to the extent that it can be done in a manner
consistent with the goals and policies expressed in [RCRA] and
the other [environmental] acts referred to in this subsection."
The Agency's consistent interpretation is that the statute gives
the Administrator the discretion to decide which regulatory
program or programs are best suited to regulate the activities,
considering the goals and policies of the various statutes.
Section 1006(b) does not require the Agency to use other statutes
preferentially to RCRA. The Agency believes that Section 1006(b)
requires EPA to consider whether and what type of regulatory
integration is appropriate, but does not dictate a particular
result. As a result, the Agency evaluated the multistatute
approach during preparation of the December 6, 1990, rule to
determine its relative advantages and disadvantages.
10
-------
POTENTIAL REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The industry suggested that a combination of four types of
Clean Water Act regulations would be the best way to control
environmental impacts from wood preserving wastewaters:
(1) effluent standards;
(2) pretreatment standards;
(3) best management practices requirements; and
(4) stormwater management regulations.
EPA's concerns regarding wood preserving wastewaters have
focused on the effect of wastewaters managed in surface
impoundments and spray irrigated on fields. These practices have
declined in frequency, but in the recent past were typical ways
that these wastewaters were managed. EPA was also concerned
about soil contaminated by dripping pesticide that is washed into
surface waters during rainstorms. All the above practices
represent a threat to groundwater and surface waters.
One starting point for evaluating the use of the Clean Water
Act as a central element in the multistatute approach is that the
CWA regulates pollutants that are discharged directly to the
waters of the United States or indirectly through publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authority does not extend to
regulation or remediation of groundwater that lacks a
hydrological connection to surface waters. Hence, the CWA's
ability to address groundwater protection is necessarily somewhat
limited. Note, by way of comparison, that protection of
groundwater under RCRA is not limited to any particular pathway
11
-------
of contamination. Against this background, we can examine the
nature and effectiveness of the CWA controls that would be used
under the multistatute approach to control wastewaters.
Effluent and Pretreatment Standards
Effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards establish
limitations on pollutants in wastewaters to be discharged
directly to surface waters or to POTWs. These limitations are
based on application of technology or of proper processing
operations and practices. The guidelines and standards do not
require the application of a specific treatment. Rather they set
a limit on the level of a pollutant that can be discharged, based
on the use of one or more technologies that can achieve the
required degree of pollutant reduction. EPA promulgated effluent
guidelines in 1974 and 1981 for the timber products processing
industry, of which the wood preserving industry is a segment, and
revised some of these guidelines in 1981.
Once EPA establishes effluent limitation guidelines for an
industry, those limits are incorporated into permits issued to
facilities in that industry under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The permitting
authority may also include more stringent limits as necessary to
comply with water quality standards. However, the permitting
authority may not vary the technology-based limits from those in
the guideline except in very rare instances. Until EPA revises
12
-------
the guideline, the permitting authority must use the effluent
limits established there.
Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act, added by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, establishes a process for planning the
development of new and revised effluent guidelines and standards.
Section 304(m) directs the Agency, every two years, to publish a
plan and a schedule for review and revision of existing effluent
guidelines and standards and promulgation of new guidelines and
standards. Changes in wastewater treatment technology, the
character of industry wastes generated, and industry process
technology are among the factors considered during the Agency's
review and reevaluation of existing guidelines and standards.
EPA's most recent plan for the development of new and
revised effluent guidelines and standards was published on
January 2, 1990 (55 PR 80), in accordance with Section 304(m).
In the plan, EPA announced that it would develop new or revised
guidelines and standards for the following industries: pesticide
chemicals; organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers;
offshore oil and gas extraction; hazardous waste treatment;
machinery manufacturing and rebuilding; pharmaceutical
manufacturing; pulp, paper, and paperboard; and coastal oil and
gas extraction. The existing guidelines covering the timber
products processing industry were among those scheduled for
further review and potential future revision.
The issue of timing, therefore, is one element of any
analysis of the multistatute option using revised effluent
13
-------
guidelines and standards for the wood preserving industry. The
projected promulgation dates for priority guideline rulemakings
range from 1992 to 1995, reflecting the complexity and breadth of
effort involved in effluent guideline rulemakings, including
extensive data gathering and analysis. The next Section 304(m)
plan is scheduled to be published in January 1992. While the
timber products processing industry is among the categories under
consideration for future revision, the promulgation of revised
effluent guidelines for discharges from wood preserving plants
would not likely occur for at least three years if a decision to
revise existing guidelines were made in 1992. In contrast, the
listing of wood preserving wastes as hazardous wastes under the
RCRA-based approach was not subject to this type of schedule, and
regulations under RCRA were also well underway when the
multistatute option was first suggested by the wood preserving
industry. The timing of future CWA regulation is therefore
relevant to EPA's decision to list the wood preserving
wastewaters as hazardous under RCRA, and not to defer the
listings.
Best Management Practices
Effluent guidelines and standards are a primary mechanism
for controlling water effluent discharges. BMPs are not intended
to be primary methods of control. Rather, BMPs are defined as
the most practical and effective measures or combination of
14
-------
measures which, when applied to an industrial activity, will
prevent or minimize the potential for release of toxic and
hazardous pollutants in significant amounts to surface waters.
BMPs can be imposed only on facilities with NPDES permits for
discharges to surface waters. This approach could be used to
reduce the risk that wastewater stored or treated in surface
impoundments would contaminate groundwater. However, as
previously noted, exercise of CWA authority in this manner would
not address groundwater protection in some situations where the
link to surface water discharges did not exist.
In considering whether BMPs would provide a means to control
effluent discharges and whether BMPs offer advantages over
similar RCRA control, it should be noted that the RCRA Subtitle C
regulations promulgated in the December 6, 1990, rulemaking
incorporate drip pad standards in the nature of berms, primary
and secondary containment, and a requirement that drippage be
limited to drip pads. BMPs under the CWA, being measures focused
on industrial activities, would likely also involve the use of
berms and other containment measures to prevent surface water
contamination at wood preserving facilities. Furthermore, BMP
drip pad controls could be functionally the same as any drip pad
requirement under RCRA.
15
-------
Stormwater Management Regulations
A recent rule addressing stormwater was signed by the
Administrator on October 31, 1990, and published in the Federal
Register on November 16, 1990 (55 PR 47990). This rule
establishes regulations setting forth NPDES permit application
requirements for storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity and discharges from municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving populations of 100,000 or more. Wood
preserving facilities will be included in the industrial activity
category. In industries such as wood preserving without an
applicable effluent guideline for storm water, technology-based
effluent limits will be established based on EPA's Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). As with all NPDES permits, more
stringent limits must be included to meet water quality
standards. Permit applications for industrial storm water
permits are not due until November 1991, and EPA estimates that
as many as 100,000 facilities may require a permit. It may be
some time before all individual storm water permits are issued.
However, it is clear that stormwater management regulations will
be a mechanism to control stormwaters associated with industrial
activity, such as at wood preserving facilities.
'In its study of what types of pollution prevention measures
would be appropriate or necessary at wood preserving facilities,
EPA concluded that minimizing drippage onto storage yards was
important. Unlike process areas that may have drip pads or that
16
-------
may be enclosed, typical storage areas are outside and have no
protective containment whatsoever. To address the issue of
drippage, EPA required in the December 6, 1990, rule that
drippage be restricted to drip pads, and thus did not need to
bring storage yards under specific management standards.
Concomitantly, EPA decided to rely on stormwater regulations as
they -become effective to ensure any additional environmental
protection that might be needed. The added protection of EPA's
stormwater management requirements should avoid the future need
to have mandatory RCRA-based regulation over the storage yards or
over precipitation runoff from treated wood. In this fashion,
EPA was cognizant of and did incorporate the CWA stormwater
provisions into its regulatory approach towards the wood
preserving industry, consistent with the intent of Section
1006(b) and the underlying theme of a multistatute approach.
Wastewater Management and Other Aspects
of the RCRA/CWA Interface
For the great majority of wood preserving facilities that do
not currently manage wastewater in surface impoundments or spray
irrigate wastewaters, the RCRA listing of wastewaters will have
no new regulatory impact on wastewater management. Since the
beginning of the RCRA regulatory program in 1980, the RCRA
regulations have included an exemption from certain RCRA
requirements if wastewater is managed solely in tanks at
17
-------
facilities subject to CWA authority. This exemption extends to
wood preservative wastewaters that qualify; nothing in the
December 6, 1990, rule changes the potential applicability of
this exemption.
For the few facilities that may manage wastewater in surface
impoundments (and therefore that would not qualify for the tank
exemption), many can be expected to switch from surface
impoundments to tanks. At that point, the exemption could be
applicable depending on the tank system discharge configuration.
Spray irrigation, however, would constitute land disposal of a
listed waste, and would not be allowed without a RCRA permit or
unless the wastewaters were found to be non-hazardous and
delisted. Spray irrigation and surface impoundments are
regulated under the CWA only to the extent that surface waters
are contaminated by these practices. The CWA would not regulate
contamination of groundwater without a hydrologic connection to
surface waters.
Finally, some members of the industry have expressed another
concern related to the CWA/RCRA interface. It was suggested that
POTWs may stop accepting wood preserving wastewaters if listed as
hazardous wastes. About 63% of wood preserving facilities
currently discharge wastewaters to POTWs. EPA believes that
POTWs make decisions as to whether to accept wastewaters based on
a facility's ability to treat and manage wastewaters consistent
with general pretreatment program requirements, categorical
pretreatment standards, sludge disposal requirements, and NPDES
18
-------
permit conditions, regardless of EPA's waste designation. This
belief is supported by the findings of EPA's Report to Congress
on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (1986, EPA/530/SW-86/004). In that report, EPA found that
RCRA wastes discharged to POTWs by four organic chemicals
industrial categories amounted to more than 700,000 metric tons
per year. Approximately 88% of this amount was characteristic
waste and 12% was listed waste. Of the total, over 500,000
metric tons per year (i.e., over 70% of the wastes) were
discharged to POTWs by pesticide manufacturers. Based on these
facts, EPA does not believe that listing these wood preservative
wastewaters will cause POTWs to categorically refuse to accept
them. Rather, decisions on whether to accept the wastes probably
will depend upon treatment capacity and capability.
An administrative stay of portions of the wood preserving
regulations, signed by the Administrator on June 5, 1991,
modified the wastewater listings by limiting their applicability
to wastewaters that do not contact preservative or other listed
wastes. This will substantially reduce the volume of wastewaters
brought under regulation.
19
-------
POTENTIAL REGULATION UNDER FIFRA
FIFRA Options
The industry suggested the use of only FIFRA to regulate
drippage and spills from wood treatment processes. Specifically,
this drippage occurs in the process areas and storage yards at a
typical wood preserving facility. Our data indicate that
drippage is one of the main problems because it can lead to soil,
groundwater, and surface water contamination. Damage incidents
are documented in the preamble to the proposed wood preserving
listings (53 PR 53323, December 30, 1988) and in the Background
Document to the proposed rule.
For each of the wood preserving waste types of concern, the
Agency considered several options for using FIFRA authority to
regulate drippage and preservative spills. These options were:
(1) mandatory label changes;
(2) voluntary label changes; and
(3) new regulations.
Mandatory label changes would involve a risk/benefit
analysis, publishing of a preliminary Notice of Intent to Cancel,
submission of the preliminary Notice to the Scientific Advisory
Panel and the USDA, and publishing of a final Notice of Intent to
Cancel. In light of these steps in the process, the first issue
with a mandatory label change or new regulations is timing - how
soon can effective controls be put into place. Promulgation of
20
-------
new regulations or implementation of a mandatory label change
would likely require several years to implement. The second
issue is enforceability and, in particular, the authority to
inspect user facilities without owner consent (see next section).
To effect the same level of protection as a mandatory label
change or new regulations, a voluntary label change for
registered pesticides would require 100% participation of all
registrants of wood preservative products. Because participation
is voluntary, registrants are not compelled to participate. Less
than 100% participation would require rulemaking or cancellation
actions by the Agency in order to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Given the uncertainty about 100% participation in a voluntary
label change that would require drip pad management standards and
waste management procedures as well as the potential need for
ancillary rulemaking if participation was less than 100%, the
Agency decided that RCRA Subtitle C authority would most
effectively and efficiently address the problem of improper
drippage management in the earliest timeframe.
An additional issue raised in the Agency's review of the use
of FIFRA was the issue of regulating unregistered pesticides.
Pesticides are often prepared on site by combining several
chemicals acquired as unregistered chemicals and, as a result,
would not be subject to FIFRA labeling authority. In order to
address this group of unregistered pesticides, the Agency would
have to initiate a FIFRA rulemaking to address this specific
problem in the context of the wood preserving industry. EPA does
21
-------
not have quantitative data on the prevalence of this practice at
wood preserving facilities, but believes that the number of
facilities engaged in this practice is moderate. In any event, a
rulemaking to address this issue would require several years to
implement. By regulating the wastes from the application of
unregistered chemicals directly under RCRA authority, the issue
of on-site combinations becomes unnecessary to resolve as part of
the overall approach to protecting human health and the
environment from the chemicals in question.
FIFRA Enforcement Powers
Enforcement remedies available to the Agency in the event of
a violation at a wood preserving plant of the registered
pesticide misuse provisions in FIFRA (Section 12(a)(2)(G))
include:
1) revocation of an applicator's certification;
2) injunctive relief; and
3) civil or criminal penalties.
Revocation of an applicator's certification results only in the
revocation of an individual's certification. Because another
certified applicator could resume pesticide application,
revocation does not prevent continued application at the plant
where the violation occurs. As a result, revocation of
certification has limited deterrent value. Regarding injunctive
22
-------
relief, the EPA must meet rigorous standards in order for an
injunction to be granted. The EPA must demonstrate the
inadequacy of other Agency remedies, that all applicable
administrative remedies have already been exercised but the
violation continues, and that irreparable injury will result if
the injunction is not granted.
FIFRA provides express right-of-entry authority to conduct
use/misuse investigations of pesticide producers. It does not
provide the same authority for inspections of end-users such as
wood preserving plants. Consent of the owner or a search warrant
must be obtained in order to inspect a wood preserving plant for
a misuse violation.
Under FIFRA, the maximum civil penalty for pesticide misuse
violations by commercial applicators is $5,000 per violation.
For a knowing violation, the maximum criminal fine is $25,000 and
the maximum prison term is one year (FIFRA Section 14).
The number of enforcement remedies, ease of inspection, and
stringency of civil and criminal penalties all influence the
deterrence effect against violations of regulations and the
likelihood that violators will be prosecuted. As penalties are
more stringent and inspections are easier to conduct, deterrence
against violations and voluntary compliance are increased. Thus,
the nature of FIFRA enforcement powers versus those comparable
under RCRA is an intrinsic element of any analysis.
RCRA's enforcement powers include :
1) compliance orders (Section 3008(a));
23
-------
2) interim status corrective action orders (Section
3008(h);
3) monitoring, testing, and analysis orders (Section
3013);
4) imminent hazard authority (Section 7003); and
5) civil or criminal penalties.
In addition, RCRA contains citizen suit provisions (Section 7002)
in which any citizen may bring a civil action against any person
who is alleged to be in violation of a RCRA regulation or permit.
Under RCRA Section 3007(a), neither owner consent nor a warrant
is required for inspection of a facility. A penalty of up to
$25,000 per day of noncompliance may be assessed for each
violation in RCRA civil enforcement actions. Under RCRA Section
3008, a person is subject to a criminal fine of up to $50,000 for
each day of knowing violation, as well as a prison term of as
long as two to five years.
RCRA REGULATION UNDER THE MULTISTATUTE APPROACH
As the third element of a multistatute approach, the
industry suggested that process and wastewater residuals should
be regulated under RCRA authority when they are removed from the
process, are intended for disposal, and exceed
risk/concentration-based levels of contamination. The industry
specifically suggested that these wastes be listed as "K" wastes
rather than "F" wastes. "K" wastes are hazardous wastes from
specific sources whereas "F" wastes are hazardous wastes from
24
-------
non-specific sources. The EPA determined that process and
wastewater residuals were best regulated as "F" wastes because
they are generated in several different locations such as
retorts, sumps, and makeup tanks. This element of industry's
suggested multistatute approach, as modified to make the listings
under the "F" waste category, was therefore incorporated in the
December 6, 1990, rule.
REGULATION UNDER THE RCRA-BASED APPROACH AS COMPARED TO THE
MULTISTATUTE APPROACH
While there are regulatory programs under statutes other
than RCRA that are available to regulate aspects of wood
preserving facilities and associated wastes, regulation of all of
the various wood preservative wastes as hazardous wastes under
RCRA needs to be discussed as a foil by which to better highlight
the advantages and limitations of the multistatute approach.
RCRA regulates the management and tracking of hazardous wastes
from "cradle to grave" - from generation through treatment and
disposal. In addition, RCRA provides tailored standards for
specific types of units in which hazardous waste is managed, and
also provides for facility-wide corrective action (clean-up of
leaks, spills, and other releases of contaminants) at interim
status or permitted facilities. Failure to clean up releases
could constitute disposal of hazardous waste, which then requires
interim status or a permit and could trigger corrective action
25
-------
responsibilities. Hazardous waste management units, such as drip
pads, must be closed by either decontamination and removal of all
hazardous waste and materials from the unit, or with waste left
in place. In the latter case, post-closure care must be
conducted to ensure that any releases are cleaned up.
The listings and drip pad management standards that were
promulgated under RCRA authority in the final wood preserving
rule and subsequently modified by an administrative stay directly
and comprehensively address the environmental threats found in
the wood preservative situation. The designation of wood
preserving wastes as listed RCRA hazardous waste places these
toxic chemicals in the cradle-to-grave tracking and management
system established in RCRA Subtitle C, thus providing a means to
ensure the proper disposition of these wastes. A similar
comprehensive cradle-to-grave management system is not currently
available under a multistatute approach using primarily FIFRA and
CWA authorities.
Under the multistatute approach, only process residuals
would be listed under RCRA. Solid wastes mixed with or derived
from materials that are not listed, such as wastewaters and spent
preservatives, would not be covered. Conversely, a RCRA-based
approach does extend regulatory control to these potentially
hazardous ancillary mixtures and derived-from wastes.
Some wood preserving wastes may already be subject to
Subtitle C authorities under the existing RCRA program, which
currently regulates wastes that exhibit certain toxicity traits
26
-------
when tested with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test. Yet, listing of these wastes, as opposed to relying
on regulation under the toxicity characteristic, decreases the
enforcement burden on the Agency by eliminating the need to
establish the concentration of toxic chemicals in the wastes as a
prerequisite to any enforcement action. Thus, the Agency decided
to list wood preserving wastes rather than rely on the toxicity
characteristic for enforcement purposes, among other reasons.
Drip pad standards were also established in the December 6,
1990, rule. These standards, found in Subpart W of 40 CFR 264
and 265, provide primary containment in the form of an
impermeable surface and also secondary containment through the
use of an underlying synthetic liner and leak detection
requirements between the two containment systems. These features
are protective against future releases in a manner consistent
with previous standards established under RCRA authority such as
those for surface impoundments, waste piles, and tanks. A
staggered phase-in period was provided to wood preservers for the
installation of bottom liners and leak detection systems to
account for the wide variability in the ages and conditions of
existing drip pads and to allow for reasonable upgrade schedules.
In addition, a 90-day generator provision for those who utilize
drip pads was incorporated in the regulations. This avoided
mandatory permitting for units holding waste for a short time,
thus decreasing the economic burden on the industry while
continuing to be protective of the environment. Drip pad
27
-------
standards, as proposed by the industry as part of their suggested
FIFRA voluntary label requirements, did not include the secondary
containment requirement of a liner nor did it include leak
detection requirements. These requirements could be incorporated
into a multistatute approach, however.
28
-------
SECTION 2
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE MULTISTATUTE APPROACH
29
-------
Costa and Benefits of the Multistatute Approach
In examining the potential costs and benefits (in terms of
reduced risk to human health and the environment) of the
multistatute approach, the December 6, 1990, final rule is used
as a benchmark or departure point for comparison. Key
differences in potential requirements under the two approaches
are examined to draw conclusions about potential differences in
costs and benefits of the multistatute approach.
Costs and Benefits of the December 6. 1990. Rule
Because of the marginal economic condition of many wood
preserving facilities and the concern that the December 6, 1990,
rule could result in significant economic impacts, EPA prepared a
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) examining the potential costs,
economic impacts, and benefits of the December 6, 1990, rule and
several regulatory alternatives. The RIA is part of the public
docket for the December 6, 1990, rule. The executive summary to
the RIA is attached as Appendix B.
The cost analysis in the RIA allocated the estimated 580
active pressure-treating facilities into 18 model facility types
based on preservative type, geographic location, and facility
production. Compliance costs were estimated by model type based
on assumptions about regulatory compliance activities. Economic
impacts, in terms of potential facility closures, were then
30
-------
gauged by comparing model facility profit levels before and after
compliance.
EPA estimated in the RIA that the December 6, 1990, rule
would result in national compliance costs of $11-14 million
annually and would result in closure of four percent of
facilities (after accounting for closure of facilities in the
absence of the rule). Costs were driven primarily by the cost of
installing process-area drip pads and sumps; it was assumed that
facilities with existing drip pads would immediately tear them
out and replace them with Subpart W drip pads (including liners
and leak detection). Costs for soil cleanup upon drip pad
closure were not included in national costs. The estimate of
closures assumes facilities are unable to pass cost increases on
to consumers through higher prices for preserved wood.
The benefits analysis in the RIA consisted of two basic
parts: modeling and case studies. A multi-media fate and
transport model was used to estimate potential releases of wood
preserving constituents from wood preserving operations and the
fate and transport of the constituents through groundwater and
surface water media to potential exposure points. A sample of
actual wood preserving sites was selected to characterize
environmental conditions, potential human exposure (via drinking
water wells or surface water), and potential exposure of aquatic
organisms (via surface water). The case studies were drawn from
the estimated 54 wood preserving sites on Superfund's National
Priorities List where sites had been sufficiently characterized
31
-------
and any potential influence of outdated management practices
(i.e., surface impoundments) on contamination or environmental
releases could be isolated.
One of the estimated benefits of the December 6, 1990, rule
was to avoid from 2 to 140 cancer cases via the groundwater
pathway over a 300-year modeling horizon. This range in cases
reflects the uncertainty about the depth to which public wells
are screened; the lower bound removes potential benefits at
public wells. All of these cancer cases resulted from arsenic
released from inorganic facilities; constituents from organic
facilities did not reach drinking water wells within the modeling
time period. Cancer risk to highly exposed sub-populations via
the groundwater pathway was also estimated to be reduced by the
December 6, 1990, rule; the number of facilities presenting risks
greater than 10'3 would decline from about five percent to zero.
A significant percentage of facilities was found to
currently present potential for exceedences of human health or
aquatic water quality criteria in nearby streams; the highest
exceedences were generally found at facilities treating with
pentachlorophenol. The December 6, 1990, rule would reduce but
not eliminate these exceedences.
The analysis of case studies found that significant
contamination of soils and groundwater at Superfund sites could
be linked to drippage in process areas.
32
-------
Comparison of the December 6. 1990. Rule and Multistatute Approach
Requirements under the multistatute approach and under the
December 6, 1990, rule are compared in Exhibit 1. Actual
requirements under a multistatute approach that did not regulate
all the various waste streams under RCRA could vary. Thus, both
a "less stringent" and a "more stringent" multistatute approach
are shown in Exhibit 1. The more stringent scenario differs
primarily in that controls are placed on liners, leak detection,
and drippage restrictions under the more stringent scenario but
not the less stringent scenario.
Some Similarities Between the Approaches
Some of the differences in requirements between the December
6, 1990, rule and the multistatute approach are not expected to
affect the relative costs or benefits of the December 6, 1990,
rule and the multistatute approach. Wastewaters are listed as
hazardous wastes under the December 6, 1990, rule but not under
the multistatute approach. However, wastewater management
standards are not expected to change as the result of listing,
and costs and benefits for this waste stream would likely be the
same under the December 6, 1990, rule and the multistatute
approach. The promulgated listings do, however, ensure that some
past practices, such as the spray irrigation of hazardous waste,
33
-------
will not recommence. Process residuals and discarded spent
formulation are listed under the December 6, 1990, rule and are
assumed to be listed under the multistatute approach; therefore
costs and benefits for these wastes would be the same under the
December 6, 1990, rule and the multistatute approach.
Several of the drip pad standards would likely be the same
under the multistatute approach as under the December 6, 1990,
rule, although the multistatute approach would use FIFRA
authority rather than RCRA. These include requirements that
existing or new pads be structurally sound, impermeable, sloped,
and bermed. As a result, costs and benefits related to these
requirements would likely be the same under the December 6, 1990,
rule and the multistatute approach.
The multistatute approach would likely include several
requirements under the CWA that are not included in the December
6, 1990, rule: effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment
standards; stormwater management standards; and best management
practices. Effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment
standards have already been promulgated for the wood preserving
industry, and any changes to these standards would affect the
industry whether the industry is regulated under the December 6,
1990, rule or under the multistatute approach. Stormwater
management regulations recently promulgated by the Agency
establish NPDES permit application requirements for stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity, and it is assumed
that the wood preserving industry would be subject to these
34
-------
requirements. Stormwater permits would be issued that address
stormwater management practices. This would occur regardless of
whether the industry were regulated under the December 6, 1990,
rule or the multistatute approach. Best management practices
under the CWA could address drip pad requirements (i.e., berms,
liners, and no drippage off pads) that are included in Subpart w
in the December 6, 1990, rule. Best management practices would
apply only to facilities with NPDES permits for discharge to
surface waters; however, it is assumed that FIFRA would provide
authority for the drip pad requirements at facilities where best
management practices did not apply. As a result, costs and
benefits related to CWA requirements would likely be the same
under the December 6, 1990, rule and the multistatute approach.
Some Differences Between the Approaches
The multistatute approach and December 6, 1990, rule would
potentially differ in cost and benefit primarily due to
differences in three drip pad requirements: liners and leak
detection for new drip pads; no drippage off drip pads; and
management of contaminated soils. These differences are
discussed below.
Liners and leak detection. In the December 6, 1990, rule,
Subpart W standards require liners and leak detection systems.
If liner and leak detection system requirements were also
35
-------
incorporated in FIFRA voluntary labels under the "more stringent"
multistatute approach, the costs and benefits under the
multistatute approach would be the same as under the December 6,
1990, rule.
If, under the "less stringent" multistatute approach, liner
and leak detection system requirements were not included, the
cost of the multistatute approach would be reduced relative to
the December 6, 1990, rule. Exhibit 2 shows the annualized cost
for liners and leak detection for the 18 model facility types
examined in the RIA for the December 6, 1990, rule. For example,
at a small CCA (chromated copper arsenate) facility in the
Southeast the reduction in the cost of installing a process area
drip pad would be about $2,000 on an annual basis (or about 12
percent of the total initial capital cost of the pad). To the
extent that facilities can upgrade and maintain existing drip
pads (about 80 percent of facilities are reported to have drip
pads) and delay installation of new drip pads under the December
6, 1990, rule, this potential cost difference between the
December 6, 1990, rule and the multistatute approach would be
reduced. At the same time, not requiring liners and leak
detection systems would increase the probability of releases to
groundwater and therefore reduce benefits under the multistatute
approach.
No drippaae off drip pads. In the December 6, 1990, rule,
Subpart W standards require that, before moving the wood off the
pad, treated wood be held on the drip pad until drippage has
36
-------
ceased. If the "more stringent" multistatute approach included
this requirement, the approach's costs and benefits would be the
same as under the December 6, 1990, rule. If the "less
stringent" multistatute approach did not include the requirement,
there would likely be some reduction in costs relative to the
December 6, 1990, rule. For example, facilities could
potentially speed up their production processes. (The cost of
potentially slowed production was not included in the national
cost estimate for the December 6, 1990, rule. EPA does not have
any data to be able to quantify the economic effects of faster
production processes.) In addition, there would also likely be a
reduction in benefits, since more drippage would almost certainly
occur in storage yards, with potential releases to surface water
and groundwater.
Management of contaminated soils. The December 6, 1990,
rule requires cleanup of any contaminated soils underlying a drip
pad when the drip pad is closed. Additionally, the preamble to
the December 6, 1990, rule recommends that facility owners and
operators voluntarily clean up contaminated soils prior to
installation of new drip pads. The multistatute approach would
not include soil cleanup requirements for all of the wastes that
were listed under the RCRA-based approach even under the "more
stringent" multistatute scenario, since FIFRA and the CWA do not
provide explicit authority for these requirements (although
cleanup of contaminated soils might be possible under the CWA in
those cases where they lead to discharges of pollutants to
37
-------
surface waters or POTWs). As a result, the cost and benefit of
the multistatute approach would be reduced relative to the cost
and benefit of the December 6, 1990, rule. The degree of cost
and benefit reduction would depend, among other things, on
whether soil cleanup under the December 6, 1990, rule tends to
occur voluntarily (prior to drip pad closure) or at closure.
The cost of the multistatute approach would be reduced
relative to the cost of the December 6, 1990, rule due to the
cost of soil excavation and treatment that would be avoided.
Exhibit 2 shows estimated annualized soil cleanup costs for the
18 model facility types that were examined in the RIA for the
December 6, 1990, rule. For example, at a small inorganic
facility in the Southeast, costs under the multistatute approach
would be reduced by an estimated $4,000 to $36,000 annually
relative to the December 6, 1990, rule. (The range of costs
results from different assumptions about the timing, extent of
cleanup, and remediation technologies employed. See the notes to
exhibit 2.) To the extent that voluntary cleanups both occur
more frequently and occur sooner than cleanups upon drip pad
closure (other things equal), the cost of the multistatute
approach would tend to be reduced to a greater extent (within the
range of costs shown) relative to the December 6, 1990, rule.
The multistatute approach would reduce benefits relative to
the December 6, 1990, rule to the extent that soil contamination
remaining in the process area resulted in releases to
groundwater. To the extent that voluntary cleanups both occur
38
-------
more frequently and occur sooner than cleanups upon drip pad
closure (other things equal), the benefits of the multistatute
approach would tend to be reduced to a greater extent relative to
the December 6, 1990, rule. (Please note that the costs and
benefits of soil cleanup are not included in the estimated costs
and benefits of the December 6, 1990, rule, presented above.)
It should also be noted that soil cleanup could be required
under the December 6, 1990, rule when facilities elect to
accumulate drippage on drip pads for more than 90 days, or when
they do not comply with Subpart W standards. Such facilities
could be required to obtain RCRA permits and thus become subject
to facility-wide corrective action requirements. Since
authorities for facility-wide corrective action do not exist
under the multistatute approach, the cost and benefit of the
multistatute approach could be further reduced relative to the
December 6, 1990, rule to the extent that facilities were not in
compliance with the 90 day accumulation requirements or Subpart W
standards. (Please note that the cost and benefit estimates for
the December 6, 1990, rule, presented above, assume that
facilities will elect 90-day generator status and comply
with Subpart W standards; under this assumption, permits would
not be required and the costs and benefits associated with
facility-wide corrective action would not be incurred.)
39
-------
CONCLUSION
RCRA contains provisions for storage, treatment, disposal,
management standards, soil cleanup, and unit closures that
protect groundwater in a manner not available under CWA and FIFRA
authorities. Additionally, the enforcement authorities available
under RCRA are more comprehensive and stringent than those
available under the multistatute approach which provides a
greater deterrent to violations.
To the extent that the multistatute approach-would be less
stringent than the December 6, 1990, rule, costs and benefits of
the multistatute approach would be lower. The multistatute
approach would not provide the same framework for the protection
of groundwater as the December 6, 1990, rule.
Finally, the listings and drip pad standards promulgated" in
the December 6, 1990, rule addressed the problems documented in
damage incidents in a single regulatory action. The multistatute
approach would require a number of complementary regulatory
actions to take place, and over a significantly longer time
frame.
40
-------
Exhibit 1.
Comparison of Basic Requirements Included under Wood Preserving Listing
December 6, 1990, Rule and Multistatute Approach
Multistatute Approach*
Requirement
Hazardous waste
listings:
o Drippage
o Wastewaters
o Process residuals
o Discarded spent
formulation
Management standards
for drip pads:
o Structurally
sound,
impermeable
o Sloped, bermed
o Liners and leak
detection
o No drippage off
pad
o Management of
contaminated
soils
December 6. 1990 Rule
Less Stringent
More Stringent
Listed under RCRA
Listed under RCRA
Listed under RCRA
Listed under RCRA
Not listed
Not listed
Listed under RCRA
Listed under RCRA
Not listed
Not listed
Listed under RCRA
Listed under RCRA
Required under RCRA Required under FIFRA Required under FIFRA
or CWA
or CWA
Required under RCRA
Required under RCRA
Required under RCRA
Required under RCRA
Required under FIFRA Required under FIFRA
or CWA or CWA
Not required
Not required
Not required
Required under FIFRA
or CWA
Required under FIFRA
or CWA
Not required
Notes:
-------
The "less stringent" and "more stringent" scenarios are assumed to represent the
potential range in requirements under a multistatute approach.
-------
Exhibit 2.
Annualized Cost of Liners/Leak Detection and Process Area Cleanup for Model
Facilities (1990 Dollars)
w
«
Model1
I/NE/S
I/NE/M
I/SE/S
I/SE/M
I/SE/L
I/W/S
I/W/M
I/MW/S
I/MW/M
I/MW/L
C/SE/S
C/SE/L
C/OT/S
C/OT/L
P/W/S
P/W/L
P/SE/S
P/SE/L
Number of
Facilities2
28
7
148
54
22
26
8
39
15
3
14
23
8
12
7
5
11
10
Per-Facility
Liner/Leak
Detection Cost3
$2,100
2,600
2,000
2,400
3,100
1,800
2,700
2,000
2,600
3,000
2,000
2,900
2,000
3,000
2,400
4,000
2,500
4,100
Per-Facility
Drip Pad
Capital Cost
$19,000
25,000
17,000
22,000
29,000
15,000
25,000
18,000
24,000
28,000
17,000
28,000
18,000
28,000
22,000
37,000
23,000
38,000
Per-Facility
Cleanup Cost
(Lower Bound)5
$3,900
4,600
3,800
4,300
5,100
3,600
4,600
3,900
4,500
5,000
2,800
3,700
2,800
3,800
3,200
4,900
3,200
5,000
Per-Facility
Cleanup Cost
(Upper Bound)6
$20,000
23,000
19,000
22,000
26,000
18,000
23,000
20,000
23,000
25,000
32,000
58,000
33,000
60,000
44,000
90,000
45,000
91,000
-------
Notes:
1. Models organized by: Preservative/Region/Size
Preservative: Region; size;
I=Inorganic NE=Northeast ' S=Small
C=Creosote SE=Southeast M=Medium
P=PCP MW=Midwest L=Large
W=West
OT=Other
2. Estimated number of facilities remaining open after baseline closures
3. Includes installation and periodic inspection of liner/leak detection system
4. For comparison with liner/leak detection cost. Includes installation of drip pad,
sump, and liner/leak detection.
5. Lower bound cost of process area cleanup based on these assumptions:
o Soil excavation for area under pad (plus 25 percent) and to depth of 2 feet
(average cost of $l,000/cubic yard)
o Cleanup occurs 20 years in future
o Inorganic contaminated soils solidified (average cost of $140/cubic yard)
o Organic contaminated soils go to Subtitle C landfill (cost of $60/cubic
yard)
6. Upper bound cost of process area cleanup based on these assumptions:
o i Soil excavation for area under pad (plus 25 percent) and to depth of 4 feet
o Cleanup occurs 8 years in future
o Inorganic contaminated soils solidified
o Organic contaminated soils incinerated (cost of $440/cubic yard)
-------
APPENDIX A
BASIS FOR LISTING
A-l
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
5-'
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
wastewa'er 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 on-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 T
the preservative that drips or is -A j-,
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 woo
preserving and surface protection
processes meet the criteria for listin,
hazardous presented in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3): consequently, EPA is
proposing that they be added to the
of hazardous wastes from non-speci
sources appearing at 40 CFR 261.31.
wastes contain high concentrations
toxic constituents. (As discussed lat
all the constituents of concern are
carcinogens and/or systemic toxica:
many of which appear on the list of
hazardous waste constituents at 40 (
Part 261, Appendix VIII. EPA is also
proposing to add to Appendix VIII tf
three compounds that'are constituen
of concern in wood preserving wast(
but do not already appear on Appen
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 tl
wastes. Table 11,12,13. and 14 pres
the average waste concentrations
(based on process residual and slud
data, which EPA believes are
representative of all the listed wast<
and demonstrate that toxic constitui
are present in wastes from wood
preserving and surface protection
processes at levels that far exceed t
health-based levels of concern. Fron
these waste concentrations.
hypothetical ground water
concentrations resulting from
mismanagement of the wastes have
been projected assuming three dilu'
and attenuation scenarios. For all tt
levels, nearly all constituents of con
exceed established Agency health-t
numbers.
•ILUMO COOC WM-M-M
A-2
-------
53292
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7
F032 PENTACHLOROPHENOL WASTES FROM WOOD PRESERVING:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
RANGE OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
Pentachlorophenol
6enz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
D1benz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)-
pyrene
Arsenic
Chromium
V
WASTEWATERS
(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
TCODs
PeCDDs
HxCOOs
HpCDOs
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 1s the detection limit of the analytical method used.
A-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30.1988 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8
F033 PEHTACHLOROPHEHOL WASTES FROM SURFACE PROTECTION:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
RANGE OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
Pentachlorophenol1
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,6-THchlorophenol
SUMP. CATCH
BASIN AMD
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
(ORIPPAGE)
(PPM)
40 - 1,900
300-950
0.4 - 1.0
TCDDs
PeCDDs
HxCDDs
HpCOOs
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
2.000 - 42.000
80 - 4.000
400 - 11,000
1.000 - 12.000
800 - 9.000
PRESERVATIVE
FORMULATIONS
(DftlPPAGE)
(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 conve
to pentachlorophenol. The analysis measures pentachlorophenol.
Hastewaters from surface protection with pentachlorophenate con
essentially of the used preservative formulation. These data therefore
represent what EPA believes are the constituents and const 1t
concentrations for wastewaters from surface protection
pentach1orophenate.
Source: Background Document.
U - Compound was analyzed for but not detected.
detection Unit reported.
Value listed 1s the lo
A-4
-------
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
Ber>2(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz (k )f luoranthene
D1ben2(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Chromium
•*
WASTEHATERS
(PPM)
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
NA
NA - Not analyzed (no data collected).
Source: Background Document.
TABLE 10
F035 INORGANIC HASTES:
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND RANGE
OF DETECTED CONCENTRATION
PROCESS SLUDGES OR RESIDUALS
(PP«)
UNUSED PRESERVATIVE
(PP«)
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 data for
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.
A-5
-------
I
Ok
BASIS
It
FOR LISTING:
CONSTITUENTS
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
tent ( a) anthracene
Benio(a)pyrene
Dlbento(a.n)anthracene
Indenot 1 ,2,3-c ,
RSO (Class B2>
RSO (Class B?)
RSD (Class B?>
RSO (Clasa B?)
RSD (Class B2>
OA 100
9
5
2
0.07
200
20
to
3 • IO"5
1 « IO"5
0.02
0.3
2 K IO"5
5 • IO"3
0.003
0.004
DA
0
0
0
7
F032
ESTIMATED
DRINKING MELl
CONCENTRATIONS3
(PP«»
1.000 DA 10.000
.9 0.09
.5 0.05
.2 0.02
M IO"J 7 « IO"4
20 2
2
3
3
1
0
0
2
5
3
4
-
0.2
0.3
K IO"6 3 « IO"7
K tO"6 1 « «0'7
_ •
.002 2 » 10 3
.03 0.003
K IO"6 2 » IO"7
K IO"5 3 » tO"5
i IO"3 3 « IO"4
» IO"3 4 • IO"4
CALCULATED
CONCENTRATION TO
HEALTH-BASED
LIMIT RATIOS4
DA 100 DA 1.000 DA 10.000
820.000 82 ,tOO 8,200
1,700,000 170.000 17.000
2,800.000 280.000 28.000
350 35 3.3
200 20 2
400 40 4
600 60 6
1,3000 130 13
22.000 2.200 220
3.600,000 360,000 36.000
1.300.000 130.000 13,000
870 87 9
2.200.000 220.000 22.000
I. 300.000 130,000 13.000
170.000 17.000 1,700
-1
B
g.
A
1
j»
^
o
Ul
V*
4
2
o"
g
•fl
5
§
0"
i
ts / Proposed
50
E.
(V
09
-------
TABLE 11 (CONCLUDED) g;
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F032
CD
O.
Average concentrations calculated from process residuals or process sludge data. 3
9 JO
i Reference Dose (RfD), Risk Specific Dose (RSD). and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained later «g
1n the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs. Class A. B, and C carcinogens are based on exposure limits 2."
at a 10~b risk level.
Calculated for three dilution/attention (DA) levels. S.
Source: Background Document.
Ratio obtained by dividing assumed drinking well concentration column by health-based water concentration
limit column, for all three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels. 9
to
o
This health-based water concentration limit may change following EPA review of the NTP carcinogen study.
TI
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 toxlclty equivalency 'a
factors relative to the toxlclty of 2,3.7.8-TCDD. (See Risk Assessment Forum. 1986).
(D
3
cr
a
o
en
(B
a.
-------
TABLE 12
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
Pantachlorophanol
2.4,6-Trlchlorophcnol
AVERAGE
WASTE CONC.
DETECTED1
B
cr
n
co
p
1
T3
O
CO
Q.
c_
U9
-------
\o
TABLE 12 (CONCLUDED)
£
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE *
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F033
Calculated for three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
Ratio obtained by dividing assumed drinking well concentration column by health-based water concentration
limit column for all three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
This level health-based water concentration limit may change following EPA review of the NTP carcinogen
Study. <
9.
Waste concentrations presented for dloxlns and furans are for the total congener category specified
(e.g.. the concentration Indicated for PeCDOs Is for all Isomers of PeCDDs found). The health-based
water concentration Hm1t 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).
Source: Background Document. Hi
a
1
r
-------
O
TABLE 13
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH
EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F034
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
ton* < a ) an thr ac«n*
B«nio(k)Muoranth«na
B«nio(a)pyr«n«
Dlb«M(a,h)anthrac«na
l«id«no(t.7,3-c.d)pyran«
N«phthal«n«
Arsenic
Chro«lu«
AVERAGE HEALTH-BASED HATER
HASTE DONC. CONCENTRATION
DETECTED1 LIMITS
(ppn) (pp«) BASIS2 DA 100
4.000 I.I « IO"5 RSD (Class B?> 40
7.000 4.0 • I0~5 RSD (Class B?> 70
7.000 3.0 • IO"6 RSD (Class B?) 70
400 7.1 K IO"7 RSO (Class B?) 4
200 2.0 • tO"5 RSD (Class C) 0.5
40.000 14 RfO 400
2.000 0.05 MCL 20
3.000 0.05 MCL 30
ESTIMATED
DRINKING WELL
CONCENTRATIONS5
en
a
a.
to
a
m
o
cr
to
CO
p
i-i
(O
£
o
•a
o
(0
n
a.
•yo
n"
-------
TABLE 14
BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F035
CONSTITUENT
AVERAGE HEALTH-BASED MATER
NASTE CONC. CONCENTRATION
DETECTED1 I(HITS
,...lMgL
ESTIMATED
DRINKING WCU
CONCENTRATIONS5
(PP«)
CALCULATED
CONCENTRATION TO
HEALTH-BASED
LIMIT RATIOS4
BASIS'
DA 100 DA 1.000 OA 10.000 DA 100 DA 1.000
DA 10.000
90
t
!
<
s
Arsenic
ChrcMlu*
100.000
10,000
80
0.05
0.0$
0.0)
MCI
MCL
MCL
1,000
100
o.a
100
to
0.08
to
0.008
2.000
2.000
20
200
200
7
20
20
0.2
1 Concentrations based on process sludge or residual data.
9 Reference Dose (RfO). Risk Specific Dose (RSD). and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained later
1n the preamble, as are the classes of RSOs.
1 Calculated for three different dilution/attenuation (OA) levels.
% Ratio obtained 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 Is currently undergoing EPA review.
to
3
3.
Source* Background Document
•turn cm WM*«
2.
£
a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1968 / Propped Rules
In the past EPA'i selection of
constituents of concern for listed
hazardous wastes has relied on
comparisons of maximum 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 perservmg 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.
and 10.000 assume that the
concentration of each constituent of
concern in the well water are 1 percent.
0.1 percent, and 0.01 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. and F035 be added to
the list of hazardous wastes from non-
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 ha*
selected constituents of concern based
on two principal factors: Their known
toxicity and their relevant
concentrations in the waste. Other
constituents were detected in 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 (F032). 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 5 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 drip* from treated wood. Instead, in-
use pentachlorophenol wood preserving
formulation was sampled to obtain data
indicative of constituent concentration*
in drippage because EPA believes that
drippage either will be or will
substantially resemble preserving
formulation*. The average
pentachlorophenol concentration was
26.000 mg/1 (2J)%); the maximum
concentration was 52.000 mg/1 (5.2%).
All ten PCDD/PCDF homologue gi
were detected in non-wastewater
pentachlorophenol treating wastej
However. 2,3.7,8-TCDD was not
detected in nine analyzed sample:
F032 wastes (process residuals am
preservative formulation believed
typical of drippage). Total TCDDs
detected in eight of 20 analyzed
samples. Calculated equivalent 2.3
TCDD concentrations for all coger
groups detected averaged 200 ppb
process sludges residuals and 300
for ID-use treating solutions.
Within hazardous waste listing'.
the Agency is proposing to include
wastes generated at facilities that
previously used chlorophenolic
formulations and wastes generatec
creosote, inorganic, and other proc
located within the same facility as
chloropheno) process. Process slue
and wastewater residuals gradual!
accumulate in wood preserving, su
protection, and wastewater treatm
equipment. Periodically (annually,
semianually. monthly, or perhaps i
frequently, depending on the size €
operating practices of the facility)
accumulated residuals are remove
the equipment and then disposed.
Agency has information (which is
available in the docket to this rule
making) that wood preserving faci
regularly change the preservatives
in a particular piece of process
equipment without removing
accumulated materials or in any w
cleaning the equipment
EPA has gathered considerable
evidence that F032 waste (from
inorganic and creosote processes t
either generated from equipment t
has been previously used in
chlorophenolic processes or gener
at facilities that have used or cum
use processes on the same site) is
contaminated by the constituents
concern from the chlorophenolic
processes. Such cross-contamir.at
documented by the waste
characterization data available in
Background Document These dat
that constituents unique to
chlorophenolic wastes from
chlorophenolic processes were
identified in wastes that came fro
creosote and iaorgaaic processes.
Background Document for this list
presents many esses that describe
cross-coBtasaination. The cross-
contamination is further documen
information on the wastes and thi
management practice* collected t
through she visits and surveys, ft
this information. EPA has conclut
that s seriovs and significant degi
cross-contamination exists due to
A-12
-------
53302 Federal Register / 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
cinderblock 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 cm* 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's 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 cylinder was not cleaned. The
sediment in this wood treating cylinder
contained material that had
accumulated during pentachlorophenol
wood preserving operations and
materials that had accumulated during
creosote wood preserving operations.
Analysis of the sediment showed 140
mg/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 ?nd 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 FC35 or because
they exhibit one or more .1 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
m* (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 (.irk
contained 14 ppm tetrachlorophenoU
A-13
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol. 53. No. 251 /' Friday. December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
and 6 ppm pentachlorophenol. At
another facility, a sample of wastewater
collected from a ditch which drained the
dip tank area to a creek contained 0.3
ppm pentachlorophenoL The complete
data set. including all constituents
detected, can be found in Appendix D of
the Background Document
In process sludges or residuals (such*
as working tank or retort sediments), the
concentration of pentachlorophenol
averaged 20.000 mg/kg. (2.0 percent).
Tetrachlorophenols 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 2.3,4.6-
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 in 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 homolegue
groups, including 2,3.7,8-TCDD, were
detected in surface protection waste*.
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.&-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 for sludge* that
accumulate in sumps and catch basins
and 700 ppb for in-use surface protection
solutions. The sampling data and
Toxicity Equivalent Factors used to
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 the 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 F032
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 an
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). Table 9
lists the constituents of concern found in
wastes from wood preserving operations
using creosote as well as the
concentration ranges of these
constituents. Pentachlorophenol. PCDDs.
and PCOFs derive solely from wood
preserving operations using
chlorophenolics and are not present
wastes at facilities that have never i
chlorophenolic formulations. Twenr;
five different PAH compounds (not i
which are defined as constituents of
concern) were found in wastewaters
from wood preserving operations us
creosote. Naphthalene, the most
frequently detected compound, aver
56 mg/1 in wastewaters. Phenanthre
also frequently detected, averaged
54,000 mg/kg (5.4 percent), in proces
sludges or residuals.
No analyses of creosote preservat
formulations were available, either.
they drip from treated wood or as in
formulations. However, initial free
drippage from creosote-treated woo<
expected to have the same composit
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 1
compounds with phenanthrene at
180,000 mg/kg (18 percent) present a
highest concentration.
Toxic metals concentrations in wi
from creosote processes are vanabli
and depend on the extent of cross-
contamination at a particular facilit;
Data describing the extent of cross-
contamination between creosote am
inorganic processes are provided in
Background Document developed in
support of this proposed listing.
d. Wastes from inorganic wood
preserving processes (F03S). Table 1
lists the constituents of concern foui
wastes from wood preserving procei
using only inorganic formulations of
arsenic and chromium. It also lists tl
concentration ranges of these metal
the wastes. Arsenic concentrations
process residuals averaged 150.0001
kg (15 percent); chromium
concentrations averaged 14.000 mg/
(1.4 percent). Lead was also present
samples of process sludges, at an
average concentration of BO mg/kg.
found in wood preserving wastes is
believed to be a contaminant of the
arsenic component of the preservat]
formulation. This listing applies onl
wastes from facilities that presently
inorganic preservatives and are not
using or have not previously used
chlorophenolic preservatives as
previously discussed (those wastes
inorganic facilities where
chlorophenolics have been used at
covered under the proposed F032
listing). Consequently, the cor»t:iu»
of concern for F035 do not include
pentachorophenol. PCDDs. or PCDf
PAH compounds derive from cr«j»
A-14
-------
53304 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
f^^^^^M^K ——^_____^ _^
and from petroleum oils used as
pentachloropher.ol 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 663, January 4,
1985).
N'o 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
m 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-carcir.ogonic
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 Bj), 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-* risk level for Class A and B
carcinogens and the 10'* 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 ha:
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 two
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-trichlorophenol is also a Class Bj
carcinogen (based on animal toxicity
data) with an RSD of 1.8 x 10~'ppm; it
has caused lymphomas. leukemias. arid
carcinomas in 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.1
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 bloeuey would change UM previously
eiubliihed h«altb-t»«ed Dumber of 1 ppm (or
penuchlorophmol. The ltaeJ nil* may bt revised
following Office of Solid Wette'i review of the
•ludy.
A-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30, 1968 / Proposed Rules
and benzo(k)fluorar.thene an RfD of
0.004 ppm.
Benz(a)anthracene is a Class 82
carcmog'en; var -us studies on mice
have resulted ir. . srcomas. bladder
carcinomas, ana malignant skin tumors.
The RSD, by mgestion, at the 10"* risk
level, is 1.1 "x 10"5ppm.
Benzo(a)pyrene is also a Class Bj ,
carcinogen: its RSD. by mgestion, at the
10"* risk-level, is 3 X 10"* ppm in
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
B; carcinogen. Its RSD, by mgestion, at
the 10" risk level is 7 x 10"'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
hemangioendo'heliomas. Indeno{1.2.3-
cdjpyrene is a Class C carcinogen: it has
an RSD of 0.002 ppm. Specifically, skin
carcinomas and papillomas 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
these congeners display indicates that
they are often present together as a
complex mixture. The congener 2.3.7,8-
TCDD is 'ne most widely studied
constituent of concern. It is a Class B.
carcinogen, its RSD, at the 10"'risk
level, corresponds to a water
concentration limit of 2.3 X 10"'°ppm.
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 (TEFs) 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,S-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
lexicological 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. 1966).
4. Constituents Proposed for Addition to
Appendix VHI
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 VID to that
appendix, specifically: benzo(k)-
fluoranthene, heptachlorodibenzofurans.
and heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. The
known health effects of these waste
constituents are summarized in the
following discussion.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene is classif.e<
EPA as a Class Bj carcinogen A\a.
toxicity data (USEPA. 1987) demcr.
that it is carcinogenic to animals ar
according to the International Agen
for Research on Cancer (IARC).
benzo(k)fluoranthene is a probable
human carcinogen.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene has been
evaluated in dermal studies with m
in mouse-skin initiation-promotion
assays using TPA as a promoter, ar
a subcutaneous injection study of n
It has been shown to be active as a
initiator and produced injection sit<
sarcomas in the subcutaneous stud;
Benzo(k)fluoranthene has also beer
shown to be mutagenic in standard
mutagenicity tests with Salmonella
typhimurium strains TA100 and TA
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins an
heptachlorodibenzofurans are mem
of the large family of chlorinated di
and furans. Certain of these chemic
most notably, 2.3,7.8-TCDD. have bi
shown to be highly toxic. The Agen
Carcinogen Assessment Group (CA
has completed quantitative analyse
demonstrating that Z.SJ.B-TC^Os a
2.3.7.8-HxCDDs are among the mos
potent animal carcinogens ever
evaluated by the Agency. Limited
experimental data, supplemented b
structure/activity analyses indicati
other chlorinated dioxins and furar
such as heptachlorodibenzo-p-diox
and heptachlorodibenzofuran may
toxic effects similar to 2.3.7,8-TCDI
very low doses (EPA. 1987). EPA hi
therefore concluded that there is
sufficient evidence to conclude tha
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
heptachlorodibenzo-furan are
constituents of concern in hazardo
wastes and should be added to 40
261 Appendix Vffl.
5. Mobility and Persistence of Was
from Wood Preserving and Surface
Protection Processes
The toxic constituents from woo
preserving and surface protection
processes have been found to migi
from the wastes and. further, they
been found to have sufficient mob
and persistence in the environmen
contaminate ground water (includi
drinking water), surface waters an
sediments, and surface soils. The
solubilities and projected ground \
mobility of the selected organic
constituents of wood preserving w
are presented in Table 15.
A-16
-------
S33Q6 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1966 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 15.—GROUNDWATER Moenjnr AND PERSISTENCE of CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
CHLOROPHEMXS
2.4 6-Tnchtoroprtenol
2.3.4.6- Tetracntorophenol
OTU VU U-J PAP A&tUATV.
Water
solubiMy
(ppm)
800
U
Log'
C-ow
i 3.61
i* 4.1
' 504
KOC*
2.000
4.060
16,000
i Mobility > \
\ SfgMy • conunneted Highty • tor^rmruutl \ Persulence '
1 medium ', medun j
1
Is
i"
high jh^ft,
fMQtl tH»jJ\.
tit^n 1 nw^.
I
HYDROCARBONS
B«nfla)antt»ae»ne
Benzo(a)pyrene . .
_ . . ..
lndeno<1.2.3-c,d)<>yrene
Naphthalene
POLYCMLOHINATEO OtBeNZO-r'.
DIOXINS AND DIBENZOFURANS
T«trachlorodlberzo-^clonns ' -
Heptacfilorodibertzo-^dDxins '"
O.C57
0038
00043
0.0005
317
0.0002
n fwwvyu
0^000002
5.61
606
606
6.50
329
6A4
10 44
11.50
20000
550.000
550.000
1.600.000
040
3.300.000
11 500 000
17.000000
tow
tow
tow
tow
tow
tow
tow
tow
tow
high
high
™9"
rngh
mgh
high
nign
Ntf)
high
f«gh.
r»gn.
ftCt\m
high.
Mgh.
high.
["y*-
tegiL
1 Km m Octanot-watef partition aMffiaem. S«e Background Document tar DM* Source*.
» KM « So* torpgon coefficient See Background Document for Data Source*.
' OuMitalM* remix* evaluation of motuWy and persistence, based on water sduMrty. tog KO«. and KOC.
4 Skgney contaminated medkmi represents a mismanagement acenano where retnefi c* he.7arnm« constituents does not resuM n satura&on crt the underlying
so* by organc hazaraoua conafttuenis.
' Highly comammaled medium reprecenu a mismanagement scenario where release of hazardous constrtuantt wauttt n aanraaon of fte undertyng sol ty
organic hazardous constituents.
• SotubMy of pertschtoropnenoi • dependent on pH. Value indicated represents a pH of 4.74.
' Data taaefl on proparM* ol 2J.6.7-Tefeacnlorodiberzo-p-dcnnn.
• Data based on properties at M 3,4.7-Pentachlorodioerac-p4]nan.
• Data beaed on p>coer»cs of 1.2.3.4.7 8-Hexacniorooit>enzo-^dK»n.
"> D*U Oesed on proper*** et 1^J.4.6.7j»-HeptacniorodC>enzo-pH)io«n.
Source: Background Document
The subsurface transport of toxic
constituents from their disposal site
through the unsaturated soil zone to.
and then within, ground water may take
place by several mechanisms. The
toxicants may exist as water soluble
substances that are transported by
advecrion (i.e.. with the moving water
phase), the least complex transport
mechanism. Such aqueous-phase
transport is believed to be the
predominant mechanism for the metal
constituents of wood preserving wastes.
A second mechanism for the transport
of wood preserving wastes is migration
in a discrete oil (or other nonaqoeou*
solvent) phase. Subsurface
investigations at many of the sites
described in the damage eases (found in
the docket supporting this listing) have
revealed the presence of a discrete oil or
creosote phase. These phases may exist
as oil sludges, lenses, or a floating oil
layer on the water table. Because the oil
and creosote differ from ground water in
their chemical and physical properties,
including density, these nonaqneou*
phases may migrate in the subsurface
independent of ground water flow. For
example, dense materials will teqd to
migrate vertically through an aquifer
until buoyancy is achieved or a vertical
barrier is encountered. These materials
may also migrate laterally faster or
slower than the rate of ground water
flow because of the effects of differing
chemical and physical properties on
attenuation mechanisms.
Investigations of many wood
preserving facilities have revealed that
toxic organic constituents of wood
preserving wastes are present in ground
water at concentrations that far exceed
their solubility. For example, in seven
out of eight measurements of
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDDs)
in ground water from three different
facilities, the measured HpCDO
concentration exceeded its reported
solubility (0.002 ppb) by many orders of
magnitude. The HpCDD concentration at
one site was 4.2 ppb; at a second site,
ground water collected at a depth
interval of »2 to 155 feet below the
surface contained ZA ppb of HpCCO.
The reported solubility of
pentachlorophenol is 14 ppm. Ground
water samples from five sites contained
over 20 ppm of pentachlorophenol. The
concentration at one site was 210 ppm.
Although exact reasons for these
phenomena are not fully understood,
they are believed primarily to result
from the oily nature of these wastes and
solvent-assisted transport.
Creosote constituents have also been
measured in ground water at
concentrations above their solubilities.
At one site. benz(a)anthraceoe and
bento(a)pyrene were all measured at
concentration* about ten times their
reported solubility (measured
concentrations were 0.35 and 0.08 ppm..
respectively). Again, this is bebeved
primarily to be due to the oily nature of
these wastes.
It shovld be strewed that these ground
water samples did not contain a
separate oil phase (contaminant
concentrations in svbwrface oH phases
are, in general, nadi higher than those
described above.) Clearly, the distinct
aqueous phase and oil phase transport
mechanisms do not fully explain the
migration of toxic constituents of
organic wood preserving wastes. The
actual mechanism or mechanisms at
work are not fully understood:
hypotheses indode transport of the
organic* as oil micelles (microdroplets)
or emulsions suspended m water,
transport of die organics sorbed onto
humic acids or colloidal solids which
are suspended hi ground water. pH
effects, and cototvent effects, perhaps
from tigrdns and terpenes that leach
from wood during treatment. Although
the exact transport mechanisms have
not been fully elucidated, it is clear from
.available data that the toxic
constituents in wood preserving wastes
are highly mobile and can therefore
A-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 2S1 / Friday. December 30. 1988 / Proposed Rules
reach environmental receptors at
hazardous 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 in 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
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 very
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
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 ar. appendix to
this preamble.
E. Basis for Designating F032 and F033
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 not 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 14,1965 rule, 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
(hexachlorodibenzofurans) (50
FR 1980). On the basis of the toxicity
data available at the time of
promulgation (i.e., that HxCDDs are
•bout 4 percent as toxic as
tetrachlorodibenzodioxins (TCDDs),
equal in potency to Aflatoxin Bl. an
1,000 times more potent than ethylei
dibromide), EPA concluded that Hxi
is one of the most potent carcinogen
ever identified by the Agency, The
Agency concluded therefore, that "*
because these wastes contain the pc
carcinogen HxCDD at levels of
regulatory concern, they meet the
criteria of 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). and a
properly listed as acute hazardous
wastes (50 FR 1982). In makir
this finding, the Agency relied on
toxiciry data for HxCDD, provided b
bioassay conducted by the National
Cancer Institute in 1983 as a surroga
for the toxiciry of mixtures of
pentachlorophenol and HxCDD foun
pentachlorophenol wastes.
In April of this year, the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) released
draft report on the results of a study
the toxiciry of purified and technical
grade pentachlorophenol containing
measured levels of HxCDD as well a
other dioxin homologues in lower
concentrations (McConnell. 1988). El
Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAC
has reviewed the NTP report, found
study to be valid according to its
established criteria, and concluded t
the data from the study are valid for
in calculating Ql* values for the
mixtures studied.
The NTP draft report states that ti
purified pentachlorophenol tested w
DOW EC-7 which contained 0.19 pp
HxCDD. The technical grade
pentachlorophenol tested was a
composite mixture of equal parts of
products made by Monsanto, Reichh
and Vulcan: it contained 10.1 ppm.
HxCDD. The DOW EC-7 was also
reported to contain
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin at greater
0.04 ppm. heptachlorodibenzodioxin
0.53 ppm. octachlorodibenzodioxin a
0.89 ppm, heptachlorodibenzofuran;
0.13 ppm. and octachlorodibenzofur;
0.15 ppm. NTP reported that the
technical grade mixture contained tl
following additional dioxins and fur
Heptachlorodibenzodioxin at 296 pp
octachlorodibenzodioxin at 1.386 pp
pentachlorodibenzofuran at 1.4 ppm
hexachlorodibenzofuran at 9.9 ppm.
heptachlorodibenzofuran at 88 ppm.
octachlorodibenzofuran at 43 ppm
(McConnell. 1988).
The results of the study demons tr;
that both grades of pentachloropher
tested show significant increases in
and kidney tumors in male B6C3F11
and increases in vascular rumors in
female mice of the same strain. Usir
linear low dose extrapolation, a rep
completed for Vulcan Materials Co.
May of 1988 finds that using the Cn
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO THE
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
B-l
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) examines the costs, economic impacts, and
benefits of listing certain wastes from the wood preserving industry. The results of this RIA
demonstrate that the final wood preserving listing rule is not a "major rule" as defined by
Executive Order 12291.
ES.1 REGULATORY/JUDICIAL HISTORY
Pursuant to Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
EPA is listing as hazardous three wastes generated from wood preserving processes that use
either chlorophenolic, creosote, and/or inorganic preservatives.
Several previous EPA rulemakings have addressed wood preserving wastes either
directly or indirectly. EPA has previously listed as a hazardous waste.bottom sediment
sludges from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol (EPA hazardous waste number K001) (see 45 FR 33084, May 19,
1980). The regulatory status of this waste stream is not affected by the new listing of
additional wood preserving wastes. EPA has also promulgated regulations for identifying
hazardous wastes based on certain characteristics of the waste stream. The Extraction
Procedure (EP) Toxicity Characteristic (see 45 FR 33140, May 19, 1980), addressed waste
streams containing 14 constituents of concern, including arsenic and chromium. Wastes from
wood preserving processes that use inorganic preservatives, such as chromated copper
arsenate (CCA) would likely be considered characteristically hazardous under the EP. On
March 29, 1990, EPA promulgated final regulations that expanded the EP by adding 25 new
organic constituents, including benzene, cresols, and pentachlorophenol, and replaced the
EP with a new procedure called the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (see
55 FR 11798). Because the organic constituents mentioned above are commonly found in
wastes generated from wood preserving processes using creosote and pentachlorophenol,
many such wastes may be considered characteristically hazardous under the TC.
On July 27, 1988, a consent decree was filed 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 ef. a/. No. 85-0974).
In response to this consent decree, on December 30, 1988, EPA published a NPRM regarding
wastes from the wood preserving industry. This proposed rule also addressed wastes from
the use of chlorophenolic preservatives in surface protection processes used by sawmills to
treat lumber. This proposed rule is discussed in Chapter 1. This RIA was prepared in
support of the final rule listing wood preserving wastes as hazardous.
ES.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION
The wood preserving process entails impregnating wood with a preservative to extend
its useful life by protecting against rotting and insects. Wood can be preserved using either a
pressure or non-pressure process, although pressure treatment is by far the more common
method and is the focus of this report. Pressure treatment involves the use of a pressure
B-2
-------
cylinder to force preservative into the cells ot the wood. After the wood has been removed
from the. pressure cylinder, it typically remains in the process area for several hours while
excess preservative drips from the wood. The treated wood is usually then moved to a
storage yard for longer term storage. One of three types of preservative is typically used:
inorganic formulations of arsenic and chromium; creosote; or pentachlorophenol (PCP).
The wood preserving process generates several distinct waste streams from various
stages of the treatment process:
• Drippaqe: After the wood is treated, excess preservative drips from the wood.
• Process residuals: Wood chips, sawdust, and dirt collect in the cylinders and
work tanks and must be removed periodically. These residuals are
contaminated with preservative.
• Wastewaters: Wastewaters are generated at several points during the wood
preserving process and during the cleaning of cylinders and tanks. These
wastewaters are frequently contaminated with preservative.
• Discarded spent formulation: Spent formulation may be discarded during
maintenance of work tanks and at other times.
Preservatives used in the wood preserving process contain constituents known to be
carcinogens and/or systemic toxicants. Many of these constituents appear on the list of
hazardous constituents in 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII, which has been developed as part of
the Agency's program to implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Because wastes generated by the wood preserving processes contain residual preservative,
they also contain these hazardous constituents.
Evidence from the Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs and modeling
analyses conducted by EPA indicate that mismanagement of these wastes can cause
environmental contamination potentially posing risks to human health and the environment.
ES.3 REGULATORY OPTIONS ANALYZED
EPA considered a wide range of regulatory alternatives during the development of the
final rule. A range of alternatives was considered for resolving three key policy issues: waste
management in the process area, waste management in the storage yard, and permitting
requirements. From these alternatives, EPA selected four regulatory options for detailed
analysis. The Agency also determined an appropriate pre-regulatory baseline from which to
analyze the incremental costs and benefits of each regulatory option.
ES.3.1 Pre-Regulatory Baseline
The baseline defines the current condition of wood preserving facilities, their waste
management practices, and their compliance with other requirements under RCRA or other
statutes relevant to the wood preserving listing rule. Evidence from EPA's Hazardous Waste
B-3
-------
Data Management System (HWDMS) suggested that, despite the fact that many wood
preserving wastes are characteristically hazardous (under the Extraction Procedure or EP:),
many wood preserving facilities have not notified EPA that they generate a hazardous waste.
This indicates that many facilities are not in full compliance with existing regulations. For this
analysis, current waste management practices and actual compliance with existing regulations
were used as baseline conditions; full compliance with existing RCRA requirements was not
assumed in the baseline.
ES.3.2
Regulatory Options
The four regulatory options were similar in that all would list as hazardous the same
types of wastes generated in the process area. Each would also impose the same technical
design and operating requirements for the process area drip pad. The options differ with
respect to regulation of the storage yard and the need for a permit and corrective action. The
distinguishing attributes of each option are shown in Exhibit ES-1.
EXHIBIT ES-1
MATRIX OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
ANALYZED IN RIA
PERMIT REQUIRED
AT ALL FACILITIES
PERMIT NOT REQUIRED
FOR LESS THAN
90-DAY ACCUMULATION
STORAGE YARD
PAD REQUIRED
NO STORAGE YARD
PAD REQUIRED
B
Potion A: Storage Yard Pad With Corrective Action
Under this option, all facilities would be required to install a storage yard pad meeting
Subpart W standards. In addition, all facilities would be required to obtain a RCRA permit
under 40 CFR 264. All facilities would, therefore, be subject to facility-wide corrective action.
1 At the time data were retrieved from HWDMS, the EP was the test for determining if a
waste is characteristically hazardous. The EP has since been replaced by the Toxicrty
Characteristic (TC) Leaching Procedure which changed the testing protocol and expanded
the list of constituents used to define a waste as hazardous.
B-4
-------
Option B: Storage Yard Pad Without Corrective Action
This option is similar to Option A in that a storage yard pad meeting Subpart W
standards would be required at all facilities. Facilities accumulating waste for less than
90 days, however, would not be required to obtain a RCRA permit and would not be subject
to corrective action. This option is similar to the December 30, 1988 proposed rule with the
following exceptions: (1) the drip pad standards require installation of a liner and leachate
collection system, (2) there are no cleaning and replacement standards for facilities that
previously used PCP, and (3) wastes from surface protection process are not included in the
listing.
Option C: Corrective Action Without Storage Yard Pad
Under this option, facilities would not be required to install a storage yard drip pad.
All facilities would be required to obtain a RCRA permit and would, therefore, be subject to
facility-wide corrective action.
Option D: Regulation of Process Area Only (Final Rule)
Under this option, only the process area would be regulated. Facilities would not be
required to install a storage yard drip pad. Facilities accumulating waste for less than
90 days would not be required to obtain a RCRA permit. This option corresponds to the final
rule.
ES.4 INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
The primary sources of information on the number and production characteristics of
wood preserving facilities were a list of wood preserving facilities in the United States and a
report on wood preserving statistics, both prepared by James T. Micklewright2. Of the 602
facilities on the list, 19 were eliminated from the analysis because they were non-pressure
treaters, inactive, foreign-based operations, or treated only with fire retardant. The remaining
583 facilities were used as the basis for this analysis.
Three major product groups accounted for 90 percent of the total 1987 production of
preserved wood in the United States: (1) lumber and timbers, mostly preserved with
inorganic preservatives; (2) railroad crossties, switch ties, and bridge ties, almost all preserved
with creosote; and (3) poles, 58 percent preserved with pentachlorophenol, 22 percent with
creosote, and 20 percent with inorganic preservatives. The remainder of 1987 production
consisted of fence posts, piling, plywood, and other products.
Facilities using inorganics accounted for approximately 73 percent of all production,
while creosote and PCP facilities constituted roughly 17 and 8 percent, respectively. The
2 Micklewright, J.T., 1989. Wood Preserving Plants in the United States. 1987 and Wood
Preservation Statistics. 1987. A Report to the Wood-Preserving Industry in the United States.
December 1989.
B-5
-------
remaining 2 percent of production is treated with fire retardant, which is not addressed by this
rule. Approximately 14 percent of wood preserving facilities use more than one type of
preservative. Waste generated at these plants can be contaminated with the constituents of
concern identified for all of the preservatives used at the plant.
Of the 583 plants that treated wood in 1987, approximately 60 percent are in the
soutneast and south central portions of the United States; these account for 62 percent of
1987 production. A full characterization of the wood preserving industry is provided in
Chapter 2.
ES.5 COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
ES.5.1 Methodology
The cost and economic impact analysis involved estimating the cost of the rule to
wood preserving facilities and then determining the number of facilities that would be unable
to pay those costs out of current profits and would, therefore, be likely to close. The 583
"actual" facilities were grouped into 18 "model" facilities based on facility characteristics.
Average baseline operating costs and compliance costs were then determined for facilities in
each model. Facility closures were estimated by determining the number of facilities within
each model for which the addition on compliance costs would push total costs above
revenues. Economic impacts were estimated under two scenarios: (1) that facilities cannot
pass through any costs to consumer as high prices, and (2) that facilities can pass through
all costs as higher prices.
ES.5.1.1 Model Facility Development
Each of the 583 facilities was assigned to one of the 18 models according to three
parameters: preservative type used, geographic location, and annual production.
M) Preservative. The 14 percent of facilities that use multiple preservatives were classified
into single preservative groups. Because each preservative type is closely associated with a
particular treated wood product, each preservative type group was also assigned a single
treated wood product: model inorganic facilities were assumed to treat lumber and timber,
model creosote facilities were assumed to treat railroad ties, and model POP facilities were
assumed to treat utility poles. 12) Location. Facilities were assigned to regions that
correspond to the regional markets for preserved wood products and the regional availability
of different species of trees. The definition of the regions varied by preservative type. Four
regions were defined for inorganic facilities, two for creosote facilities, and two for POP
facilities. (3\ Production. Actual per-facility annual production was not available to EPA but
was estimated based on the number and size of cylinders at each facility. The facilities were
then divided into size categories based on production volume. Size categories varied by
region and preservative type. The assignment of facilities to models is discussed in detail in
Chapter 4.
B-6
-------
ES.5.1.2 Baseline Operating Costs
Estimation of baseline operating costs involved identifying all production inputs and
process activities used at wood preserving facilities and estimating the costs associated with
these inputs and activities. All costs were estimated on a pre-tax basis. Costs were divided
into direct and indirect operating costs. Direct operating costs were defined as those costs
that facilities must pay to remain in business in the short run, such as expenditures for raw
materials, labor, utilities, maintenance and repair, property taxes, insurance, and current
environmental compliance practices. Indirect operating costs were defined as the sustaining
capital needed to replace capital equipment, such as treatment cylinders, buildings, and other
equipment. Facilities must pay indirect costs to remain in business in the long run.
Many wood preserving facilities already undertake some environmental compliance
activities, such as complying with 40 CFR 262 hazardous waste generator requirements;
operating as an interim status hazardous waste management facility under 40 CFR 265;
obtaining a RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) permit under 40 CFR 264; and/or
installing a drip pad in the process and/or storage areas. The cost of these activities was
included in the baseline as a direct operating cost of the model facilities. Facilities that
currently have interim status or a permit to operate as a hazardous waste TSDF may also be
undergoing corrective action. The cost of soil and ground-water remediation at wood
preserving facilities requiring corrective action was estimated based on cleanup costs at
seven wood preserving facilities undergoing cleanup under CERCLA The cost of corrective
action in the baseline was treated in the same manner as indirect operating costs.
ES.5.1.3 Incremental Compliance Costs
Incremental compliance costs were estimated for each model facility for all activities
required under each regulatory option, including building drip pads in the process and/or
storage areas; managing process residuals as hazardous waste; complying with the
requirements of 40 CFR 262 for hazardous waste generators; or complying with the
requirements of 40 CFR 264/265 for TSDFs. For Options A and C, facilities that would require
a permit would be subject to facility-wide corrective action. Based on estimates in the RIA for
the proposed Subpart S corrective action rule (USEPA 1990a), EPA assumed that 31 percent
of TSDFs would require corrective action. The estimation of costs for each of these activities
is discussed in Chapter 4.
Incremental costs were estimated as the compliance costs incurred by facilities due to
the rule that are above the baseline management costs already incurred. For some
compliance activities, EPA was uncertain as to how facilities would respond to the regulation.
For example, although a drip pad in the process area is required, EPA did not know exactly
how large a pad facilities would build. To account for this uncertainty, EPA estimated lower
and upper bound costs to cover the range of possible compliance responses.
All costs were estimated as the present value of the initial and recurring costs incurred
by facilities over an assumed 20-year operating life. The present value cost was then
annualized over 20 years to arrive at equal annual payments. The annualized cost represents
the annual compliance cost to facilities that smooth out anticipated costs with some form of
B-7
-------
financing over a 20-year period. An eight percent real rate of interest was used as both the
discount and annualization rates.
ES.5.1.4 Facility Closures
To estimate the number of facility closures, the Agency developed an economic model
that estimated the profitability of wood preserving facilities before and after compliance with
the listing rule. Based on the number of closures, EPA also estimated losses of production
and jobs.
Facility closures were projected in the baseline and due to the rule using a three step
process. First, the profitability of facilities in the short-run was determined based on average
revenues anc* short-run operating costs. Next, baseline closures were estimated by
determining tne number of facilities in each model that would be unable to pay long-run
operating costs out of short-run profits. These facilities were considered to be non-viable in
the long run even without the new regulations and their closure was not considered an
impact of the rule. Finally, the number of closures due to the rule was estimated by
determining the number of facilities unable to pay compliance costs out of profits remaining
after payment of short-run and long-run operating costs. The analysis was repeated for each
model and regulatory option. The economic impact model is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
It may be somewhat unrealistic to assume that facilities would be unable to recoup
any of the compliance costs by raising prices as discussed under the first cost pass-through
scenario above. To the extent that prices were raised, additional facilities would likely find it
profitable to remain in business. The Agency accordingly considered, in the second scenario,
the effect of assuming full cost pass-through whereby facilities raise prices to cover all
compliance costs. Under such an assumption, there would be no closures of wood
preserving facilities as a result of the rule; however, national costs would be higher because
compliance costs would be paid by more facilities. (Scenario 2, which assumes no facility
closures, could also be used to represent impacts for facilities that pay compliance costs out
of savings rather than current profits.) In the event of full cost pass-through, there may be
some impacts on the purchasers of treated wood products due to increased prices for these
products. However, assessing such impacts was beyond the scope of this analysis.
ES.5.2 Results
ES.5.2.1 Baseline Closures
Of the initial population of 563 wood preserving facilities, 145 facilities, or 25 percent,
were projected to close in the baseline due to indirect costs and the cost of existing
corrective action requirements. The 438 facilities remaining open represent the population of
facilities potentially impacted by the regulation.
ES.5.2.2 Costs and Closures Assuming No Cost Pass Through
As Exhibit ES-2 shows, under the assumption of no cost pass-through, none of the
regulatory options imposed annual costs in excess of $65 million to facilities remaining open;
however, the number of facility closures under Options A, B, and C were considerable.
B-8
-------
EXHIBIT ES-2
AGGREGATE COSTS AND FACILITY CLOSURES
ASSUMING NO COST PASS-THROUGH
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C
NOTE: Costs are in 1990 dollars and are annualized at 8 percent
O
CO 300
LU
DC
~* 250
200
150
100
50
LJL
LL
DC
UJ
m
230
130 130
OPTION D
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C
NOTE: After baseline closures, population is 438 facilities.
OPTION D
B-9
-------
Option A had compliance costs of $42 to $53 million and was projected to close 170 to 230
facilities,' or approximately 40 to 53 percent of the 438 facilities remaining open after baseline
closures. Costs under Option B were slightly higher, ranging from $45 to $61 million;
however, the number of closures was much lower, ranging between 68 and 140 facilities
(16 to 33 percent of all facilities, respectively). Option C, with costs between $17 and S20
million, was projected to close approximately 130 facilities, or almost one-third of the facilities.
Option D, the final rule, imposed the lowest costs of the four options, between $11 and $14
million; closures were predicted for only 17 facilities (4 percent).
Corrective action is the major cost element under Options A and C, imposing costs
two to three times greater than other cost elements. Storage yard drip pad and sump costs
also account for a significant portion of the costs under Options A and B. Costs under
Option D are driven primarily by the costs associated with the process area drip pad and
tank. The cost of process area residual management is also significant for large organic
facilities under Option D if incineration is the required means of management. Estimated
costs for the components of each required action are shown in Appendix C.
Under all options, small facilities were impacted more heavily than larger facilities, and
those using inorganic preservatives had higher impacts than those using other preservatives.
This is because small facilities have lower profit margins than larger facilities and facilities
using inorganic preservatives have smaller profit margins than facilities using other types of
preservatives. Of the 280 small facilities remaining open after baseline closures, 48 to 68
percent closed due to Option A, 22 to 46 percent closed due to Option B, and over one-third
closed due to Option C. Option D closed only 5 percent of small facilities.
ES.5.2.3 Costs Assuming Full Cost Pass-Through
This scenario assumes that facilities will pass through all compliance costs to
consumers in the form of higher prices. Because facilities do not bear the impact of the
costs, they are able to comply with the rule without closing. Therefore, impacts are measured
strictly in terms of compliance costs and do not include closures.
As Exhibit ES-3 shows, Options A and C imposed the highest costs, with costs
exceeding $100 million annually. Option B costs were between $51 and $80 million, and
Option D costs were less than $15 million in both the upper and lower bounds. Corrective
action costs represented nearly 50 percent of the total cost under Option A and over 80
percent under Option C.
ES.5.3 Limitations
Some important limftations of the analysis would tend to underestimate the costs and
economic impacts of the rule:
• Non-pressure treaters were not included. If these facilities generate
more than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month, they would be subject
to RCRA regulation and could be impacted by this rule.
B-10
-------
EXHIBIT ES-3
AGGREGATE COSTS ASSUMING FULL
COST PASS-THROUGH
200
173
150
OT
O
100
50
LOWER UPPER
OPTION A
LOWER UPPER
OPTION B
Costs Other Ttian
Corrective Action
Corrective
Action Costs
11
14
LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
OPTION C OPTION D
NOTE: Costs are in 1990 dolars and are annualized at 8 percent.
-------
• The method of annualizing costs assumes that facilities have unlimited
access to borrowing at a real rate of interest of 8 percent for 20 years
To the degree that this type of borrowing is not available, annual costs
would be higher.
• Facilities may need to halt production during construction of the drip
pad. In addition, facilities that are unable to construct a drip pad before
the effective date of the rule may need to halt production for a longer
period of time until they are able to comply with the rule. The cost of
this lost production was not included in the analysis.
Other limitations of the analysis would tend to overestimate the costs and economic
impacts of the rule:
• It was assumed that all facilities with existing pads would need to
replace them immediately with new pads meeting subpart W standards.
To the degree that facilities are able to annually certify that the pad will
not cause releases, they can delay replacement of the pad.
• The analysis assumed that all jobs and production of treated wood
products would be lost at closing facilities. To the degree that jobs and
production are transferred to other facilities, this assumption leads to an
overestimation of the true economic impacts.
• It was assumed that all costs are incurred immediately. To the degree
that facilities do not incur costs until some time in the future, this
assumption leads to an overestimate of the true costs and impacts of
the rule.
• Under the Subpart W requirements, if facilities build a roof over their
drip pad, they may build a smaller sump that is not designed to contain
a 25-year/24-hour storm event. To the degree that this option
represents a cost savings to facilities, the costs and economic impacts
have been overestimated.
Two limitations create uncertainty and may either underestimate or overestimate the
costs and economic impacts of the rule:
• The corrective action costs estimated for the baseline were based on
examination of seven Superfund sites and, therefore, may not be
representative of the costs incurred by most active wood preserving
facilities. Also, the number of facilities assumed to incur corrective
action costs in the baseline was based on estimates in the R1A for the
proposed Subpart S corrective action rule and, therefore, may not be
representative of wood preserving facilities. These assumptions could
lead to an over- or underestimate of the impacts of the rule.
B-12
-------
Several potential costs were not included in the baseline operating
costs, such as costs for surface impoundment closure, wastewater
treatment, and management of K001 wastes. Had these costs been
included, more facilities would have closed in the baseline leaving fewer
facilities open to pay the costs of compliance. However, facilities
remaining open after baseline closures would have appeared financially
weaker, with lower profits due to the additional baseline costs.
ES.6 BENEFITS
' EPA analyzed the benefits of this rule using a two-pronged approach that involved
both modeling and case studies. The modeling analysis estimated risks posed to human
health and the environment from drippage wastes using a multi-media exposure and risk
estimation model. The case studies provide evidence of contamination at actual wood
preserving facilities, complementing the modeling results. Both analyses are summarized
briefly below.
ES.6.1 Modeling
ES.6.1.1 Methodology
EPA used a computerized multi-media exposure and risk estimation model (the
MMSOILS model) to simulate human health and environmental impacts from wood preserving
drippage in the baseline (unregulated) case and then again under the regulatory options
under consideration, MMSOILS was developed as a screening tool to assist EPA in
. Superfund site management.
The Agency used MMSOILS to simulate releases of contaminants from wood
preserving facilities and resulting concentrations in ground water and surface water. The
ground-water pathway examines leaching of pollutants from contaminated soils by infiltrating
rainwater. EPA used the predicted pollutant concentrations in ground water as a basis for
estimating cancer and non-cancer risks to humans drinking the contaminated water. The
surface water pathway simulates concentrations of contaminants in streams as a result of (1)
discharge of contaminated ground water into the stream and (2) erosion of contaminated
soils which are then carried to the stream over the land surface. EPA examined two types of
effects associated with contaminated surface water: human health risk from consumption of
contaminated fish and stream water, and adverse effects on aquatic life.
This simulation was conducted for a random sample of 55 actual wood preserving
facilities. The sample was stratified by preservative type and comprised 44 facilities using
inorganics, five using creosote, and six using POP. To extrapolate the modeling results from
the sample to the national population of wood preserving facilities, a weighting system was
developed. The weights reflect the frequency of occurrence of preservative types in the
population compared to the frequency within the sample.
Running the MMSOILS model required a wide variety of data inputs for each of the 55
sample facilities. Facility-specific information relating to climate, soil characteristics, and
B-13
-------
hydrogeology was obtained from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (county soil surveys); the U.S. Geological Survey
(topographic maps, water supply papers, computerized stream reach data); well logs kept by
State departments responsible for ground-water management; documents used in the
Superfund program; the on-line "Graphical Exposure Modeling System" or GEMS; and the
scientific literature. U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps provided site-specific
information on the location of private drinking water wells within one mile downgradient of
each site. Information on distance to the nearest public well and the number of people
served was obtained from U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and the on-line Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS).
Information on facility size and the amount of drippage generated by each sample
facility was unavailable. EPA estimated the surface area of each facility by assuming that
there is a direct correlation between facility size and wood production rate; wood production
rates were calculated as described in Chapter 4 of the RIA. EPA then calculated an annual
drippage volume for each sample facility by multiplying the production rate by an estimated
drippage rate per volume of treated wood. A limited amount of data on drippage rates per
volume of treated wood were provided by commenters to the proposed wood preserving rule,
which EPA used as a basis for estimating an average rate for each preservative type.
Pollutant concentrations in drippage were assumed to be the same across all facilities using
each preservative type. Data on the chemical composition of inorganic, creosote, and PCP
drippage were reported in the background document supporting the proposed rule.
The Agency selected a subset of these constituents for risk modeling, referred to as
constituents of concern (COCs). Only those constituents with EPA-approved toxicological
parameters were considered. From the list of constituents with EPA-approved values-, the
Agency identified those with the highest potential for posing risk to humans or aquatic life
based on their concentrations in drippage, mobility in the environment, and toxicity. The
COCs selected for modeling were: arsenic, chromium, and copper for inorganic facilities;
acenaphthene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and naphthalene for creosote facilities; and
naphthalene, pentachlorophenol, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (referred to as "dioxins"),
and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (referred to as furans") for PCP facilities.
To assess human health risks from exposure to these contaminants in ground water,
EPA used cancer potencies for carcinogenic COCs and reference doses (RfDs) for non-
carcinogenic COCs. Cancer potencies and RfDs were taken from two sources: the
Integrated Risk Information System or IRIS, and Health Effects Assessment (HEA) Summary
Tables. The only exceptions were for pentachlorophenol (PCP), dioxins, and furans. The
cancer potency for PCP was recently verified as a probable human carcinogen by EPA's
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor Workgroup. The cancer potencies for
dioxins and furans were derived using procedures recommended by EPA's Risk Assessment
Forum.3
3 Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-o-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans fCDDs and CDFsl and 1989 Update
(USEPA, 1989)
B-14
-------
To assess potential human health and environmental hazards from surface water
contamination, EPA generally used Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) from EPA's Office
of Water Regulations and Standards "Quality Criteria for Water" (May 1986). AWQCs for the
protection of human health are the concentrations in surface water that would pose a cancer
risk of 10"6, or doses above the RfD, for humans that both drink the surface water and ingest
fish living in the stream. AWQCs for aquatic life are the concentrations in surface water
considered by EPA to be protective of aquatic life.
For each facility, MMSOILS provided the annual concentration of each COC in ground
water over a 300-year time frame, and the concentration of each COC in the nearest stream.
For the ground-water pathway, EPA calculated risks to the most exposed individual (ME!) at
each site (i.e., an individual exposed at the nearest well) and population risk (i.e., the number
of cancer cases expected in the population and number of people at risk for non-cancer
effects) across all wells at each site. To measure potential adverse effects on aquatic
organisms in nearby streams, EPA calculated the ratio of the annual concentration of each
pollutant in the stream to the AWQC for the protection of aquatic life. Potential human health
risks to individuals hypothetical^ exposed to contaminated surface water were calculated in a
similar fashion, using AWQC for the protection of human hearth. -
To simulate the benefits of the rule, EPA focused on facilities already in existence on
the effective date of the wood preserving listing. To determine how long each facility had
been in operation prior to the rule, the Agency calculated the average current age of wood
preserving facilities, by preservative type, based on information provided by the American
Wood Preserving Institute and the Society of American Wood Preservers. To be consistent
with the cost and economic impacts analyses, EPA assumed that all facilities would be in
operation for an additional 20 years after the effective date of the rule. EPA modeled risks for
a period equal to the current average age of the facility plus an additional 300 years. ~
To simulate risks in the baseline, EPA assumed for modeling purposes that the
drippage is uniformly distributed across the process and storage areas. An average drippage
rate for both the process and storage areas was developed for each preservative type based
on limited data provided by commenters to the proposed wood preserving rule. EPA
multiplied the average drippage rates derived from commenter data by 10 to account for
uncertainty in the data and the likelihood that actual drippage rates would be higher than
indicated by the available data. Consistent with the cost analysis, EPA assumed that 31
percent of the TSDFs would trigger corrective action in the baseline. Human health and
environmental risks for facilities that trigger corrective action in the baseline were assumed to
be negligible.
Under Option A (process and storage area drip pads with corrective action), all
facilities were assumed to install process and storage yard pads on the effective date of the
rule. Thus, the facilities operate without pads for a period of time equal to their current age
and then for 20 years with the pads in place. To simulate the benefits of drip pads, EPA
made the simplifying assumption that the pads are 100 percent effective in preventing both
drippage and rainwater from entering the soil. Corrective action was assumed to be triggered
at an additional 31 percent of facilities that are not currently subject to corrective action under
existing regulations. EPA made the simplifying assumptions that corrective action would be
B-15
-------
triggered on the effective date of the rule and would prevent future human exposure to
contaminated ground water.
Under Option B (process and storage area drip pads without corrective action), all
facilities were assumed to install process and storage yard pads on the effective date of the
rule. Assumptions for estimating the effectiveness of drip pads were the same as those
discussed above.
EPA used the results predicted for Option A as an approximation of the benefits of
Option C (process area drip pads with corrective action). The only difference between these
two options is that under Option C, owners or operators of wood preserving facilities would
not be required to install a drip pad in the storage yard. Even so, the benefits of these two
options are likely to be similar because facility-wide corrective action should minimize human
health or environmental risks associated with existing or future contamination of storage yard
soils.
EPA used the results simulated for Option B as a rough approximation of the benefits
of Option D (process area drip pads without corrective action). The only difference between
these two options is that the latter does not require storage yard drip pads. If there is no
significant existing contamination in the storage yard, and if EPA is able to use its
enforcement or other authorities to ensure that no future drippage occurs in the storage yard,
the simulated results for Option B can be directly applied to Option D. If significant drippage
has occurred or continues to occur in the storage yard, the results for Option B overstate the
benefits of Option D.
ES.6.1.2 Results
Baseline
The results indicate that in the baseline, exposure to contaminated ground water
poses 300-year average individual risks exceeding 10"6 at about 23 percent of wood
preserving facilities. About 5.3 percent of facilities have risks in excess of 10*3. All of the
facilities that pose cancer risk via ground water are inorganic plants, for which the cancer-
causing pollutant is arsenic. Facilities using only creosote or POP preservatives posed no
ground-water risk within the modeling period because the contaminants of concern move very
slowly in the subsurface environment The Agency estimates that, across all facilities,
exposure to contaminated ground water can lead to 300 cancer cases over 300 years in the
baseline, virtually all of which (296 cases) are attributable to arsenic exposure at inorganic
plants with nearby public water supply wells.
The predominance of arsenic-related risk at public wells raises two issues. First,
arsenic is a Safe Drinking Water Act pollutant routinely monitored by public water supply
systems; presumably, municipal water supply systems would treat arsenic-contaminated
drinking water to reduce levels below the MCL It is also noteworthy that arsenic poses a
lifetime risk of 3 x 10"3 at its MCL of 0.05 mg/l; therefore, cancer risk could still be significant if
arsenic were treated to the MCL Second, pollutant concentrations were simulated at the top
of the aquifer, where concentrations are highest. This is a conservative assumption for all
B-16
-------
drinking water wells, but is particularly conservative for public water supply systems which
tend to draw ground water from deep within the aquifer, where pollutant concentrations are
likely to be lower.
Soil erosion from PCP plants is of concern for its potential adverse effects on aquatic
life in nearby streams. The model results indicate that in the baseline, erosion of soils
contaminated with dioxins and furans lead to surface water concentrations that threaten
aquatic life at 83 percent of the PCP plants. Predicted concentrations of dioxins in streams
near PCP plants are also high enough to threaten human health if people drink the water or
eat the fish; simulated risks to hypothetically exposed individuals exceeded 10*5 at 83 percent
of the PCP plants and 10"3 at one-third of the PCP facilities. Contaminated surface water is
also potentially of concern for human health at the inorganic and creosote facilities, but the
simulated risks to hypothetically exposed individuals rarely exceeded 10"5. For all facilities,
most of the affected streams are too small to support public water systems, suggesting that
few people are likely to be exposed through public drinking water supplies. However, private
consumption of stream water is possible, and consumption of contaminated fish could still
threaten human health.
Regulatory Options
Exhibit ES-4 presents a frequency distribution of 300-year average individual cancer
risk to individuals exposed at the nearest drinking water well for all regulatory scenarios. This
exhibit shows the percent and number of wood preserving facilities where risks fall into a
given range (e.g., -6 to -5 means that risk is greater than 10"6 and less than or equal to 10"5).
With drip pads only (Options B and D), none of the facilities have risks greater than
10 , compared to 5.3 percent in the baseline. The percent of facilities with MEI risks greater
than 10 decreases from 23 percent in the baseline to 21 percent under Options B and D.
Drip pads decrease the number of cancer cases across all facilities from 300 in the baseline
to 160 over the 300-year modeling period; if only private wells are considered (due to
uncertainty about the depth at which public wells are screened), the number of cancer cases
decreases from 4 to 2. Drip pads would also prevent soil erosion, greatly reducing
constituent mass input to streams and associated surface water impacts. Thus, the number
of years during which surface water-related impacts occur is greatly reduced under Options B
and D as compared to the baseline. Drip pads would not prevent previously contaminated
off-site soils from eroding to streams and would not address releases from sediments
contaminated as a result of past releases.
As discussed above in Section ES.6.1.1, Option D is as effective as Option B only if
significant storage yard contamination does not exist and the Agency is able to prevent future
drippage in the storage yard. To the degree that soil contamination exists in the storage yard
at a significant number of facilities, Option D may be somewhat less effective than Option B in
preventing ground-water and surface water impacts.
Corrective action substantially adds to the benefits of the wood preserving rule. When
drip pads are combined with corrective action (Options A and C), none of the wood
preserving facilities pose MEI risks greater than 10"5, and only 2.3 percent of the facilities
have risks above 10"6. Corrective action virtually eliminates the 2 to 160 cancer cases (2
B-17
-------
EXHIBIT ES-4
DISTRIBUTION OF 300-YEAR AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK TO MEI
BASELINE AND REGULATORY OPTIONS
Ground-Water Exposure
u
H
09
70%
60%
50%
§40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
57.7%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
12.4%
71%
53%
1_S
35%
10«%
7 1%
b3%
408
350
292
CO
-------
cases at private wells, 160 cases at private and public wells) that drip pads alone are unable
to prevent. Corrective action is also the only way to effectively reduce impacts associated
with existing contamination of off-site soils and stream sediments.
ES.6.1.3 Limitations
There is considerable uncertainty in the modeling results. The following factors tend
to bias the Agency's results in the direction of understating risks from wood preserving
facilities:
• Contaminant sources other than drippage (e.g., routine spent preservative spills, on-
site disposal of process residuals) were not considered.
• The ground-water modeling was limited to a time-frame of 300 years and a distance of
one mile. An extended time horizon and additional well distances could have resulted
in some additional risk.
• Only pollutants with EPA-approved risk values (human health or aquatic) were
simulated. This could underestimate risk for creosote and PCP plants, as the
preservative solutions contain many potentially high-risk pollutants for which EPA has
not yet derived dose-response information.
• Population growth over time was not considered when calculating the number of
cancer cases. If larger populations are exposed, then a greater number of cases
would be predicted.
• Health risks through several potential pathways of exposure, including inhalation of
contaminated particulate matter, incidental ingestion of contaminated soils, and dermal
contact with contaminated soils, were not examined.
The following factors tend to bias the Agency's results in the-direction of overstating
risks from wood preserving facilities:
• Very little information on drippage rates was available; conservative assumptions for
drippage rates (10 times the values provided by commenters) could overstate risks.
• Assuming that drip pads currently in place are totally ineffective, while those installed
in response to the rule are 100 percent effective over the 300-year modeling period,
tends to overstate the benefits of the regulation.
• Pollutant concentrations in ground water were modeled at the top of the aquifer,
where pollutant concentrations are highest. This overstates baseline risks particularly
for facilities with public drinking water wells.
• The potential for decline in the population utilizing ground water was not considered; if
fewer persons are exposed, then the number of cancer cases would be lower than
predicted.
B-19
-------
Some of the other major factors that contribute to uncertainty in risk results are as
follows:
• The algorithms used in MMSOILS to represent different environmental transport
mechanisms are simple models that can only approximate the detailed heterogeneity
and complex environmental influences affecting the fate and transport of chemicals at
specific sites.
• EPA did not attempt to simulate two-phase flow. This is a potentially significant source
of uncertainty for creosote and PCP facilities, which apply preservatives to wood in oil-
based solutions.
• The analysis was based on limited information on pollutant concentrations in drippage,
process and storage area sizes, and annual drippage volumes.
• EPA assumed that drippage is uniformly distributed across the process and storage
areas, as very little information was available to quantify the difference in drippage
rates between these two areas.
ES.6.2 Case Studies
ES.6.2.1 Purpose of the Case Studies
There is strong evidence that significant environmental contamination has resulted
from both routine operations and waste mismanagement at wood preserving facilities. For
example, as of June 1990, 54 wood preserving facilities had been listed on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL) and RCRA corrective action had been mandated for numerous
other facilities. At many facilities where Superfund Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies
(RI/FSs) and RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) have been performed, extensive ground-
water and soil contamination have been found.
Although many of these sites have contamination resulting from management
practices that are no longer permitted under current regulations, such as the use of unlined
surface impoundments, environmental contamination could also be attributed to routine
operating practices that would be affected by the listing of wood preserving wastes. These
practices include allowing freshly treated wood to drip preservatives onto the soil and the on-
site disposal of process residuals.
The Agency developed seven case studies to document examples of contamination
resulting from operating practices addressed by the listing rule. The case studies
complement the modeling analysis discussed in Section ES.6.1.
ES.6.2.2 Selection of the Case Studies
EPA selected seven case studies after screening the available information on
contamination at wood preserving facilities. This information included the case studies from
the public docket for the proposed rule; Superfund RODs, fact sheets, and RI/FSs; and RCRA
RFAs. EPA focused its research efforts on facilities where evidence of contamination was
B-20
-------
substantially documented and where contamination could be directly attributable to wastes
and management practices addressed by the listing. Facilities were not used as case studies
if contamination resulted primaFily from surface impoundment releases or if such
contamination could not be distinguished from the types of contamination addressed by the
rule.
Of the seven case studies selected, four were based on information from RI/FSs, two
were based on RCRA RFA data, and one was developed using a Superfund Endangerment
Assessment.
ES.6.2.3 Results of the Case Study Analysis
The results of the case study analysis confirm the findings of the modeling analysis
that significant ground-water contamination can result from mismanagement of drippage at
wood preserving facilities. A summary of the contamination found at each case study facility
is presented in Exhibit ES-5.
Process Area
Soil contamination with wood preservatives was detected in the process and drip track
areas at all seven case study facilities and was above health-based levels at five of them.
Ground water underlying or downgradient of the process area and drip track area was
contaminated above health-based levels at all seven case study facilities.
Soil and ground-water contamination in the drip track area is most likely the result of
excessive drippage of preservatives from freshly treated wood. At several of the case study
facilities, soil samples were taken directly under the drip track and thus, contamination could
be unambiguously attributed to drippage. At another case study facility, soil samples were
taken in a natural drainage area where storm water runoff is believed to have carried
contamination from the drip track.
The exact cause of soil contamination in the work tank areas is somewhat less clear,
especially at facilities no longer in operation. Contamination in the work tank area at most of
the facilities likely resulted from a combination of factors including spillage, leaking tanks, and
poor housekeeping practices.
Storage Area
Soil contamination was also found in the storage yard at case study facilities, but less
frequently and at lower levels than in the process area. Soil contamination above health-
based levels was found at two sites and creosote stains were observed at one other facility.
Ground water underlying the storage area was contaminated above health-based levels at
three sites. However, as indicated on Exhibit ES-5, contamination in the storage yard was not
investigated at all sites. Detailed descriptions of the production process at case study
facilities were usually not provided in the RI/FSs, therefore, the observed storage yard
contamination could not be linked to specific management practices. Storage yard
contamination could have resulted from continuing drippage in the storage yard, precipitation
runoff carrying excess preservative, or from management of other wastes in the storage yard.
B-21
-------
EXHIBIT ES-5
CASE STUDY SITE CONTAMI NATION
ONSITE CONTAMINATION
OFFSITH CONTAMINATION
SITE
Koppen Company, Inc.
Montgomery, AL
(Active Site, not on NPL)
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Dixiana, SC
(Inactive Site, on NPL)
Koppera Company, Inc.
Florence, SC
(Active Site, not on NPL)
Mid-South Wood Product*
Mena, AR
(Active Site, on NPL)
American Creoaote Works
Jackson, TN
(Inactive Site, on NPL)
Koppen Company, Inc.
Galesburg, IL
(Active Site, on NPL)
Koppen Company, Inc.
Oroville, CA
(Active Site, on NPL)
PRESERVATIVE
OP
CONCERN
PCP/Creosote
CCA
PCP/Creosote
CCA
PCP/Creosote
PCP/Creosote
PCP/Creosote/
CCA
PROCESS AREA
GROUND
SOILS WATER
Visual Above
Above Above
Above Above
Above Above
Above Above
Above Above
Above Above
STORAGE YARD
GROUND
SOILS WATER
Visual Above
Above Above
NA NA
Above NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA Above
SURFACE
WATER AIR
NA NA
ND ND
NA NA
NA NA
ND ND
ND ND
NA NA
GROUND SURFACE
SOIW WATER WATER AJR
NA NA NA NA
Above Above ND ND
NA NA NA NA
ND ND NA NA
NA (I) (|) ND
ND (1) ND ND
NA (1) NA NA
09
10
to
(I) Contamination was documented but could not be conclusively lied to relevant plant operations.
Above = Contamination above health-based levels
Visual = Visual evidence of contamination only
ND = Not detected
NA = Data not available
-------
Other Areas
At one of the case s'tudy sites, surface water runoff carried preservative from the drip
track to an area entirely off-site where pools of contaminated runoff formed. Soil samples
taken from this area revealed high levels of chromium and arsenic. Ground water underlying
these pooling areas was also found to be highly contaminated.
ES.6.2.4 Limitations of the Case Study Analysis
The seven case studies provide substantial evidence that soil and ground-water
contamination can result from routine operating practices. There are, however, limitations on
the degree to which these findings can be generalized to the universe of wood preserving
facilities. First, the analysis is based on only seven out of the approximately 580 wood
preserving facilities in the U.S. Second, the seven case study sites were specifically selected
because they were contaminated and detailed data were available; hence, they are more
likely to represent the most severely contaminated facilities rather than the typical facility. In
addition, the quality and quantity of data contained in these documents vary greatly. Some of
the documents explicitly identify sources of contamination, while in other cases, the source of
contamination was inferred from the location of the samples and information on ground-water
flow.
ES.6.3 Resource Damage Screening Analysis
The impact of ground-water contamination can be measured in terms of the loss of
ground water as a resource as well as the threat posed to human health. EPA performed a
screening analysis of the 55 sample wood preserving facilities discussed in Section ES.6.1.1
to determine whether resource damage is potentially of concern at wood preserving sites.
For this analysis, resource damage was considered to occur whenever ground water is
rendered unfit for use as a drinking water supply, i.e., when contaminant concentrations in
ground water exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or taste and odor thresholds.
EPA's basic approach was to identify facilities at which estimated constituent concentrations
in ground water at the downgradient facility boundary were above these thresholds.
EPA estimated that over a 300-year time frame, pollutant concentrations in ground
water at the downgradient boundary would exceed resource damage thresholds at 68 percent
of wood preserving facilities (70 percent of the inorganic facilities, 60 percent of the creosote
facilities, and 67 percent of the POP facilities). The magnitude of the resource damage at
each site would depend on several factors that were not considered in this simple screening
approach, such as the extent of plume growth over time, the number of people whose water
supply would be affected, the proximity of the site to alternate drinking water supplies, and
the cost of utilizing those supplies. The analysis does indicate, however, that when the
resource value of ground water is considered, the number of facilities with potentially
significant environmental contamination can be higher than indicated based on human health
risks alone. The analysis also indicates that compliance with the rule would reduce but not
eliminate ground-water contamination and resource damage.
B-23
-------
ES.6.4 Food Chain Contamination Screening Analysis
ES.6.4.1 Methodology
EPA conducted a screening analysis of potential human health risks from exposure
through the food chain to contaminants released to soil from wood preservative drippage.
The Agency used the MMSOILS model (see Section ES.6.1.1) to simulate releases of
contaminants to soil at 4 of the 55 sample wood preserving facilities (see Section ES.6.1.1),
resulting concentrations in crops grown in contaminated soils and in food products derived
from cattle consuming the crops, and potential health risks to humans ingesting the crops
and "food products. Human health risks from incidental ingest;on of soil and dermal contact
with soil were examined as well. The results were used to identify which exposure pathways
are potentially of concern under the assumption that wood preserving operations cease 20
years after the effective date of the rule (see Section ES.6.1.1) and the land is converted to
crop production.
The Agency selected two inorganic and two PCP facilities for the screening analysis;
each pair of facilities includes a "typical" and a "worst-case" facility (based on degree of soil
contamination from drippage) to represent 'typical" and "worst-case" potential human health
risks. The Agency used the same information on facility size and drippage rates as that used
for the ground-water and surface water risk modeling (see Section ES.6.1.1). Facility-specific
data relating to crop (i.e., vegetable and pasture) production and factors affecting the
deposition of contaminated soil particulates were obtained from a variety of sources, including
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (county soil surveys); the on-line GEMS; and the scientific
literature. Information on the typical consumption rates of crops and food products by
humans and/or cattle was obtained from EPA documents on exposure assessment and the
scientific literature.
From the set of constituents of concern (COCs) developed for ground-water risk
modeling (see Section ES.6.1.1), the Agency selected only those constituents that are known
to translocate in food and feed crops. The COCs selected for food chain modeling were
arsenic and hexavalent chromium for the inorganic facilities; and pentachlorophenol,
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (referred to in this section as "dioxins"), and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (referred to in this section as furans") for the PCP facilities. To evaluate the
mobility of COCs in the food chain pathways, the Agency used transfer factors obtained from
the scientific literature. To assess human hearth risks from exposure to these contaminants in
soil and the food chain, EPA used the same cancer potencies for carcinogenic COCs and
reference doses for non-carcinogenic COCs as those used for ground-water risk modeling
(see Section ES.6.1.1).
ES.6.4.2 Results
The modeling results indicated that several of the food chain pathways analyzed are
potentially of concern under the hypothetical scenario where wood preserving sites are
converted to food production. At both the typical and worst-case inorganic facilities, the
greatest potential for cancer risk is through exposure to arsenic in vegetables; hypothetical
MEI risks range as high as 10"4' Potential exposure to chromium, a non-carcinogen, in any of
the food chain and soil pathways is limited and would not result in chronic hearth effects. At
B-24
-------
the typical PCP facility, the greatest potential for cancer risk is through exposure to dioxins in
vegetables and to furans in beef and milk; hypothetical MEI risks range as high as 10~2. At
the worst-case PCP facility, the greatest potential for cancer risk is through exposure to both
dioxins and furans in vegetables, beef, and milk; hypothetical MEI risk ranges as high as 10"1.
At the worst-case PCP facility, potential exposure to pentachlorophenol in vegetables is
significant and would result in chronic (i.e., non-cancer) health effects. The analysis also
indicated that the final rule, by requiring process area drip pads and preventing further soil
contamination, would reduce the potential for adverse health effects caused by ingestion of
contaminated foods.
. ES.6.4.3 Limitations
The food chain pathway and soil exposure modeling was undertaken as a screening
analysis and, therefore, the Agency made many simplifying assumptions. The most important
of these assumptions include the following:
• The potential health risks correspond to a hypothetical maximum exposed individual
(MEI) who lives in a nearby farm household (i.e., a subsistence farmer) and whose diet
consists, in part, of foods which are grown directly on the former wood preserving site
and food products derived from cattle grazing at the site.
• Constituent levels in soil and feed that would cause plant or animal mortality, thereby
eliminating the possibility of human exposure to the foods, were not considered.
• Neither chemical decay in soils nor erosion of soils from the site were considered.
• Potential institutional restrictions prohibiting food production on former wood
preserving sites were ignored.
Other limitations of the MMSOILS model are identified in Section ES.6.1.3.
ES.6.5 Summary of Benefits
The results of each component of the benefits analysis indicate that significant
environmental contamination can occur from mismanagement of wood preserving wastes.
The modeling analysis demonstrated that significant ground-water and surface water
contamination can result from uncontrolled drippage and that this contamination poses a risk
to human health. The case studies confirmed the modeling results by demonstrating that
significant soil and ground-water contamination from uncontrolled drippage and other sources
has resulted at actual facilities. The resource screening analysis showed that at 69 percent of
facilities, there is a potential for ground water to be rendered unfit for use as a drinking water
supply. The food chain screening analysis indicated that several of the food chain pathways
analyzed are potentially of concern under the hypothetical scenario where wood preserving
sites are converted to food production.
The regulatory options considered by EPA would address the problem of
contamination from wood preserving operations to differing degrees. All regulatory options
directly address future drippage in the process area by requiring construction of a drip pad in
B-25
-------
the process area. This would prevent further contamination from drippage, as well as prevent
soil erosion and rainwater infiltration thereby stopping or slowing the migration of existing soil
contamination to the ground water and surface water.
Although none of the options under consideration contain explicit requirements for
spills in the work tank area, under those options which require wood preserving facilities to
obtain a RCRA permit (Options A and C), facilities would be subject to facility-wide corrective
action which would address these areas of contamination. Contamination in the process area
from sources other than drippage might also be covered under other EPA programs These
other sources of contamination may result from substances covered by the CERCLA
Reportable Quantities program or from substances deemed to be RCRA hazardous waste,
either as a characteristic waste under the toxicity characteristic; as a U or P waste, such as
U051 (creosote); or as another listed waste.
Regulatory options that require construction of a storage yard pad (Options A and B)
would directly prevent contamination from future drippage in the storage yard. In addition,
options requiring all facilities to obtain a RCRA permit (Options A and'C) would create strong
incentives for facilities to prevent contamination in the storage yard because the facility would
be subject to facility-wide corrective action. In addition, because drippage is likely to be
characteristically hazardous under the TC, facilities have an incentive to prevent drippage
from falling erectly on the ground because such uncontrolled drippage would constitute
illegal land disposal of hazardous waste.
B-26
------- |