530R85100
GUIDANCE FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE
RCRA DIOXIN LISTING RULE
AUGUST 1935
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
2-30 S. Dearborn St-eet, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING
RCRA DIOXIN LISTING RULE
AUGUST 1985
Hazardous Response Support Division
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 OBJECTIVES 2-1
3.0 MAJOR ISSUES 3-1
3.1 Waste Management Capacity 3-2
3.2 CERCLA Response at On-Going and
Future Actions 3-7
3.3 CERCLA Response — Completed Actions 3-10
3.4 Compliance With Notification Requirements 3-11
3.5 Handling "Vertac" Rule Sites " 3-13
3.6 Analytical Support 3-16
3.7 National Dioxin Strategy Activities 3-18
3.8 Listing of Other Waste Streams 3-20
3.9 Handling Wood Treatment Facilities 3-21
4.0 ATTACHMENTS
A. Dioxin Listing Rule Summary
B. Final Dioxin Listing Rule, Federal
Register, Vol. 50, No. 9
C. Disposal of Dioxin Wastes
D. Certifying Incinerators and Thermal
Treatment Units
E. Procedures for Planning and Implementing
Off-Site Response Actions
F. CERCLA Compliance With Other Environ-
mental Statutes
G. Laboratory Evaluation of Method S2SO
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final dioxin listing rule (DLR) was promulgated on
January 14, 1985. This regulation designates certain
wastes containing particular chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(CDDs), chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs), and chlorinated
phenols as acute hazardous wastes. The rule also estab-
lishes new, stringent RCRA management standards for these
wastes.
On July 15, 1985, the final DLR became effective. The
rule requires that all persons who generate, transport,
store, or dispose of the listed wastes must notify the EPA
or authorized State by April 15, 1985, and facilities that
intend to continue handling these wastes must submit a
Part A application by July 15. Even facilities that have
submitted Part A applications previously (i.e., that
qualified as interim status facilities under RCRA) must
re-submit a Part A application to be qualified as an in-
terim status facility under the DLR.
The objective of this document is to supply the
Regions, authorized States, and Headquarters with guidance
on implementing the RCRA listing of CDDs and CDFs. Major
response issues for the RCRA and CERCLA programs have been
investigated and consensus positions established by the
various Headquarters offices on these issues. These
issues and proposed resolutions are summarized below.
Waste Management Capacity - Lack of approved treatment
and disposal capacity for the listed wastes is the primary
issue of concern. The guidance calls for expedited
Regional certification and permitting of facilities able
to meet the requirements of the DLR. To assist the
Regions in these efforts, Headquarters staff have
developed permitting/certification guidances and are
available for consultation. Until such time that approved
treatment and disposal capacity is available, secure
on-site containment of the listed wastes is encouraged.
Meanwhile, various demonstration projects are being
supported to aid the development of dioxin treatment and
disposal.
CERCLA Activities -- On-Going And Future Activities -
Adherence to DLR requirements at CERCLA sites where the
listed wastes may be present has the potential to affect
site progress. The guidance calls for the identification
of sites where the listed wastes are present and the
adjustment of responses to account for the acute
hazardness of these wastes. In accordance with "CERCLA
-------
Compliance With Other Environmental Statutes"
(Attachment F), the appropriate adjustment will vary
depending on the nature of the response (i.e., removal,
PA/SI, RI/FS, ROD, RD, RA). Sites where the listed wastes
are known or suspected to be present need not (but may)
receive preferential treatment at the discretion of the
Region or State.
CERCLA Activities -- Completed Actions - Regions need
to identify, evaluate, and where necessary, address
completed removal or remedial actions where additional
actions may be warranted. The guidance calls for review
of available data bases to identify candidate sites and
reevaluation of the response taken in terms of its
adequacy in protecting human health and the environment.
The intention, in this regard, is to respond prudently
without unduly constraining progress with on-going and
future cleanup needs.
Compliance With Notification Requirements - The DLR
calls for notification by all facilities which handle the
listed wastes. OWPE is developing a mechanism to detect
non-notifiers and enforcement policies/procedures to en-
sure compliance with the DLR.
Handling "Vertac" Rule Sites - When the DLR became
effective on July 15, 1985, previous regulations on the
disposal of waste materials containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD under
the Toxic Substances Control Act were revoked. Approxi-
mately 70 sites notified EPA under the provisions of this
rule. These facilities now fall under the domain of the
RCRA and CERCLA programs (they have been notified of the
DLR). The Regions and States have been advised that they
should evaluate these facilities on a site-specific basis
and determine the adequacy of their waste management
practices in terms of the DLR requirements and the
protection of human health and the environment.
Analytical Support - Method 8280, developed to support
the DLR, has not been validated for all the waste matrices
of concern. Multilab validation is scheduled to be com-
pleted by December 31, 1985. High priority, immediate
analytical needs can be met through the few capable pri-
vate laboratories that are available. The Methods Devel-
opment Branch (OSW) will provide additional information
through periodic newsletters.
National Dioxin Strategy (NDS) Activities - To date,
the NDS has generally focused on the most toxic dioxin
isomer -- 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Plans to sample and analyze other
dioxin isomers now regulated have not been implemented.
At issue is whether these plans should be implemented now.
11
-------
The guidance provides that the Regions should begin
sampling and analyzing for the additional homologues in
the post-August time frame. EPA Regional RCRA/CERCLA
personnel are advised to utilize NDS activities and data
in their efforts to implement the DLR.
Listing Of Other Waste Streams - There are waste
streams not listed by the DLR that contain or may contain
the dioxin or furan constituents of concern. At issue is
how these non-listed waste streams are to be viewed within
the CERCLA program. The guidance recommends the conserva-
tive approach of viewing materials containing tetra-,
penta-, or hexachlorinated dioxins or furans as acute
hazardous wastes, subject to the DLR requirements,
regardless of whether they are explicitly listed under the
DLR.
Handling Wood Treatment Facilities - This is a special
case of the preceding issue. PCP wastes from wood treat-
ment, although known to contain hexachlorodioxins, are not
generally regulated under the DLR. Nonetheless, the
guidance recommends a conservative approach of viewing PCP
wastes containing tetra-, penta-, or hexachlorinated
dioxins or furans as acute hazardous wastes subject to the
DLR requirements. As with other dioxin sites, however,
the Regions or States are free to assign appropriate
response priority to these sites.
These issues and their resolution are explored fur-
ther in Chapter 3 of this guidance.
111
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The final dioxin listing rule (DLR) was promulgated on
January 14, 1985. This regulation designates certain
wastes containing particular chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
(CDDs), chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs), and chlorinated
phenols as acute hazardous wastes. The rule also
establishes stringent RCRA management standards for these
wastes.*
On July 15, 1985, the final DLR became effective. The
rule requires that all persons who generate, transport,
store, or dispose of the listed wastes must notify the EPA
or authorized state by April 15, 1985, and facilities that
intend to continue handling these wastes must submit a
Part A application by July 15. Even facilities that have
submitted Part A applications previously (i.e., that
qualified as interim status facilities under RCRA) must
re-submit a Part A application to be qualified as an
interim status facility under the DLR.
The U.S. EPA's Dioxin Work Group (DWG) was assigned the
responsibility of developing implementation guidance for
the RCRA/CERCLA response to the DLR. This document is the
product of their work and that of the various program
offices:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
Office of Solid Wastes (OSW)
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)**.
The objective of this plan is to supply the Regions,
authorized States, and Headquarters with guidance on
implementing the RCRA listing of CDDs and CDFs. Major
response issues for the RCRA and CERCLA Programs have been
investigated and consensus positions established by the
various Headquarters offices on these issues. The process
undertaken:
* See Attachment A for a summary of the rule, and
Attachment B for a copy of the final Federal Register
announcement.
** Support for the development of this document was
provided by Booz, Allen & -unilton (Contract No.
68-01-6808).
1-1
-------
Established overall response strategy objectives
Provided an orientation to issues requiring
resolution
Sought input from Regions and States on
unresolved issues and the feasibility (including
resources) of the response strategies
Highlighted areas where Regions and States might
need to adjust resources, priorities, and
commitments, and
Identifies additional guidance that is or will be
available to aid implementation of the DLR.
Chapter 2.0 discusses the general response strategy
objectives that guided the development and selection of
issue-specific response strategies. The consensus
response strategies developed by OSWER and other EPA staff
are presented, by issue, in Chapter 3.0. The major issues
considered include:
Waste management capacity
CERCLA response at on-going and future actions
CERCLA response to completed actions
Compliance with notification requirements
Handling "Vertac" rule sites
Analytical support
National Dioxin Strategy activities
Listing of other waste streams
Handling wood treatment facilities.
For each issue, relevant citations from the proposed or
final rule are included along with a synopsis of the
response issue and a summary of the EPA response strategy,
a discussion of outstanding questions requiring
resolution, and a schedule (if applicable) for required
actions.
Chapter 4.0 contains several attachments pertinent to or
referenced in the plan, including all final guidance
developed by the Agency to date.
Each of the consensus response strategies developed take,
as their basis, several general or overall response
objectives for implementation of the DLR within the RCRA
and CERCLA programs. These general objectives,
established early in the development of the implementation
guidance, are reviewed in the next chapter.
1-2
-------
2. 0 OBJECTIVES
-------
2.0 OBJECTIVES
Among the questions or issues raised by the DLR for the
RCRA and/or CERCLA programs are these:
Who are the generators and handlers of these
listed wastes?
How should the Agency deal with inactive and •
active waste sites where these listed wastes are
or may be present?
Which facilities qualify as able to manage these
listed wastes properly under the standards set?
Can the listed CDD- and CDF-containing wastes be
detected reliably and to what limits in a variety
of waste matrices?
How should the Agency approach releases or poten-
tial releases of non-listed wastes that may
contain CDDs and/or CDFs?
This guidance reflects two major management objectives:
1) to bring CDD- and CDF-containing wastes into the
RCRA/CERCLA program "mainstreams" to the greatest extent
possible; and 2) is to ensure that the implementation
response is a coordinated one.
In developing this guidance, EPA staff have also applied
other criteria such as the following:
Consistency with the status of these wastes as
acute hazardous wastes*
A reasonable, prudent sensitivity to public
concerns surrounding CDD- and CDF-containing
wastes .
Except for treatment (e.g., incineration) residues
from soils that are considered toxic wastes (unless
de-listed) under the final rule (see Attachments A
and B).
2-1
-------
Recognition of current technical limits espe-
cially as they pertain to waste management
capacity and analytical support
Consistency with other EPA program policies and
regulations (including other RCRA and CERCLA
policies)
Efficiency in the use of limited program
resources to meet program objectives.
Application of these criteria has been an explicit or
implicit part of the consensus building process.
Community relations and public relations are important to
the dioxin disposal strategy. EPA Headquarters community
relations and public relations staff are available to work
with Regional offices in the education of elected
officials and the public regarding issues such as the
efficacy of incineration and the need for and safety of
on-site storage pending the development of disposal
capacity.
In Chapter 3.0 each of nine major response issues are dis-
cussed. A brief synopsis of each issue is presented along
with a relevant citation from the final or proposed DLR
(either taken from the preamble or the regulation it-
self), and management guidance or resolution of the issue.
2-2
-------
3.0 MAJOR ISSUES
-------
3.0 MAJOR ISSUES
Discussions within the DWG and among the OSWER program
offices led to the identification of nine major imple-
mentation issues for which guidance appeared necessary.
These issues are:
Waste management capacity*
CERCLA response at on-going and future actions
CERCLA response — completed actions
Compliance with notification requirements
Handling "Vertac" rule sites
Analytic Support
National Dioxin Strategy activities
Listing of other wastes streams
Handling wood treatment facilities.
These issues are reviewed in the following sections of
this chapter. Each section presents a relevant citation
from the final or proposed DLR, a synopsis of the issue,
and relevant guidance or issue resolution.
Includes issues of certification guidance, waste
management plan guidance, de-listing guidance, and the
impact of the land disposal restrictions program.
3-1
-------
3.1 Waste Management Capacity
"The Agency continues to believe that, for these
wastes, management in fully permitted facilities
is preferrable... At the same time, the Agency
is concerned about possible shortages in short-
term management capacity for these wastes... We
believe that certain types of interim storage
facilities can provide adequate management in the
short term. Other interim status facilities...
can be evaluated for compliance with the Part 264
standard... and... should not be prohibited from
managing these wastes."*
3.1.1 Synopsis of the Issue
The RCRA program is concerned with ensuring that only
qualified facilities receive the listed waste, and that
sufficient guidance is available to establish those facil-
ities that are qualified. Both the RCRA and CERCLA pro-
grams are concerned that capacity exists to handle these
wastes to allow clean-up programs to move forward. RCRA
will be performing cleanup under Closure/Post Closure
Permitting and as part of Corrective Action at Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMU). CERCLA is concerned with the
entire range of cleanup activities at Superfund sites.
These perspectives are reflected in the following list of
individual issues under the larger concern about capacity:
The need to "fast track" certification or permit
applications to handle CDD and CDF-containing
wastes and the responsibility for certification
of qualified interim status facilities
The availability of short-term options to handle
these wastes until sufficient certified or per-
mitted capacity is on-line
The ability of the Agency to encourage capacity
development
The availability of guidance on acceptable waste
management plans for permitted land disposal
facilities
See Attachments A and B for a characterization of
interim status facilities that would be allowed to
accept these wastes.
3-2
-------
The development of de-listing or downgrading
(e.g., from an acute hazardous waste to a toxic
hazardous waste) policies and procedures for the
listed wastes, especially for treatment residues*
DLR requirements allow for land disposal of the
listed wastes at fully permitted facilities;
however, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
land disposal ban evaluation may impose
restrictions on the land disposal of dioxin
wastes. This fact may discourage land disposal
facilities from seeking permits.
These issues are addressed individually below.
3.1.2 EPA Response Strategy
The following response strategies correspond to the seven
disposal capacity issues raised:
Certification - Every effort should be made by
the Regions, authorized States, and EPA Head-
quarters to accelerate processing of appli-
cations to treat, store, or dispose of dioxin-
containing wastes. This need has been reinforced
by a recent memorandum (April 10, 1985) issued by
the EPA Administrator (see Attachment C). In
addition, the OSW certification guidance seeks to
ensure that processing of applications is as
rapid as reasonable within the context of the DLR
requirements specified (i.e., meeting the tech-
nical criteria and the 60-day comment period).
The Regional offices will take the lead in
certification activities and will prepare the
package for AA/OSWER signature. The Permits
Branch, OSW, has drafted guidance for both
certification and permitting of facilities
seeking to handle the DLR listed wastes (see
Attachment D). The guidance provides for as
rapid a consideration of applications as possible
certification. Headquarters Permits Assistance
Team (PAT) team will be available to provide
assistance, and will review certification pack-
ages for national consistency. If necessary, the
Region will provide a briefing for the AA/OSWER
for final certification decision. Since the
dioxin certification for interim status incinera-
tors or alternate thermal treatment facilities
are likely to require a significant fraction of
the resources that would have to be devoted to a
full RCRA Permit, the FY 1986 RCRA Implementation
Plan reporting system will be modified to reflect
3-3
-------
credit for this effort, when a Region delivers a
formal certification recommendation to the
AA/OSWER.
Short-term Capacity - Since the final rule was
issued, the EPA has received several
certification applications for handling
dioxin-containing wastes. Even processing these
applications as rapidly as possible, it is likely
there will be no certified and/or permitted
capacity available when the DLR becomes effective
on July 15, 1985. It is expect:ed'that there may
be insufficient capacity available for some time
(i.e., only a few facilities and/or few facili-
ties that can treat soils, sludges, etc.). How-
ever, certain interim status facilities can store
dioxin wastes, so some capacity may be available
on July 15, 1985. As discussed in the section on
ongoing and future cleanup actions (Section 3.2),
lack of ultimate disposal capacity should not
discourage appropriate containment and/or on-site
storage. During the interim period therefore, a
case-by-case evaluation of contaminated sites is
recommended, applying the following guidelines:
- In cases where there is known or suspected
off-site migration of the waste and threats
to public health and the environment, con-
tainment measures should be implemented
(e.g., capping, excavation and drumming)
until such time as treatment or disposal
capacity is available.
In cases where there is no off-site migra-
tion of the waste and/or no immediate threat
to public health and the environment, it may
be permissible to cap, restrict access, or
simply monitor the site until capacity to
treat, store, or dispose of the waste is
available allowing further clean-up actions
to proceed.
Except for treatment residues from the incineration of
contaminated soils (considered toxic hazardous wastes
under the DLR), the residues of other wastes contain-
ing dioxins are still acute hazardous wastes subject
to the full DLR requirements.
3-4
-------
Considering the likelihood that waste disposal
capacity for dioxin-containing wastes will pre-
sumably be limited to a few thermal treatment
(and perhaps land disposal) facilities, it has
not been decided whether incineration as the only
permitted capacity option will be selected in all
cases, or dioxin concentration thresholds will be
set that allow for temporary storage until less
expensive, permitted remedies become available.
Recent agency policy from the Acting Assistant
Administrator of OSWER, Procedures for planning
and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions
(May 6, 1985; see Attachment E) should be
consulted.
Encouraging Capacity - There are limits on Agency
ability to actively encourage the development of
waste management capacity for dioxins. However,
there are some s-eps the Agency is taking that
aid the climate for capacity development:
developing plans for future use of EPA's mobile
incinerator for dioxins disposal; checking with
PCS incineration facilities for their interest in
dioxin disposal; developing technical guidance as
quickly as possible (especially as it pertains to
the de-listing or down-grading of treatment
residues); and establishing procedures that
accelerate consideration of certification or
permit applications. In addition, the Agency is
also pursuing several research topics that may-
have a direct or indirect impact on the capacity
issue. These include trial burns and field
demonstrations of the EPA's mobile incinerator;
demonstrations of transportable and erectable
incinerators; demonstrations of other, private
mobile incinerators and destruction technologies;
field trials of the alkali polyethylene glycol
reagent; feasibility of using abandoned mines as
repositories for dioxin wastes; and in-situ
stabilization with cementitious or asphaltic
materials; and selected field trials of special
biological methods to include the white rot
fungus, P. chrysosporium.
Waste Management Plan Guidance - OSW is revising
the waste management plan guidance and associated
background documents. In support of this effort,
ORD is currently investigating the leaching
potential of co-solvents and 2,3,7,8-TCDD and its
mobility from contaminated soils. Land Disposal
Ban Models have been completed, and will be
3-5
-------
distributed as soon as possible. Most land
disposal facilities appear to be waiting for the
completion of the land disposal ban evaluation.
Final ban decisions will be proposed by 11/85 and
finalized by 11/86.
Delisting Guidance - OSW has developed general
guidance for ae-listing petitions (Federal
Register 1/26/85). OSW has submitted for Red
Border review a proposal to downgrade residues
from incineration. Additional provisions which
would allow complete de-listing are under
consideration.
Land Disposal Ban - Land Disposal Ban Decisions
may affect wastes in addition to those containing
dioxins and furans. As a matter of general poli-
cy, OSWER has decided to process applications for
permits as they are received in the expectation
that whatever ban and/or treatment requirements
that develop later can be incorporated in these
permits. This policy will also apply to imple-
mentation of the DLR. It is unclear at this time
whether any land disposal facilities will seek
permits for dioxin disposal.
3-6
-------
3.2 CERCLA Response at On-Going and Future Actions
"...the proposed rule is slanted toward preven-
tion of. future accident?.! releases of CDDs and
CDFs to the environment... do not agree that this
rule will significantly hinder or prevent cleanup
of existing contaminated sites... major waste
that is generated at these sites... is soil con-
taminated with CDDs and CDFs... The Agency de-
veloped a strategy for dealing with dioxin which,
among other things deals with alternatives for
cleanup [including] securing the soil in place,
novel remediation technigues, incineration, and
removal of soil to a secure containment system"
"...all hazardous wastes designated under RCRA
will have an RQ [Reportable Quantity] of one
pound, until adjusted by regulation under
CERCLA... for dioxin-containing wastes... a one
pound RQ shall be assigned upon promulgation of
this rule... Therefore, if a person were to
spill one pound of any of the wastes covered
by... [this] rule, he would need to notify the
NRC [National Response Center] of the release,
unless the person determines that there is less
than an RQ of each hazardous constituent in the
waste... EPA can take response, cleanup, and
other actions below RQ levels... [There] may be
instances where EPA would need to know of
releases well below the one pound RQ level."
3.2.1 Synopsis of the Issue
Under the RCRA DLR, a removal or remedial action under
CERCLA involving the listed wastes should comply with the
waste management standards of the rule. A secondary issue
is the need to adjust the statutorily set Reportable
Quantity (RQ) for the listed wastes.
3.2.2 EPA Response Strategy
On-going and Future Removal Actions: For future and
on-going removal actions, emergency response personnel in
the Regions and authorized states need to adjust their
procedures for responding to releases to account for the
acute hazardousness of the listed wastes. Prioritizing
responses to these sites vis-a-vis other sites is, how-
ever, at the discretion of the Regions and authorized
states. Removal actions concerning a release or potential
release of the listed wastes are to follow recent guid-
ances on "CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental
3-7
-------
Statutes" and "Procedures for Planning and Implementing
Off-Site Response Actions" (Attachments F and E,
respectively).
Meanwhile, Headquarters is evaluating the appropriateness
of the statutory RQ set for acute hazardous wastes as part
of their evaluation of 250 RQs for next year's
rulemaking. However, as noted in the regulation, EPA may
respond to releases or potential releases of lower
quantities than the RQ.
On-going and Future Remedial Actions: Regions and
authorized states should make a reasonable effort to
identify, and adjust a response as appropriate to comply
with the DLR, at sites where the listed wastes are known
to be present, or if site screening information (see
Section 3.3, CERCLA Response — Completed Actions, for a
discussion of site screening information) indicate that
these wastes are likely to be present. It is believed
that information assembled for the Tier 1 and 2 National
Dioxin Strategy investigations may capture a significant
proportion of the disposal sites of interest. Due to the
specific conditions encountered at remedial response
sites, it is not feasible to set general criteria or
"action levels" for dioxin-contaminated sites. In
accordance with "CERCLA Compliance With Other
Environmental Statutes" (Attachment F) , an appropriate
adjustment will vary with the stage of the remedial
response:
If the site is in the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) stage and the remedy
has not been selected, additional sampling and
analysis may be appropriate. If the listed
wastes are detected, the FS report must include
an alternative that meets the technical
requirements of the DLR.
If the FS is complete and a Record of Decision
(ROD) has been drafted, but not signed, the
decision-maker may need to reevaluate the recom-
mended alternative if evidence indicates that the
listed wastes are present and the remedy appears
inappropriate.
If the remedy has been selected, that remedy
should be reviewed if the listed wastes will
persist on site and pose a threat to public
health and the environment.
3-8
-------
Future remedial actions sites where the listed wastes are
known or suspected to be present (based on site screening
information) should be sampled for the CDDs and CDFs of
concern. If positively identified, remedial planning
activities must include the development and evaluation of
a remedy that meets the requirements of the rule. Sites
where the listed wastes are known or suspected to be
present need not (but may) receive preferential treatment
at the discretion of the Region or State.
OERR recognizes that operational implementation of this
guidance is somewhat limited by both the availability of
certified or permitted capacity to manage the listed
wastes, and the availability of analytical methods,
standards, and laboratory capacity. Dioxin wastes will
require on-site storage at CERCLA sites until safe
disposal capacity is available. Many of these remedies
will be considered as temporary until technologies are
developed for treating or disposing of these wastes
properly. If the remedy is considered to be interim in
nature, language to that effect should be included in the
dec i s ion document.
3-9
-------
3.3 CERCLA Response — Completed Actions
3.3.1 Synopsis of the Issue
Information is needed to identify, evaluate, and where
necessary, address completed removal or remedial actions
where additional actions may be warranted. The intention,
in this regard, is to respond prudently without unduly
constraining progress with on-going and future cleanup
needs.
3.3.2 EPA Response Strategy
Removal action site screening information has been
developed that will identify candidate CERCLA sites where
the listed wastes and dioxin/furan constituents may have
been present. The Emergency Response Division (ERD) has
compiled a preliminary list of\J,2& removal actions which
merit review. The list will be distributed to the Regions
for further consideration. Project Officers will review
and revise the list based on relevant considerations and
information not available in the Removal Action Data
Base. Such information might include, for example,
whether there was an indication of PCB burning at the
site. High levels of furans are associated with improper
burning of PCBs.
Completed remedial actions which may involve the listed
wastes or constituents may be identified through review of
completed RI/FS Reports, Final Technical Reports, etc.
However, as stated previously, it is believed that
information assembled for the Tier l and 2 National Dioxin
Strategy investigations may capture a significant portion
of the disposal sites of interest. Once a candidate site
is identified, the response taken at the site should be
feevaluated for its adequacy in protecting human health
and the environment. Unfortunately, site-specific
conditions make it infeasible to set general criteria or
"action levels."
3-10
-------
3.4 Compliance With Notification Requirements
"All persons (including those who have previously
notified the Agency under Section 3010 of RCRA)
who generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose
of the wastes listed... are required to notify
EPA or a state authorized by EPA ...no later than
April 15, 1985... All existing hazardous waste
management facilities... which treat, store, or
dispose of wastes listed... and which qualify to
manage these wastes under interim status... must
file with EPA or a [authorized] State... a noti-
fication by April 15, 1985 and a Part A permit
application by July 15, 1985... Facilities which
have already qualified for interim status will
not be allowed to manage the waste listed...
after July 15, 1985 unless: (1) the regulation
allows them to handle such wastes under interim
status, (2) they file a notification... by April
15, 1985, and (3) they submit an amended Part A
permit application... by July 15, 1985."
3.4.1 Synopsis of the Issue
As indicated above, the Regions, authorized states, and/or
EPA Headquarters have received or will be receiving
notifications and Part A permit applications from
generators and other handlers of the listed wastes.
Compliance with these notification requirements must be
monitored. This will require some mechanism to detect
non-notifiers and enforcement policies and procedures to
ensure compliance.
3.4.2 EPA Response Strategy
EPA has already taken steps to reach the regulated
community with information on the requirements to be
imposed under the DLR. OSW, for example, has provided
actual notice of the RCRA DLR with applicable dates and a
copy of regulation to Vertac notifiers in an information
package sent out in the first week of April 1985. In
addition, OSW has worked through several trade associa-
tions to notify their members of the notification require-
ment. A number of EPA Regions have also elected to notify
facilities potentially subject to the listing.
The mechanism proposed to aid the Regions and states in
detecting possible non-notifiers is to distribute a list
of subject facilities compiled from a variety of sources.
OSW compiled a list of affected facilities as part of the
regulation development process. This list was derived
from a pesticide registrants (FATES) data base maintained
3-11
-------
by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS),
and is considered to include ail facilities that regis-
tered to handle these materials (i.e., pesticides). The
list needs to be updated to reflect current knowledge of
active and inactive facilities thar actually handled the
listed wastes, and improved to provide addresses and phone
numbers.
In handling non-notifiers detected from cross-comparisons
of these lisrs, OWPE advises the Regions and states to
determine whether the facility or generator was, in fact,
liable to notify. If so, the Regions or States should
consider non-notification as a case of non-compliance and
initiate an appropriate action based on the circumstances.
3.4.3 Outstanding Issues or Actions
To implement the recommended response strategy, the
following steps must be taken:
The FATES data base list developed to support the
DLR will be refined and distributed to the
Regions by August 30. Any questions regarding
this list should be directed to Gerald Kotas (FTS
382-4844).
Regions and authorized states need to pursue
appropriate enforcement actions against facil-
ities and generators who were subject to the
notification regjuirement, but did not notify by
April 15, 1985.
3-12
-------
3.5 Handling "Vertac" Rule Sites
"Therefore, when the RCRA dioxin waste rules are
effective, and the TCDD-contaminated wastes are
controlled under RCRA., their disposal will no
longer pose an unreasonable risk finding under
TSCA. Consequently, we.. revoke the TSCA rule
(Section 6a and those that require a sixty-day
notification to EPA [by] persons wishing to dis-
pose of TCDD-contaminated wastes) when the rule,
under RCRA, becomes effective."
3.5.1 Synopsis of the Issue
When the RCRA dioxin listing rule becomes effective
on July 15, 1985, previous regulations on the dis-
posal of waste material containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD*
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will be
revoked. This regulation (40 CFR Part 775), infor-
mally known as the Vertac rule, established:
A prohibition against the removal for dis-
posal of wastes containing TCDD produced
before May 12, 1980 from the Vertac Chemical
Company facility in Jacksonville, Arkansas.
A requirement that wastes containing TCDD
produced by the Vertac Chemical Company
Jacksonville facility after May 12, 1980,
had to be tested (40 CFR 775.197(c)), and if
found to have detectable levels of TCDD, had
to be disposed at facilities that complied
with the requirements of Section 761.4Kb).
A requirement that any person who disposes
of chemical substances or mixtures for com-
mercial purposes who wishes to dispose of
wastes containing TCDD had to give 60 days
prior notification of that intention to the
Assistant Administrator of EPA.
These wastes were defined as "any waste material
or waste(s) resulting from the manufacture or
processing of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol or its pesti-
cide derivatives, or any waste(s) resulting from
manufacturing processes using equipment that was
at some time used in the manufacture of
2,4,5-trichlorophenol or its pesticide
derivatives."
3-13
-------
Approximately 70 sites (including the Vertac facility)
notified EPA under the provisions of this rule. These
sites will now fall under the domain of the RCRA and
CERCLA programs with revocation of the TSCA rule. Some of
these sites are already on the CERCLA National Priorities
List (NPL).
The transition of responsibility for these sites from the
TSCA to the RCRA program must be a smooth one, yet there
are questions concerning some of the details. These
questions include:
How should these sites be assessed and charac-
terized (e.g., as storage or disposal sites)?
How should prior EPA disposal recommendations be
handled?
How should the potential for needed clean-up at
these sites be determined?
Should these sites be given priority and/or pre-
ferential treatment if they apply for RCRA
permits?
Complicating the transition task is the variety of dif-
ferent "disposal" situations among all the "Vertac" rule
sites or, in some cases, at individual sites. At the
Vertac facility itself, for example, TCDD wastes can be
found in underground cells, in drums on the land surface,
or in soils paved over with asphalt. Each of these
situations may warrant a different response.
3.5.2 EPA Response Strategy
The EPA has notified all those facilities that reported
under the Vertac rule of the requirements of the RCRA
DLR. Monitoring of active TSD facilities is the
responsibility of Regional and/or authorized State RCRA
program personnel. Prior EPA disposal recommendations for
these facilities must be evaluated on a site-specific
basis by the Regions. The Regions should determine the
adequacy of past recommendations in meeting the require-
ments of the DLR and for protecting human health and the
environment. The Regions should employ the following
guidelines in making these determinations:
Responses to "Vertac" rule sites'or parts there-
of, where the listed wastes are stored above
3-14
-------
ground (e.g., drums) should be directed at com-
pliance with all aspects of the DLR (i.e., quali-
fy under interim status, obtain a RCRA permit or
properly dispose of the waste off-site).
"Vertac" sites, or parts thereof, where the
listed wastes have been buried are to be
considered "interim disposal" sites. These
situations are to be handled on a site-specific
basis and should be highlighted for possible
corrective action orders under the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) if the facility
applies for a permit. It should be understood
that future (permanent) disposal actions may be
required.
Determining the need for clean-up activity at
these sites should be based on considerations of
relative health and environmental risks. For
example, in some cases it may be less risky to
leave paved-over contaminated soils undisturbed
as opposed to excavating these soils for off-site
or on-site treatment, storage, or disposal.
Prioritization of response activities (e.g., per-
mitting, certifying, inspecting, excavating,
capping) at "Vertac" facilities is at the discre-
tion of Regional or State program staff.
Response activities at these sites should be
weighed against other Regional and state
objectives, but should also consider public
sensitivity to the "dioxin" issue. In addition,
the Regions should be considering corrective
action orders for existing Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMU) while processing permit applications.
Headquarters staff will be available for
consultation on specific sites.
3-15
-------
3.6 Analytical Support
"This method [Method 8280] measures the concen-
tration, of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
chlorinated dibenzofurans in chemical wastes
including still bottom, filter aids, sludges,
spent carbon, and reactor residues, and in
soils... This method is recommended for use only
by analysts experienced with residue analysis and
skilled in mass spectral analytical techniques."*
3.6.1 Synopsis of the Issue
Implementation of analytical Method 8280 to support RCRA
and CERCLA activities in response to the DLR hinges upon
the resolution of two analytical issues — Method
Validation and Laboratory Capacity:
Method Validation - Method 8280 must be capable
of discerning the homologues of concern in a
variety of matrices with high levels of chemical
interferences. Single-lab validation of method
8280 was completed on May 15, 1985. Subsequent
review of the method, as well as comments
received from laboratories solicited for a
multi-lab validation, indicated the need for
further method revision, particularly for more
complex matrices. [NOTE: The method does appear
to give satisfactory detection limits for
matrices such as soils and fly ash.]
Laboratory Capacity - Implementation of the DLR
requires the availability of analytical labora-
tory capacity capable of performing Method 8280.
Many laboratories are familiar with the analysis
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD; however, fewer laboratories have
experience with the listed homologues in the
variety of waste matrices anticipated with these
analyses.
Until recently, the availability of reference standards
necessary for Method 8280 was also a major concern. At
present there are several domestic source for isotopi-
cally labeled and unlabeled standards and apparently there
are other suppliers in Europe.
See Attachment B for a copy of the original method.
Method revisions will be distributed to the Regions as
they are developed.
3-16
-------
3.6.2 EPA Response Strategy
Method Validation - OSW will implement a two-step
approach to method validation:
Step 1, Method familiarization by three
laboratories by September 16, 1985
Step 2, Method evaluation by same three
laboratories by December 31, 1985.
Laboratory Capacity - OSW has determined that
high priority, immediate needs can be met through
the few capable private laboratories that are
available. Eventually the commercial laboratory
market will respond to program needs.
The Methods Development Branch (OSW) will provide
additional information on revision to the method
in their periodic Newsletter (see Section 4.0,
Attachment G for a memorandum on Laboratory
Evaluation of Method 8280).
3-17
-------
3.7 National Dioxin Strategy Activities
3.7.1 Synopsis of the Issue
The basic objective of the National Dioxin Strategy (NDS)
is to evaluate sites where dioxin-containing wastes were
produced or disposed, and to initiate appropriate
remediation at contaminated sites. To date, however, the
NDS has generally focused on only one of the dioxin
isomers of concern — 2,3,7,8-TCDD.* Plans to sample for
other dioxin isomers have not been implemented. At issue
is whether these plans should be implemented now, in light
of the DLR, to provide for identifying sites where other
isomers may be present, and how these plans should be
implemented to obtain maximum use of NDS activities and
data. ,;,
X
Tier sites of interest that are being or have been tested
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD only include:
Tiers 1 and 2: Sites associated with the manu-
facture of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and its deriva-
tives. (These may have produced other RCRA
listed wastes as well.) EPA is currently
investigating 21 facilities in these tiers.
Tiers la and 2a: Sites that received wastes for
disposal from Tier 1 and 2 facilities. Cur-
rently, 74 sites have been identified with pre-
liminary screening at those sites scheduled for
completion by late FY85.
Tier 3: About 400-500 facilities where pestici-
dal products were formulated. Initial testing
will include 100 sites with more tested as neces-
sary depending on the initial results. Efforts
to locate waste disposal facilities associated
with Tier 3 sites have also been initiated.
Tier 6: Sites where abnormal processing condi-
tions in the production of other pesticides and
chemicals may have produced dioxins. This is a
small category, and perhaps 15-20 sites will be
sampled. Sites that received wastes from Tier 6
facilities are also being investigated.
Except for the testing of sites in the so-called
combustion source tier (Tier 4).
3-18
-------
As previously mentioned it is believed that information
from Tiers l, la, 2 and 2a will address a significant
proportion of the sites of concern to the CERCLA program
with the exception of PGP wood treaters discussed below.
3.7,2 EPA Response Strategy
EPA Regional RCRA/CERCLA program personnel are advised to
take steps necessary to utilize NDS activities and data in
their efforts to implement the RCRA DLR.
For NDS Tiers 1 and 2, particularly in the post-August
timeframe, Regions should analyze for the tetra-, penta-,
and hexa- homologues from the outset of sampling.
In cases where the Regions have already analyzed for
2,3,7,8-TCDD, they may elect to reanalyze the splits for
the tetra-, penta-, and hexa- homologues. Regions should
be able to incorporate this effort within the framework of
their existing programs; i.e., NDS data should be made
part of the normal PA/SI process.
3-19
-------
3.8 Listing of Other Waste Streams
"...EPA expects to further investigate wastes
[for listing] that are generated on contaminated
equipment previously used in the production or
manufacturing use of pentachlorophenol,...
chlorinated benzenes and PCBs,...dichlorophenol
process wastes... fly ash ana emission control
dusts from the low-temperature combustion of
chlorophenols... and presently unlisted residues
from wood preservation."
3.8.1 Synopsis of the Issue
There are other waste streams that contain or may contain
dioxin or furan constituents of concern. As yet these
waste streams are not listed and therefore, are not sub-
ject to the RCRA DLR. Pentachlorophenol (PGP) waste from
the pesticidal treatment of wood is one example (see
discussion of wood treaters below).
3.8.2 EPA Response Strategy
EPA will continue to evaluate the need to list additional
waste streams on the basis of their contamination With
dioxin and/or furan congeners of concern. A listing deci-
sion on PCP wood treatment wastes, for example, is
expected by December 1985.
In the interim, it is recommended that the CERCLA response
and enforcement programs adopt a conservative approach b-y
viewing materials containing tetra-, penta-, or
hexachlorinated dioxins or furans as acute hazardous
wastes, subject to the dioxin listing rule requirements,
regardless of whether they are listed under the DLR.
CERCLA section 104(a) grants the Agency the authority to
take such response actions. OERR and OWPE believe that
nothing is gained from a less conservative approach,
especially if the waste is subsequently listed under RCRA,
and it becomes necessary to reevaluate (i.e., spend
additional resources at) sites of completed actions. OWPE
and OERR will provide additional guidance on issues which
arise in implementing this policy.
3-20
-------
3.9 Handling Wood Treatment Facilities
"In the context of this listing, manufacturing
use means the use of the named chemical as a
reactant or chemical intermediate,... or as a
component in a formulating process. In the
present context, the term manufacturing use does
not include residues from the use of chloro-
phenoxy pesticide formulations, e.g., [the use of
PCP] in wood preservation."*
3.9 Synopsis of the Issue
PCP wood treatment wastes are generally, but not totally,
excluded from the most recent listing. Formulation
activities and discarded, unused formulations are covered
under F021 and F027, respectively. It is important to
note that "Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol" is covered by a
separate listing - KOOl (but not acutely hazardous). The
question is whether the CERCLA response and enforcement
programs should view the release or presence of PCP (or
another non-listed, dioxin-containing waste) at an active
or inactive wood treatment facility, as:
Where wastewater sludge is involved, simply a
release of PCP not subject to the DLR, in effect,
ignoring the presence of a dioxin isomer as a
constitutent
A release of a dioxin-containing waste subject to
the DLR regardless of the current status under
the rule.
These two choices have significantly different resource
implications, particularly if reports that allege wides-
pread environmental problems at wood treatment facilities
are true (e.g., 65 wood treatment facilities on or
proposed for the NPL).
Footnote 5 from the proposed listing of CDD- and
CDF-containing wastes. 48 FR 14515, April 4, 1983.
3-21
-------
3.9.2 EPA Response Strategy
OERR and OWPE concur in their opinion that the release of
a non-listed waste that contains tetra-, penta-, or
hexachlor inated dioxin or furan, such as a PCP release at
a wood treatment facility, should nonetheless oe handled
conservatively as if the waste were subject to the DLR
requirements. There is a strong feeling that nothing is
gained from a less conservative approach especially if the
waste is subsequently listed and it becomes necessary to
reevaluate completed actions. As with other dioxin sites,
however, the Region or authorized State is free to assign
the appropriate response priority to these sites.
The Agency will assist the Regions and States in
identifying these sites (both active and inactive) through
its own investigations (such as the one now underway
within the Discovery and Investigations Branch (DIB) ) or
those of the Regions or States (e.g., Oregon and
California). DIB's "Discovery Analysis - Wood Preserving
Industry" should be available (July 1985) from Regional
Super fund Branch Chiefs. The total number of active or
inactive wood treatment facilities that are contaminated
with PCP and/or dioxins/f urans is presently unclear.
Answers to this outstanding question will have the most
direct resource implications for the CERCLA program.
The RQ for PCP is being reviewed to reflect the presence
of the dioxin constituent, as part of ERD ' s annual RQ
update. The RQ for PCP is currently 10 pounds. Also left
unresolved as of this date is the issue of whether a
dripping log at a wooa treatment facility constitutes a
release as defined by CERCLA.
In conducting analyses for dioxin and furan contamination,
Method 8280 or a similar method yielding ppb detection
limits in soil should be employed.
3.9.3 Outstanding Issues
There are three issues left unresolved within the broader
question of how to handle wood treatment facilities in
light of the DLR:
Should the RQ for PCP be changed to reflect the
presence of the hexachlor inated dibenzo-p-dioxin
homologue group? , , "'
_^' /^~^.. '
Should the one pound, rRQ -provis-iort- be enforced at
these sites? ^
Is a dripping log a release under CERCLA?
These issues will be addressed in a.* forthcoming policy
statement from OWPE.
3-22
-------
' ATTACHMENT A
DIOXIN LISTING RULE SUMMARY
-------
DIOXIN LISTING RULE SUMMARY
The final dioxin listing rule, issued January 15, 1985
(Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 9), lists as acute
hazardous wastes certain chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins,
dibensofurans, and phenols (and their phenoxy
derivatives). A complete listing is given in Exhibit
A-l. When the final dioxin listing rule became effective
on July 15, 1985, duplicative listings of certain dioxins
under RCRA and TSCA (40 CFR 775) were revoked.
These acute hazardous wastes are subject to the 1 leg
small quantity generator limitation, and residues in empty
containers will be regulated. Residues from the
incineration of dioxin-contaminated soils are listed as
toxic RCRA wastes and are not as stringently controlled.
All persons who generate, transport, treat, store, or
dispose of the wastes listed in the final rule must notify
EPA or an authorized state by April 15, 1985. All
hazardous waste management facilities which treat, store,
or dispose of the listed wastes, and which qualify to
handle the listed wastes under interim status, are
required to notify by April 15, 1985 and submit a Part A
permit application by July 15, 1985. Even those sites
that have already qualified for interim status will not be
allowed to handle the listed wastes unless they, too,
qualify to handle these wastes, notify by April 15, 1985,
and submit a Part A application by July 15, 1985.
Generally, the listed wastes are to be managed at
fully permitted facilities (40 CFR Part 264). The
following criteria must be met in order to handle the
listed dioxin-containing wastes:
Tanks and containers and enclosed waste piles -
interim status facilities may handle the listed
wastes.
Land disposal facilities - landfills, waste
piles, surface impoundments, and ajucT land
treatment facilities must comply with present
Part 264 requirements and additionally provide an
acceptable waste management plan for the listed
wastes.
-------
Incinerators and thermal treatment facilities -
must comply with the Part 264 requirements and
additionally demonstrate 99.9999% (six 9's)
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for the
listed wastes or substances more difficult to
decompose. Such facilities must be "certified"
or have a RCRA permit for the listed wastes.
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
Hazardous Waste From Non-Specific Source
EPA
Hazardous
Waste No. Hazardous Waste Hazard Code
FO 20Wastes* from the production or raanu-(H~)
facturing use of tri- or tetra-
chlorophenol, or of intermediates
used to produce their derivatives.**
FO 21 Wastes* from the production or manu- (H)
facturing use of pentachlorophenol (PCP),
or of intermediates used to produce
its derivatives.
FO 22 Wastes* from the manufacturing use (H)
of tetra-, penta-, or hexachloro-
benzene under alkaline conditions.
FO 23 Wastes* from the production of mater- (H)
ials on equipment previously used
for the production or manufacturing
use of tri- and tetrachlorophenols.**
FO 26 Wastes* from the production of materials (H)
on equipment previously used for the
manufacturing of tetra-, penta-, or
hexachlorobenzene under alkaline
conditions.
FO 27 Discarded unused formulations containing (H)
tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or
discarded unused formulation derived
from these chlorophenols.***
FO 28 Residues resulting from the incineration (T)
or thermal treatment of soil contaminated
with EPA hazardous waste FO 20, FO 21,
FO 22, FO 23, FO 26, and FO 27.
* Except wastewater and spent carbon from hydrogen
chloride purification
** This listing does not include wastes from the
production of hexachlorophene from highly purified,
2,4,5-trichlorophenol.
*** This listing does not include formulations containing
hexachlorophene synthesized from pre-purified
2,4,5-trichlorophenol as the sole component.
(H) = Acute Hazardous Waste
(T) ~ Toxic Waste
-------
ATTACHMENT B
FINAL DIOXIN LISTING RULE
FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 50, No. 9
-------
1975
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9 / Monday. January 14, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFfl Parts 261,264, 265,270, and
775
tSWM-f RL 2701-3]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Dfoxin-Containing Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today amending the
regulations for hazardous waste
management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). by listing as hazardous wastes
certain wastes containing particular
chlorinated dioxins. -dibenzofurans. and
-phenols, and by specifying n nagement
standards for these wastes. These
wastes are being listed as acute
hazardous wastes. Because of this
action, we are removing several
commercial chemical products from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in 40
CFR 281.33. since these listings are
duplicative. For the same reason. EPA is
revoking the regulation concerning the
disposal of 2.3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)-contaminated wastes
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) when the regulation under
RCRA becomes effective. The effect of
this rule will be to subject these dicotin-
containing wastes to the hazardous
waste regulation* aaoed under RCRA.
DATIS: Effective date: The RCRA
hazardous waste regulation becomes
effective on July 15.1968 while the
TSCA rule concerning the disposal of
TCDD-contaminated wastes is revoked
on (uly 15.1985.
Compliance dates: All persons
(including those who have previously
notified the Agency under Section 3010
of RCRA) who generate, transport, treat.
store, or dispose of the wastes listed
today are required to notify EPA or a
State authorized by EPA to operate the
hazardous waste program of their
activities under Section 3010 no later
than April 15.1985. Notification
instructions are set forth in 45 FR12746
(February 29. I960).1
1 Under the Solid Wot* Disposal Amendments of
1980 (Pub. L 90-4U (October 21. I960)). EPA was
given the option of waiving the notification
requirement under Section 3010 of RCRA. following
revision of the Section 3001 regulation*, at the
discretion of the Administrator. In this instance, we
believe that aU persons handling or managing these
wastes need to notify the Agency because of the
extreme toxicity of these wastes. Therefor*, ail
persona, including those individuals who have
piwtouisy notified EPA that they generate or
All existing hazardous waste
management facilities (as defined in 40
CFR 270.2) which treat store, or dispose
of wastes listed in these regulations and
which qualify to manage these wastes
under interim status under Section
3005(e) of RCRA must file with EPA or a
State authorized by EPA to operate die
hazardous waste program a notification
by April 15,1985 and a Part A permit
application by July 15.1985. Facilities
which have already qualified for interim
status will not be allowed to manage die
wastes listed in these regulations after
July 15.1985 unless: (1) The regulation
allows them to handle such wastes
under interim status. (2) they file a
notification with EPA or an authorized
State by Apnl 15,1985 and (3) they
submit an amended Part A permit
application with EPA or an authorized
State by July 15,1985 (see 40 CFR
270.10(gJ).
AOOMISSU: Public Docket: The public
docket for 40 CFR Parts 261. 254. 285.
and 270 is located in Room S-212A. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460, and
is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 pjn.. Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays.
The public docket for 40 CFR Part 775
is located in Room E-107 at the same
address, and is available for viewing
during the same hours.
ran nifmtm MFOMMATION CONTACT:
RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-3346
or (202) 382-3000. For technical
information contact: Dr. Judith S. Bellin,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. D.C. 20460.
(202) 382-4787.
suptUMiMTAftv INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Summary of Regulation
III. Wastes Subject to This Regulation
A. Wastes Containing Tetra- and
Pemachioro-dibenzo-p-dioxiRS and
-dibenzofurans
B. Pentachiorophenol (PCP) Manufacturing
Wastes
1. Standards for Determining if Waste*
Ars Acute Hazardous Wastes
2. Whether Wastes From the Production
and Manufacturing Use of
Pentachiorophenol (PCP) Should Be)
Classified as Acute Hazardous Waste)
3. Toxicity of PCP as a Measure of th«
Wastes' Toxicity
4. Changing the Regulatory Status of
Discarded PCP Formulations
5. Alternative Basis for Establishing a 1
kg per Month Small Quantity Generator
(SQG) Exclusion Limit
handle other hazardous wastes, must notify EPA
that they are generating or handling the*
containing wastes.
9. Regulation of wastes from equipment
previously used in production or
manufacturing use of PCP
C Wastes generated on equipment
previously used in the production and
manufacturing use of tn- and tetra-
chlorophenols
1. Scope of the Listing
2. Practicality of the Listing
3. Economic Burden
4. Historical Documentation
D. Herachlorophene Manufacturing Waste
[V. Management Alternatives and
Requirements
A. Land Disposal and Storage of These
Wastes
1. Management of Dioxm Wastes at
Interim Status Facilities
a. Prohibitions on Management
b. Intenm status Facilities Allowed To
Manage these wastes
2. Requirement of a Waste Management
Plan
3. Prohibiting Land Disposal of These
Wastes
4. Secondary Containment at Permitted
Tank and Container Storage Facilities
3. Incineration of Dioxm-Contammated
Wastes
1. Burning at Interim Status Incinerators
2. Burning at Fuily Permitted Incinerators
a. Alternative ORE-for Dioxm-
Contanimated Wastes
b. Requirements for Conducting a Tnal
Bum for These Wastes
c. Special Notification to the Regional
Administrator
d. Periodic Compliance Tests
3. Amendments to Parts 264 and 265
C Bnramg at Intenm Status Thermal
Treatment Facilities
V. Relation of this Rule to Regulation of
TCDD-Contaminated Wastes Under the
Toxic Substances Control Act
VL Comments on Other Issues
A. Development of a Toxicity
Characteristic for Defining Dioxm-
Contammated Wastes as Hazardous
B, Discarded Unused Formulations
C Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act cleanup activities
D. Other Wastes Containing CDDs and
CDFs
E, Wastes Containing Other Halogenated
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
F. Small Quanuty Generator Comments
C. Comments on Reuse and Recycling Issue
H. Applicability of the Mixture Rule
L Comments on the Analytical Method and
the Background Document
VTL Relation of this Regulation to Those
Promulgated Under CERCLA section
102fb) (Reportable Quantities)
VTIL State Authority
IX Economic. Environmental, and Regulatory
Impacts
A. Refdacory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
XRttotaces
XL List of Subjects
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1979
I. Background
On April 4.1983. EPA proposed to
amend the regulations for hazardous
waste management under RCRA by
listing as acute hazardous wastes'
certain wastes contaming'particular
chlorinated dioxins. -dibenzofurans. and
-phenols, and by specifying certain
management standards for these wastes
(see 48 FR 14514-14529). Some of these
materials already are hazardous wastes
under 40 CFR 281.33(f). a provision
which lists discarded commercial grade.
technical grade, off-specification
products, and discarded formulations
when the toxicant is present as the sole
active ingredient Since we proposed to
list these wastes as acute hazardous
wastes, we also proposed to delete
several commercial chemical products
(i.e.. EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. U212.
U230. U231. U232. U233. and U242) from
the list of hazardous wastes contained
in 40 CFR 281.33(f) in order to avoid
listing the same waste under two
different (and inconsistent) provisions.
Finally. EPA proposed to revoke its
regulation concerning the disposal of
2.3.7.3-TCDD contaminated wastes
under TSCA when the RCRA regulation
becomes effective.
EPA requested comments on all
aspects of the proposed regulation. The
agency has evaluated these comments
and has accordingly modified the
regulations as well as the supporting
documentation. This notice finalizes the
regulation proposed on Apnl 4.1983.
and outlines EPA's response to many of
the comments received on that proposal.
(The Agency's response to the other
comments are set forth in the revised
Background Document for this listing.)
The Agency also notes that the
proposed regulation was validated by
Congress in the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). In
particular, the bill requires EPA to
finalize the "dioxm-containing
hazardous waste numbered FO20, FO21.
FO22. and FO23 (as referred to in the
proposed rule published by the
Administrator in the Federal Register on
Apnl 4.1983)" within six months of the
bills enactment (Section 222(a)). In
'The RCRA definition of acute hazardous waste
» set forth at 40 CFR 2«.ll(a)U). Under thil
definition, a material la not neceaaanly "acutely
toxic' in ihe way that turn ia used by lexicologist*.
Rather, the term ia intended by EPA to identify
waste* that are so-hazardoua that they may. either
through acute or chronic expoaure "cause, or
significantly contribute to an increase in senou*
irreversible, or incapacitating revenible tUnese"
rega*c*e*s of how they an managed Wests* with
particularly low LDSO or LCSO toxicme*. or wane*
containing substantial concentration* oC potent
carcinogen*, are the moat likely candidate* for
listing ae acute hazardoua waste* (aee 48 FR 33108-
33107. May 19. 1980);
addition. Section 201(e) of the law
requires EPA to consider prohibiting the
land disposal of the proposed listings.
(The prohibition on land disposal is
rebuttable under certain circumstances.)
II. Summary of the Regulationa
This regulation designates as RCRA
acute hazardous wastes process wastes
from the manufacturing use of tetra-,
penta-. or hexachiorobenzenes under
alkaline conditions: wastes from Che
production and manufacturing use of
tn-. tetra-. and pentachloro-phenols and
their chlorophenoxy derivatives;4 and
discarded unused formulations
containing tn-. tetra-, and
pentachlorophenols or formulations
containing compounds derived from
these chlorophenols. Also listed are
wastes that are generated in the course
of a manufacturing process performed
on equipment previously used for such
operations, except where the equipment
was used only for the manufacture or
formulation of pentachlorphenol (PCP)
or its derivatives. The wastes covered
by this rule include reactor residues, still
bottoms, bnnes. spent filter aids, spent
carbon from product purification, and
sludges from wastewater treatment, but
do not include untreated wastewater or
spent carbon from hydrogen chloride
purification.
As a consequence, these wastes will
all be subject to the l kg per month
small quantity generator exclusion limit.
See 40 CFR 281.5(e) and 281.30(d).
Residues in containers that contain
these listed wastes are also regulated
under subtitle C of RCRA. unless the
container ha« been triple-rinsed using a
solvent capable of removing the waste.
or the container has been otherwise
cleaned by a method that thas been
shown to achieve equivalent removal.
See S 281.7(b)(3)» In addition, soils
'The following acronym* and definition* an used
in thia document (and in the Background Document
for this regulation):
PCDD*««U women of all chlorinated diberuo-p-
dioxins.
PCDF»=all laomftr* of all chlorinated
dibenzofurans.
CDO* and COFswsll isomar* of the tera-. penta-
and hexacholoro-dibenzo-0-dioxinsand
-dioenzomrana. respectively.'
TCDDs and TCDFs- all isomen of the
tetrachiorodibenzc-p-dioxuu and -dibenxofurans.
respectively.
TCDD andTCDP.the respective 2.3.7.S.-iaomen.
The prefixes 0. Tr. T. Pe. and Hx denote the di-.
;n-. tetra-. penta-. and hexachlorodioxui and
-dibenzofurao congeners, respectively.
'The proposed regulation specified these
derivative* a* the chlorophenoxy actda. nten. and
amine salts, but omitted reference to ether
derivative* and other (e.g_ alkaline) sail*. Thia
inadvertent omission is rectified in the final
regulation.
1 If the container is cleaned, the container would
be considered empty and no longer subxct to
contaminated with these wastes are also
regulated since soils contaminated by
hazardous wastes spills are defined as
being in the RCRA system.
These wastes also will be subject to
special standards when land disposed.
incinerated, or stored. Since these
wastes will now be subject to regulation
under RCRA. we are also revoking the
TSCA dioxm rule.
III. Wastes Subject to This Regulation
EPA proposed to list as acute
hazardous wastes process wastes from
the manufacture of tetra-, penta-. or
hexachiorobenzenes under alkaline
conditions: wastes from the production
and manufacturing use of tri-. tetra-. or
pentachlorophenols and their
chlorophenoxy derivatives: and
discarded unused formulations
containing tri-. tetra-. and •
pentachlorophenols or formulations
containing compounds derived from
these chlorophenois. We also proposed
to list wastes resulting from the
production of materials on equipment
previously used for such operations.
This section of the preamble discusses
the comments received on the listing of
these wastes as acute hazardous
wastes, as well as our response.
.->. Wastes Containing Tetra- and
Pen tachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and
-dibenzofurans
In listing these wastes as acute
hazardous wastes. EPA relied
principally upon the presence, in
significant concentrations, of CDDs and
COFs in the wastes, and to a lesser
extent on the presence of certain
chlorophenols and chlorobenzenes. The
CDDs and CDFs are. for certain animal
species, the most potent man-made
toxicants known. These wastes also
ha<. e been associated with some of the
most serious hazardous waste damage
incidents known, including those dt
Lo% e Canal (NY), and at Times Beach
(MO).
The levels of TCDD in these wubtes
are of concern in terms of the potential
for serious harm to human health if tney
are released to water or air. either tn
soluble form or adsorbed to soil
particulates. Based on its carcmogun.t
potential, the Water Quality Criterion
for 2.3.7.8-TCDD is 10"'-10 ' ppb (U S.
EPA. 19T8b). This value is a very small
fraction (about 10' '•*) of the
concentration of TCDDs in the Un>
-------
/ Vo4 sa No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
kCQQ QOt SSflOSWrV7
chaassigs) taet pradoctMH wasa*
containing: TCDDs and TCDBs
properiy listed. We
adopting
Challenges to EPA'i cUcJataet to list
wastes generated on eqnepaMfat
previously used to prodac* wastes
contajBHBj TCDDs and TCDFs are
discussed in Section C. of this sectioa ai
the preamble.
Several- respondents, however, did
comment on EPA' 5 use of structure/
activity f*la>inn«hip« m Us decision to
list aH CDDs and CDFs as toxicants of
concern, slating thai it is not
scientifically vaiid to consider ail the
i .mm and CDFs as having the same,
toxicofogic properties, and thai then are
species-specific »»r«ptiqnj to tha>
correlations cited between, tnnr$i*mifa\
endpoints and toxkity. Several
conuneniars also suggested, *fr"* EPA's
reliance en the case- of EDFv. EPA (588
F.2d 02 (DJC. Or, 1378J). cited in partial
support for EPA's determination, is
incorrect. TT»» canuaenters. stated that
the court's determmatioa in the case of
EDFv. EPA (waich involved
poiychlanaated binhenyis) (PCBs^
allowed EPA tn infer toxiciry based on.
structure-activity relationships because
the congeneric composition of the PCS
mixture wee not kaimu. and became?
the tosc cassrscBeristBC of sH tns
congeners was not known.
EPA agrees with the commenten that
there is considerable variation in the
acute and cnromc toxiciry, as weti as in
the biocheaaeai activity of the various
CUD and CDF congeners and isomers.
We alluded to these differences in the
preamble to the proposal. See 48 FR
14515. April 4. 1983. In addition. these
differences were noted both in the
background document and in the health
and enriroomeatal effects profiles.
However, we continue to judge that
because moat of the isomers of the listed
CDDs and CDFs are very ftnric. albeit to
different degrees, and because the
Agency believes that most of these
wastes contain a certain percentage of
the most toxic fTCW!>T component it is
apprupiiale and peraieetofe' to rery. in
part, on the known sBBLftue/actitity
relationship* to estabfiag tbe potential
toxknrjr of these wastes.*
It should saw be acted that oar
Agency Boot evaluating *e >euuejiy of
the HxCDD and HxCDF conveners — the
chlorinated dioxins and -dtbeHsnfnrans
' We al*o b«litv* ih«t th* identification of
individual noaxn in th« w«tu (;,«_ i
im tte i
most prevaJeot in wastes from PCP
production end manufacturing use—
solely by lefeteuue to structural
similarity with- TCDO and TCDF. Rather.
we have made an independent
assessment of the toxiaty of the
HxCDDs. and believe that they are also
very potent carcinogen*, albeit less*
potent thaa TCDO. We are. however.
relying oa structure/activity
relationships in stating that all forms of
HxCDDs and HxCDFs are constitutenta
of concern.
3. PentachJarcpAeaol (PCP)
Manufactunog Wastes
1. Standards for Determining if Wastes
An Acutf /fttuu'ubus Wastes
dibvnzoAinn lumen.
Before chaUeagug the Agency's
substantive determinations, some
commenten argued that EPA does not
have the audtohty to resjotate the
designated wastes as acute hazardous
wastes under 40 CFR 29LJL In
particular, tnese commenten argue that
the criteria cited m the r-jjaJatinih for
listing acafee hazardous waste (see 40
CFR 2Ol.llt*)t2)) aiows EPA to dassify
as acute hazardous wastes only those
wastes which meet aH of the cnlena set
fortn, and taat the cnterkm that such a
waste be "capable of "*"*'«g or
significantly contributing to an increase
in secooa irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible kOness^' is imperausia&iy
vagua.
We befieve that the commenten have
misinterpreted the ated regulation. The
regulation (40 CFR 2£Lll(a)(2}) clearly
states that a waste is rnnnidfrirl to be
an acata aaxardoas waste if its acute
toxicity masts die criteria far acute
lethality as defined in 40 CFR
261.11(a)42). or if it can cause or
contribute to isriuua irreversible illness.
The regaiaa'aos do aot state mat an
acute hazardous waste must meet all of
the listed criteria; the conjunction "or" is
employed. As to the lack of
deflnitiveneaa of the qualitative
criterion, the regulation qootes the
statutory standard verbatim. No one has
challenged the statutory provision
(Section 1OM<5MA)) as impenmssibry
vague, nor did we recave airy comments
on this criteria during d» comment
penod following the promulganon of
§ 281.11(a)(2) on May 19.1980.
Furtfcafxaare. ia tbe presabia to that
regulattoo. EPA stated its intent to apply
this standard Is wastes "contauuns;
substantial concentrations of potent
carcinogens. . ." (See 45 fH 33107%
TCDO and saitiat MxCDOe are among
the moet'p^esa*essic8MejeBs> tested in
rodents, and are present in these txasees
in «nh«tflnti*i /-yMfryfi^f****1"** Wa
therefore beMevv di«t astther dM staatte
nor the regulations are impernisvbr*
vague, and that we have fully
articulated the reasons for our
conclusion that these wastes meet the
criterion for listing as acute hazardous
wastes.
2. Whether Wastes From the Production
and Manufacturing Use of
Pentacfalorophenol (PCP) Should Be
Classified as Acute Hazardous Wastes
EPA proposed to tist wastes from the
duction and
manufactunnsj use of
pro
PCP, discarded unnsed formulations
containing PCP. and wastes from
equipment prevtousry used for the
prodacaosi or mamtfactunnf. use of PC?
as aoita hazardous waste. Generators of
these wastes <|uasti0neiz whether the
wastes saouid be «-4»«fifi~> as acute
hazardous wastes. They argued that
these wastes do oo* contain the most
toxic dtaan or dtbezooiran congener
(2.3.7 J-TCDD or TCDFV and went on to
argue that tnadioada uaigeueia they do
contaa»— HxCDQs— are not
carcinogenic or odierwtse toxic enough
to justify taa> acute haTarrinns wasta
classificsooa. TJ>ry also maintained thai
there are BO odtar reasons to rusnfy*
listing these wastes as acute hazardous
wastes.
As already explained, wastes are
listed as acrtte hazardons waste under
the criteria for Sating contained in 4O
CFR f 2«.31(aj(2). The prmcipal basis
for Hsting the PC? wastes ai acute
hazardoas wastes a die presence of
substantial concentrations of HxCDDs
and HxCSFs. and of PCP, which has
potential chronic systemic effects.7'
While TCDCs are very rarefy found in
PCP or in wastes resulting from the
production or manufacturing use of PC?
(Buser and Bosshardt {1978} reported
0.50-0.25 pnm of an unidentified
"TCDD** isoeaer). HxCDO
concentrations range from 1-39 ppm
(USE?A. 19Ca; Miles et aL 1984). In
addition, an tiomer-specific analysis
determined that the carcinogenic
1.2.3.6^ J-HxCDD constitutes about 20-
60% of d» HxCDDs present (USE?A.
1978: Mites et aL 1984). Moreover. PCP
contains about 0.12 ppm each of TCDFs
and PeCDFs. and from 9-99 ppm of
iB«*wai
Baribi VQ c
th«M luanf* m»jr «ccorcttngiy
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. Jamiary 14. 1985- / Rales andRegaJatrona
1981
HxCDFs (USEPA. 19781 As discussed
below (Section 11L B. 3.), thew icrcia are
of regulatory concern.
Several coraraenters disputed EPA'i
determination that the two HxCDDa are
carcinogenic. They submitted an
expert's review of the bioasuy
conducted by the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) of a mixture of two
HxCDDs (Squire. 1983).' The expert
reviewer reported a lower incidence of
neoplastic nodules in female rats than
that reported by NCI (and originally
accepted by EPA). He evaluated several
of the lesions diagnosed as tumors by
NCI as non-neoplutic regenerative
nodules, but concluded that there is
"equivocal" evidence that these
HxCDDs are potential human
carcinogens.
As a result of these comments.
scientists from EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group (GAG] and the
National Toxicology Program (NTP)
have reviewed both the reviewing
expert's comments and the underlying
data (histology slides) gathered in the
original NCI study. Their re-evaluation
confirms the original conclusion that
there is sufficient evidence that the
mixture of HxCDDs studied by NCI is
carcinogenic as indicated by a
statistically significant increased
incidence of liver tumors in female rats
and in mice of both sexes (Haberman
and Bayard. 1984: Hildebrandt 1983.
McGaughy, 1984). This review led EPA
to estimate that the carcinogenic
potency of the two HxCDD isomers
ranged from 0.59 [male rat) to 11 (male
mouse) per ng/kg/day. The GAG
recommended that 8.2 per ng/ kg/ day.
denved from hepatoceilular carcinoma
and adenoma data in the male mice and
female rats (the test systems in which
the response was most strongly evident)
be used as the best estimate of the upper
limit potency estimate for HxCDD
(McGaaghy. 1984 f.
Even the lowest of these estimates.
however, makes HxCDD one of the most
potent carcinogens identified by the
Agency. For example, this mixture of
HxCDDs. although about Vtt as potent
as TCDD. is as potent a carcinogen as
Aflatoxin Bi (a well recognized potent
carcinogen), and is about a thousand
times more potent than ethyiene
dibromide (EDB).
Commenters also submitted an
epidemiologic study of the effects of
several chemical preservatives.
including PCP, on the health of
woodworkers, as evidence that no
deleterious, health effects can b«
ascribed to these chemicals (AWPI.
1983).'° EPA reviewed this study, and
notes that it has severe limitations
(Erdreich. 1983: Ris. 1983). First, a cross-
sectional study design is not a suitable
method for detecting a cancer effect.
because in such a study persons with
cancer who are currently employed are
not likely to be identified as having the
disease, in addition, other deficiencies
were pointed out. viz.. small sample
size: insufficient follow-up penod
following the onset of exposure: and
lack of exposure definition. EPA.
therefore, concludes that the submitted
epidemiological study is not adequate
for assessing the presence or absence of
a cancer risk or other health effects in
wood treaters exposed to PCP (Erdreich.
1983: Ris. 1983). In addition, reports have
been accumulating in the open literature
which indicate that workers in
occupations associated with PCP
exposure are at increased hsk of nasal
and nasopharyngeai cancer, stomach
cancer, and non-Hodgkins iymphoma
(Grufferman et al.. 1978: Bishop and
Jones. 1981: Hardeil et al.. 1982:
Gallagher and ThrelfaH, 1984). Since
these are reports of studies of
occupational exposure, it is of course
unclear whether the en'ologic agent is
PCP or its associated CDD or CDF
impurities. However, these reports
reinforce EPA's decision regarding the
capability of these wastes to cause or
contribute to serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness.
Several commenters also suggested
that the toxicity of HxCDDs at the levels
found in PCP are not of regulatory
concern. The commenters argue that
because the amount of HxCDDs which.
they estimate, is contained in the
median rat lethal dose of PCP is less
than the teratogenic lowest observed
effect level (LOEL) noted for HxCDDs.
EPA should be more concerned with the
acute toxicity of PCP than with the
chronic toxic effects of its HxCDD
contaminants. They further state that no
increased risk of oncogenicity will result
from HxCDD exposure resulting from
exposure to PCP at its NOEL for
reproductive effects.
EPA disagrees with these statements.
When we consider cancer, daily
exposure even at one hundredth of the
LDw of PCP containing IS ppm of
HxCDDs would result in exposure to 18
ng HxCDD/kg/day." Lifetime exposure
'Thii review we* eubmitted wefi afar the cloee
of the eanmtarpevMe). bo* tie Agency choM to
conetder it M pan at to reinukmf record.
"Thii review alia wu submitted well after the
close of the public comment penod. but the Agency
again chose to conuder it u pert of the rulenuking
record.
11 "lee x LDSO x IS ppm HxCOO/PCP x I/body
weight - 10-'x IZOmgPCP/kg/day x (IS x UT4
m« HxCDD/mg/PCP) x 104ng/mg - 18 ng
0.018 ng HxCDD/kg/day.
at this level could entail a potential
excess cancer risk as high as one in a
hundred. With respect to reproductive
toxicity, the Allowable Daily Intake
(ADI) is estimpted as one hundredth
(NAS. 1977) of me reproductive NOEL
or l ng HxCDD/kg/day. Someone
exposed to a dose approaching the
median LDso established in the rat (120
mg PCP/kg/day) therefore would
receive a dose 1800 >a times larger than
the ADI anticipated for the reproductive
effects of HxCDD. Therefore, the
reproductive effects of HxCDD
potentially occur at doses three orders
of magnitude lower than those at which
the lethal effects of PCP are expected.
Additionally, the levels of HxCDDs in
PCP wastes are of concern in terms of
the potential for serious harm if they are
released to water or air. either in soluble
form, or absorbed to soil participates.
Based on its carcinogenic potential, the
Water Quality Criterion for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD ha« been set as 10" • -10"7 u.g/1
(USEPA. 1984b). Since a mixture of two
HxCDDs is about 4% as potent a
carcinogen as TCDD (McGaughy. 1984).
and because the water solubility, soil
sorption characteristics, and
bioaccumuiation potential of HxCDDs
and TCDD are very similar (see
Background Document for this listing).
an appropriate estimate for a similar
criterion for HxCDDs is about 25 times
as large as that for TCDD. viz..
lO~7-10'Vg/L This value is a
minuscule fraction (10~'") of the
concentration of HxCDDs in the PCP
wastes.
We therefore conclude that the
potential toxicity of HxCDDs at the
levels found in PCP are of regulatory
concern and that these wastes contain
significant concentrations of potent
carcinogens. These wastes therefore
meet the criteria of 40 CFR 281 ll(a|(2).
justifying the listing of these wastes as
acute hazardous wastes.
3. Toxicity of PCP as a Measure of the
Wastes' Toxicity
One commenter noted that PCP
which is contaminated with
carcinogenic HxCDDs, was not
carcinogenic in several btoassays. jnd
therefore questioned the Agency j
conclusion that the two HxCDDs .ire
potential human carcinogens.
We do not believe that the PCP
btoassays are adequate to supper* a
conclusion concerning the potential
carcmogencity of PCP and HxCDO-
containing wastes. The carcmo^»r. c nsk
"ExpoeureJADI - USxlO-'mg H»U3U,.«« PCP
< 120 mg PCP/Vg/d x l(»ng/mg| / 1 m !
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 30. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
it..!
of PCP containing ppm concentrations of
HxCDD is not expected to give positive
results at the dosages used in these
bioassays. At the lowest dose used in
the HxCDD oral bioassay (1.25 ug
HxCDD/kg/day), tumorrates of 0 and
20% were noted in groups of SO female
and male Osborne Mendel rats
(USDHHS. 1980). For a dose of 0.3 ug
HxCDD/kg/day (the amount of HxCDD
contained in the highest PCP dose used
in the PCP study) a 0-5% response rate
would be expected in the same rat
strain. This rate ia far too low for
reliable detection. Moreover, the two
best PCP bioassays (USDHHS. I960 and
Schwetz. 1978) were conducted in rats of
different strains, that may differ in
response. A review of these and other
PCP bioassays also noted procedural
deficiencies, such as an inadequate
observation penod. the use of only one
animal species per test and inadequate
numbers of animals (Williams. 1982).
Therefore, we believe that these studies
do not permit a conclusion as to the
potential carcinogencity of PCP. In
addition, as outlined above, there are
several reports showing increased
cancer risk (of unknown etiology) in
occupations associated with PCP
exposure. Moreover, the fact that
HxCDDs are potential human
carcinogens of very high potency
renders them of great regulatory
concern.
We therefore conclude that because
these wastes contain the potent
carcinogen HxCDD at levels of
regulatory concern, they meet the
criteria of« CFR 281.11(a)(2). and are
properly listed as acute hazardous
wastes.
4. Changing the Regulatory Status of
Discarded PCP Formulations
Several respondents commented that
EPA does not have the authority to
regulate tetra- and pentachloraphanoi
containing wastes as acute hazardous
wastes. These persons called attention
to prior RCRA rulemaking involving
these compounds. •
More specifically, in the hazardous
waste regulations published on May 19.
1980. PCP was-listed a* an acute
hazardous waste (5 2S1.33(e)) because
the Agency was under the mistaken
impression that its oral LDSO in the rat
was less than SO rag/kg. When this error
was pointed out the Agency's
determination was rectified, and PCP
was listed as a hazardous waste under
J 261.33(0 (see 45 FR 78533. November
25.1980). However. EPA's evaluation
considered only the acute oral toxicity
of PCP. and did not consider its known
contamination with CDDS and CDFs. It
would not be in the best interests of the
public if EPA allowed a previous
determination to go unaltered when
additional data show that prior
rulemaking was in error. Thus.'the
regulatory classification of PCP was
initially rectified when data seemed to
warrant it. In the current regulation, that
status is once more changed, because
reconsideration of additional data
warrant such action.
5. Alternative Basis for Establishing a 1
kg per Month Small Quantity Generator
(SQG) Exclusion Limit
In response to the arguments that
these wastes are not acute hazardous
wastes, we note that we also have an
alternative (and independent)
justification for a small quantity
generator limitation of 1 kg per month
for these (PCP) wastes. Under
5 261.ll(c) of these regulations. EPA
may consider the criteria for listing
contained in 3 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3) of
the regulations to establish small
quantity generator limitations for
particular wastes that are lower than
1000 kg per month. EPA will do this
where "the general exclusion limits of
1000 kg per month is insufficient to
protect human health or the
environment" (See Background
Document to Section 281.11. May 19,
1980. at p. 60.) That situation is the case
for these wastes. As explained in the
preamble and the Background Document
for the proposed rule, and restated here.
these wastes contain significant
concentrations of potent carcinogens.
and high concentrations of other
compounds (HxCDFs and PCP) that are
also very toxic. These contaminants
have proven to be mobile and persistent
in the environment. There also have
been many damage incidents involving
PCP formulation wastes (see
Background Document for this listing).
For all these reasons, we believe that
these wastes could (and have) cause(d)
substantial harm to human health and
the environment when managed at
unregulated facilities, and that a 1000 kg
per month SQG limit is inappropriate fo'r
these wastes. In order to ensure that
these wastes will be managed at
Subtitle C facilities, the appropriate
exclusion limit established in the 40 CFR
Part 281 regulations is 1 kg per month.
This same reasoning applies. w>th equal
force, to the other wastes covered by
this listing. The legislative history of the
newly enacted HSWA also states
unequivocally that these wastes (i.e.. all
of the wastes covered by the April 4
proposal) are not to be excluded from
regulation by virtue of the small
quantity generator exemption. See S.
Rep. No. 98-284. 98th Cong. 2nd Sess. at
34.
We are making a conforming change
to § 261.30(d) of the regulations to
indicate that these wastes are subject to
the l kg. per month small quantity
generator limitation. (It should be noted.
however, that we read § 261.30(d) as a
provision for designating toxic as well
as acute hazardous wastes as subject to
the lower small quantity generator
limits).
6. Regulation of Wastes from Equipment
Previously Used in the Production or
. Manufacturing Use of PCP
Based on the arguments presented
above, the commenters also believe that
wastes from equipment previously used
in the production or manufacture use of
PCP should not be regulated as acute
hazardous waste. Although- we generally
disagreed with the specific points of
toxicology made by the commenters. we
nevertheless have decided not to
finalize this provision at this time. In
reviewing our data base, we determined
that, unlike wastes that are generated on
equipment previously used in the
production or manufacture use of tri-
and tetrachlorophenols or their
derivates. we have insufficient
information on the concentration of
HxCDDs and HxDCFs in wastes
generated on equipment previously used
in the production or manufacture use of
PCP to determine whether these wastes
contain HxCDDs and HxCDFs in
sufficient concentrations to be regulated
generically as acute hazardous or
hazardous waste. As a result. ESA
expects to further investigate the wastes
that are generated on previously
contaminated equipment: based on
those findings, we will take appropriate
regulatory action. In the meantime, these
wastes may still be hazardous waste if
they either exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, or if
the waste is already listed (or contains a
waste listed) in Subpart D of Part 261.
C. Wastes Generated on Equipment
Previously Used in the Production and
Manufacturing Use of Tri- and
Tetrachlorophenols
Several respondents commented on
EPA's proposal to regulate, as acute
hazardous wastes, wastes resulting from
manufacturing processes conducted on
equipment previously used to produce
tn- and tetrachlorophenols (proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F022). These
wastes were listed based on sampling
and analysis data which show that
wastes generated on equipment
previously used in the production and
manufacturng use of tri- and
tetrachlorophenols are contaminated
with CDDs even after production shifts
-------
Federal Raster /• Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. laim.ro 14
to other products: in many cases, these
toxicants have been found to remain in
the wastes years after production
shifted. In addition, there is a history of
environmental contamination resulting
from these contaminated equipment
wastes at such places as Verona.
Missouri, to justify these regulations.
Furthermore, there is precedent for
listing these wastes in that some of them
are currently regulated under 40 CFR
Part 775. a regulation issued under
Section 6 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). based on a finding
that unregulated disposal presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment
Nevertheless, a number of
commenters questioned the scope and
practicality of the regulations and
suggested several changes.
I. Scope of the Listing
(a) Several commenters felt that the
proposed definition of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. FO22 was broader than
intended by EPA, In particular, they
indicated that EPA Hazardous Waste
No. FO21 refers only to the
manufacturing use of certain
chlorobenzenes under alkaline
conditions, but does not cover the actual
production of the compounds
themselves. These commenters argue
that the proposed listing of FO22 refers
to wastes from the production of
materials on equipment previously used
for the production or manufacturing use
of materials listed under FO20 and
FO21. Thus, the commenters believe that
there is an unintended inconsistency in
the rules as proposed.
In reviewing these comments, we
agree that the proposal erroneously read
to include wastes generated on
equipment once used to produce
chlorobenzenes. Therefore, we have
modified the listing to make it clear that
the listing only applies to wastes from
equipment used previously in the
manufacturrng use of designated
chlorobenzenes (under alkaline
conditions) [See new hazardous waste
listing FO28.)
I'D) One coramenter argued that the
effect of the contaminated equipment
listing is extremely broad, and indicates
that, while it is not explicitly stated.
storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities that have ever managed these
chlorophenols and chlorobenzenes will
be deemed to be part of the "equipment"
used to manufacture these products, and
thus, be covered under this listing.
Consequently, they argue that all waste
management facilities in this category
would be shut down until full permit
status is achieved.
We disagree with the point made by
the commenter. As currently drafted.
and as discussed in the supporting
documentation, this listing applies and
is only meant to apply to equipment
used in the actual production or
manufacturing use of the appropriate
products (i.e.. reactor vessels,
distillation columns, filtration
equipment, etc.), and does not apply to
equipment used by waste management
facilities (i.e.. treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities). The existing TSCA
rule (40 CFR 77S.183(g)) is likewise so
limited. The commenter raises a valid
point, however, that needs to be
investigated to determine whether the
listing should be expanded. EPA will.
therefore, investigate the extent of
dioxm contamination in wastes (e.g..
incineration residues) generated from
waste management facilities that
previously managed these dioxin
wastes. However, until these
investigations are completed and a
decision is made, this listing will only
apply to wastes generated on equipment
used as part of the actual production
process.
It has also been argued that like the
wastes that are generated from
manufacturing operations—namely, the
production and manufacturing use of m-
and tetrachlorophenols—that have
become contaminated from past
production or use. the equipment on
which these wastes were generated (i.e..
reactor vessels, product storage tanks.
etc.) when they are taken from service
and scrapped (rather than cleaned)
should likewise be regulated under
RCRA. In fact, extensive TCDD
contamination at a scrap metal salvage
facility in Newark (N|) has been traced
to the presence of scrapped reaction
vessels which, it is thought, were once
used for the production of 2,4.5-T. Scrap
metal wipe samples, taken many years
after the equipment has been scrapped.
showed extensive contamination: 250 r.a
TCDD/m* at the surface of a large
reaction vessel in the center of a waste
pile. Soil adjacent to cut tanks contained
about 3 ppm of TCDD. and low ppb
concentrations were detected in
surrounding properties (USEPA. 1984).
Although situations such as these are of
great concern to the Agency, we have
decided not to list this equipment, even
if discarded, as hazardous (or acute
harzardous) waste at this time. EPA has
very limited information to define, on a
generic basis, all equipment which at
one time was used to produce tri- or
tetrachlorophenols as hazardous (or
acute hazardous) waste under RCRA.
However, as is the case for residues
which are generated from waste
management faculties. EPA nlans to
study the extent of environmental
contamination from thi. equipment ,f it
were discarded pnor to qmpmem lf vt
decontamination. Once these
investigations are completed, we will
take the appropriate regulatory action.
(c) One cornmenter argued that the
regulation regarding contaminated
equipment waste should be limited to
equipment used during the actual
synthetic process and the subsequent
purification procedures, since these
wastes would tend to have the highest
concentrations of CDDs and CDFs. The
commenter also suggested that EPA
should specifically exclude equipment
used for subsequent handling of
products in ways which are not
expected to generata additional CCOs or
CDFs.
We cannot agree that the listing
should be limited in this way. While it is
true that wastes generated on equipment
used in synthesis or purification are
expected to contain CDDs and CDFs in
concentrations several orders of
magnitude higher than in waste
generated on equipment used only for
formulation, (i.e.. several hundred ppm
vs. several ppm), the latter levels are
still of regulatory concern. Accordingly.
EPA has decided that all wastes that are
generated on equipment which has
become contaminated from previous
manufacturing operations must be
managed as acute hazardous wastes.
unless a deiisting petition establishes
that a particular waste is not of
regulatory concern or should not be
considered an acute hazardous waste.
2. Practicality of the Listing
Several commenters questioned 'he
reasonableness of listing as hazardous.
wastes that are generated on eq-_ prr.ent
that may. at any time in the past, have
been used in processes ^eneratirs CDDs
or CDFs. They argued that such j Noting
is not necessary since current cie irv.r.g
practices (i.e.. triple rinsing or other
equivalent cleaning methods) vull
ensure that any wastes generated from
such equipment will not be
contaminated. They, therefore, surest
that a person be allowed to make such a
demonstration. They believe th.it such a
showing could be accomplished Ky
demonstrating that the equipment has
been adequately cleaned (e g. b% vipor
phase degreasmg, solvent washi"^. etc.),
or by testing the waste to detemine if it
contains significant concerrrv r>r* of
CDDs/CDFs. (The commerce™.
however, did not indicate how »u- h a
demonstration of adequate cleaning
would be made, short of testing the
waste.) One commenter felt, m
-------
1984
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
event that after some time period during
which the equipment has been in
another use. the equipment should
automatically be considered to no longer
be contaminated with CDDs/CDFs. In
particular, they suggested a reasonable
time period would be three years, as it is
common for industry tU retain records
for this time period.
EPA agrees that persons should be
allowed to demonstrate that their waste
is no longer contaminated with CODs/
CDFs. However, we believe the only
way to make this showing is by testing
the waste and submitting an exclusion
petition (commonly referred to as
"delisting") under 40 CFR 280.20 and
280.22. These procedures have been in
use for several years, and we see no
reason to set up a special set of
procedures. There is no difference
between a petition making such a
demonstration for these wastes, and
petitions to exclude any other waste
from the hazardous waste regulations.
or petitions to change the regulatory
status of a waste from acute hazardous
to hazardous.
We do not believe, however, that a
showing of equipment cleanliness could
easily be made by evaluating the
concentration of CDDs and CDFs in
equipment nnsate. Such a showing
would be very difficult if not
impossible, to make without knowing a
great deal of detail for each equipment
train, such as its size and complexity.
and the amount of nnsate that was used.
Even knowing this information.
however, may not suffice, because of the
many factors that need to be considered
to set a standard for CDD/CDF
"cleanliness". For example, large
equipment trains are difficult to rinse.
and the concentration of CDDs and
CDFs in the nnsate would depend in
part on the amount of solvent used:
compliance would therefore be difficult
to determine.
In an effort to get additional
information on this option, however, we
requested the commenter (and several
other industrial entities) to provide the
Agency with data showing in what
manner, and to what extent adequate
decontamination of manufacturing
equipment might be achieved and
demonstrated. We did not obtain a
response. Additionally, experience
indicates that decontamination is, in
fact very difficult, even if strenuous
attempts are made (see. for instance.
Bleiberg. 1964: Goidmann. 1973;
Dalderup, 1973: Fishbein. 1982: Sambeth.
1983).
We likewise do not believe that
enough information is available to set a
time period after which wastes that are
generated on previously contaminated
equipment should be deemed non-
contaminated. Quite the opposite: recent
sampling and analysis at a facility
which used 2.4.5,-TCP almost eight years
ago showed ppb concentrations of
TCDD in still bottoms from 2.4-DCP
manufacture (where the presence of
2.3.7.8.-TCDD in such concentrations is
not expected, absent contamination
from an outside source). We also
requested further information from those
commenters who made this last point
(i.e.. set a time period after which the
waste is no longer considered to be
contaminated with CDD's/CDFs);
however, no response was-returned.
indicating a lack of information to
justify setting any time period at this
time.
3. Economic Burden
Several commenters argued that this
listing will result in economic hardship
by requinng premature discarding of
•'contaminated" equipment especially to
those who prudently cleaned and are
reusing the equipment. They believe that
such a requirement bears no
relationship to whether or not any
contaminants may be present and would
preclude the use of some very
sophisticated and expensive equipment
to establish the absence of hazards in
wastes that they claim would present no
risk.
We disagree with these comments. As
discussed above, generators who have
cleaned their equipment can show by
analysis of their wastes, and a delisting
petition, that their wastes do not contain
the toxicants of concern at levels that
are of regulatory concern. Generators
also can dispose of the wastes
generated on this equipment as acute
hazardous wastes, rather than
discarding the equipment (i.e.. nowhere
in this regulation does the Agency
require (or even suggest) that existing
production equipment must be scrapped
and discarded). In any case, a regulatory
impact analysis conducted for this
regulation (see Section IX. A. below) has
convinced us that its economic burden
will be modest The details of this
analysis are discussed in Section DC of
this preamble.
4. Historical Documentation
As part of the proposal, the Agency
also solicited comments on the
appropriate recordkeeping time periods
and types of historical records that
should be considered adequate for a
showing that equipment was not used
for processes generating CDDs/CDFs.
Several commenters suggested that
three to four years should be set as the
typical document retention period.
Otherwise, they argue, the approach will
not have much utility, since most
corporations will not have the records
necpssary to make the requisite
showing. Regarding the types of records
that should be considered adequate.
they suggest that production process
and product records would supply the
necessary information.
In requesting comments in this area.
EPA was concerned as to how a
generator could legitimately know
whether the equipment in question was
previously used in these processes If
records are kept for only three to four
years, as claimed by the commenters. a
generator could question how this
regulation could be enforced, i.e.. will
every generator be required to test their
waste to determine whether it is
contaminated with CDDs/CDFs if
records are not available?
Upon re-evaluation of this point, we
now believe this to be much less of a
problem than originally thought. More
specifically, as part of its preliminary
investigations conducted as part of the
dioxin strategy, EPA has identified most.
if not all. of the manufacturers and
formula tors of tri- and
tetrachlorophenols and their derivatives
from the list of registrants who have
notified (he Agency, under the Federal
Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentic:de
Act (FIFRA). In addition, the Agency,
through its Regional Offices, has
contacted many of these companies to
verify die Agency's information.
Therefore, we believe that those
companies who once made these
products, and who still use the
equipment, will most likely know that
this regulation applies to them. The
same is true for those who bought
equipment from companies that
produced or formulated tn- or
tetrachlorophenois (or their derivatives).
and who knew what type of equipment
they bought (i.e.. these buyers know that
this equipment is contaminated with
CDDs and CDFs. and that the resultant -
wastes are regulated under RCRA).
Therefore, the only group of persons
who may not know that the wastes they
are generating are regulated under these
dioxin rules are those who unknowingly
bought equipment used to produce or
formulate tri-or tetrachlorophenols or
their derivatives. This group of
individuals may have difficulty in
knowing that they are subject to the
regulations. However, as indicated
above, the Agency has been able to
identify most if not ail. companies that
produce or formulate these products.
Therefore, any person who suspects
that he may have equipment that is
contaminated with CDDs or CDFs
should contact EPA for further
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
1965
information. In any event, this list will
be useful for any person wishing
verification that they are generating
dioxm-contammated wastes. It should
also be noted that some of these persons
should already be aware of this
contamination, since they have been
subject to the TSCA rule since May
1980.
D. Hexachlorophene Manufacturing
Wastes
One commenter believes that EPA
had approximately excluded wastes
from the production on
Hexachiorophene (HCP) synthesized
from highly punfied 2.4.5-TCP from the
proposed FO20 listing.13 but added that.
because CDOs and COFs are not
generated in that process. HCP
production and formulation wastes
should similarly be exempted from the
proposed FO22 and FO23 hazardous
waste Ratings.
EPA agrees with the commenter that a
similar exception is warranted in cases
where such HCP is the only ingredient in
the discarded formulation. The
regulatory language has been changed to
reflect this point. It should also be
noted, however, that HCP is itself toxic.
Therefore, we anticipate listing HCP
manufactunng wastes and discarded
formulations which contain HCP as
hazardous wastes at some future date.
IV. ManagementAlternatives and
Requirements
.4. Land Disposal and Storage of These
Wastes
The Agency proposed a degree of
hazard approach for these wastes. In
light of their inherent danger and
previous poor management history, EPA
proposed that these wastes be
prohibited from being managed at most
types of interim status facilities, and
that land disposal be conducted
pursuant to additional special standards
implemented during the course of the
permit proceeding. We also requested
comment as to whether incinerators.
and tank and container storage facilities
should be subject to additional
management standards when they
manage these wastes. This section of
11 EPA ha* re-examined ill decision not to lul
these wattes a* acute hazardoiu wastes, and has
developed an engineering analyst* for this process.
(The document (whica contains Confidential
Business Information) is available in the docket for
ihu rule making.) Bated on this analysis, the
Agency believes that watte* from the production of
HCP synthesized from highly punfied 2.4.3-TCP
prepared by ine usual route could contain TCDOs.
However, sine* then an no present producers of
HCP using this rout*, the wanes from HCP
production are.not listed. Tn« Agency is aware of a
new route of synthesis for 14.5-TCP during which
no CDDs or CDFs ar« formed (CBI information).
the preamble describes the comments to
these proposals, and the Agency's
response and changes in approach made
in response to comments.
We also note that all of these wastes
are specifically identified as candidates
for being banned from land disposal in
two years under the HSWA (See RCRA
amended Section 3004{e)). Thus, the
following discussion describes an
interim regulatory regime, insofar as it
pertains to land disposal of these
wastes.
1. Management of the Oioxin Wastes at
Interim Status Facilities
a. Prohibitions on Management.
Several comments related to EPA's
decision prohibiting the management of
CDD- and CDF-containing wastes at
land disposal, incinerator, and open pile
storage interim status facilities. Several
commenters suggested that intenm
status facilities that are properly
equipped and managed (i.e., that meet
the Part 264 standards) should be
allowed to manage these wastes. Other
commenters suggested that the proposed
rules should be changed to allow the
incineration of dioxin wastes in intenm
status incinerators that have approval.
under TSCA. to burn PCBs. This
suggestion was put forth since the
process of gaining fully permitted status
under RCRA would take some time. The
commenters. therefore, fear that the
requirement in the.proposed rule would
lead to a shortage of available
management capacity.
The Agency continues to believe that.
for these wastes, management in fully
permitted facilities is preferable due to
the extreme toxicity of these wastes, the
persistence of the toxicants of concern.
and the wastes' mismanagement
history.14 At the same time, the Agency
is concerned about possible shortages in
short-term management capacity for
these wastes. We thus reject the
suggestion that these wastes should be
prohibited from all intenm status
facilities. We believe that certain types
of intenm status storage facilities can
provide adequate management in the
short term. Other interim status
facilities, we think, can be evaluated for
compliance with the Part 284 standards
without undue administrative
complication, and so also should not be
prohibited from managing these wastes.
We do not believe, however, that
interim status land disposal facilities
should be allowed to manage these
wastes. (There is one exception, for
mtenm status impoundments in which
these wastes are generated.) Not oniv
are the intenm status standards
insufficient to prevent an unreasonable
nsk (see-JO FR 32882), but it is very
difficult to evaluate these facilities for
compliance with the Part 284 standards
in the absence of a permit proceeding.
because, under today's rule. land
disposal facilities must seek approval of
d waste management plan.
The only interim status facilities that
may accept these wastes are: (a)
Impoundments holding wastewater
treatment sludges that are created in
those impoundments as part of the
plant's wastewater treatment system.
(b) waste piles that meet the
requirements of 3 284.250(c) (referred to
in this preamble as "enclosed waste
piles"), (c) tanks, (d) containers, (e)
incinerators if certified, and (f) thermal
treatment units subject to regulation
under Subpart P of Part 265. if certified.
(See next Section for more detailed
discussion.) However, we believe it
appropriate to discuss here the
management of sludges in
impoundments in which the waste was
created.
For surface impoundments, the
Agency has determined that this is a
situation when a distinction between
new and existing facilities may
permissibly be drawn. (See RCRA
Section 3004 and 48 FR 14519). If the
Agency were to ban all intenm status
impoundments from managing these
wastes, facilities generating wastewater
treatment sludges in impoundments
would have to build and receive a
permit for new capacity before they
could legally manage these wastes. As a
practical matter, this would require
halting the manufacturing process for
some undetermined penod of time. The
short-term management of these sludges
in interim status impoundments could be
protective, since the CDDs and CDFs
will adsorb to the sludges, and other
mobilizing organics will be present in
these wastes at low concentrations due
to dilution and biological treatment
(USEPA. 1982)." It should also be noted
that these facilities also must obtain a
Part 284 permit (which includes
compliance with the waste management
plan), so that management at these
impoundments will be upgraded as part
of the permitting process. This could
'We are. however, allowing the residue resulting
from the incineration or thermal treatment of
dioxin-contammated soil to 30 to mtenm status
facilities. S«e Section Vl.w 'or discussion.
'One facility, that used to produce PCP
estimated that process wistewuter couid cjnum
various chlorophenols at <1QO to > lOOO ppm
However, these data are estimate* jubmnted to the
Agency, and were not verified by sampling and
analyst*. 3ec*u*e they differ greatly from sampling
data at other facilities, they are iwiged 10 b* too
unreliable for use in the present content.
-------
Fedatat. Eeysiar /' Vol. 50. No. » / Monday. laanary ^4. 1985 / Ruiea and Regulations
1 !
resait. {at example, in. & caqtoranent
that the uaaettadaentnai be allowed, to
receive the. wests*, unless ii is- fined. i£
the permit writes concludes. tfMt there, is
potential foi leaching fr«a lfe»'
impoundment. [See. text al EM 2G below.)
Thus, intarrm. UalUS impmnufmitttt* in.
which these wastes, are generated might
not be able to continue receiving these
wastes indefinitely. In, additions, under
the new regulation, within, four years
these impoundments must be upgraded
to meet tfte technical permitting
standards for new surface
impoundments (subject to certain
enumerated exceptions]. See RCRA
amended Section 300501- (Tnese
impoundments, however, will not be
immediately prohibited from receiving
these wastes as a result of this rule.) In
light of aff of these ciicamstancesv we
have decided to allow surface
impoundments in which wastewater
treatment stodge* an generated to
continue to manage these sludges.
The suggestion, dial land disposal
facilities woickmeet the requirements.
for fully permitted facilities he. allowed
to handle these, wastes is reasonable
only in theory. Toe evaluation process-
presently needed to ascertain whether a
facility meed £&» requirements of Part
254 woufrf need! to be thorough, and EPA
judged that in terms, of necessary
documentation and pubMc participation.
the process, of ensuring this fact would
be equivalent (or virtually equivalentJ to
the evaluation needed for issuing a Part
284 permit This is puticuiazfy true for
preparing and1 evaluating the waste
management pfaa. Tm's plan must be
discussed with the permit writer, there
is no way a facility can be evaluated, in
advance to determine if they meet this
standard. EPA tnua believes that there is
no reason for either applicants or EPA to
go through the permitting process twice.
We generally agree that allowing'
these waste* to. be disposed of only at
fully permitted1 faciSfle* (except aa
discussed below) wflL in the short term.
lead to a shortage of fadSBea able to
handle these wastes. Tola problem will
be alleviated; a* is- me COM at praseoi.
by the possibility ofstocsgw ia tanks*
containers, or enclosed waste piles, at
interim status faciOtfes. Such storage
wilT not in the snort ferm be hannfui to
human health or me environment, and
will reduce t&ryressure to permit a
facility to handle these wastes
immediately without a full erafaanoir of
the facility's* performance. Lireiiia status
incinerators, will also be allowed to bum
these 'neatM ii tbey caa demastetiatai
complisBK* mib d»» perfennenee
standards Sir ftriFr gennittetf
ftifffna tfaffmirKnn unit
removal oi principal organic hazardous
constituents, ia that waste). Ultawiae.
interim status, thermal treatment units-
can also be approved to handle these.
wastes.'* The Agency also may issue
emergency permits (see 4OCFR 270.81)
to facilities to store these wastes ia
situations where there is no othet
realistically available management
capacity. For example, if aa
management capacity is available
following a dioxin. waste clean- up, aa
emergency permit could be issued to a
facility if the alternative is to leave the
wastes' in place in an (insecure setting.
B. Interim Status Facilities Allowed To
Manage Thesr Waster
Two persons- commented on EPA'*
proposal to. allow interim, status
facilities to handle these wastes. One ol
them stated that the Agency should, at a
minimum, require submission, oi a Part E
application; a demonstratioiv witii
respect to surface 'n?p*innflm«nti. thaX
the waste* will not migrates and
notificatioa to the Regional
Administrator on *h» pact of intBrigv
status facilities handing sucjt wastes.1'
The commanter further stated tkat
management in unlined, impoundments
should not be allowed. In View of the-
fact that we will require a waste
management plan, foe rufly permitted
land disposal facilities, one commenter
also questioned how EPA can allow
interim, status land disposal facilities to
handle these wastes.'
As discussed above. EPA agrees that
for these wastes, management at fully
permitted facilities is preferable.
However, aa outlined above, pragmatic
as well as environmental considerations
motivate the Agency to allow interim
status facilities to manage some of these
wastes for aa aitarim. period under some
conditions.
In the case of surface impoundments
in which- toe wastewater treatment
sludges an generated, we have
determined' Chaf tfte manufacturing
facilities now generating the listed:
wastewater treatment sludges would
probably have to dose down until they
"The Agtncx mult provide. toiu (eg?) m««n§ of
hindilnf tfte** annnej* wtalt dixpOMi c»p«city If
m«d» evaifeM* tteq«$fc (he> penmtrfnj profit*.
" At alrudr UdKUad. ait pmaBvae traunCm.
triiupafk MwKKam. a* dupqw »f thw* CHOI-
CDFtid WMIU v* nqtundbto nonfy
EPA of tfl«lr icttnttw oodir Sicflaa 3TOT of KQM.
It shouJd b» nowd dMt tti» »nly micMd H5WA
c««a« Ktoumy dgvt&nm tat fabaawuM at ftri 9
applicauau by Uciiui«* havmf lataoa twm*. &••
newly mended S*cttaa3Qa3(<)-Utuia»iitt lututa.
Und disporal faalitiM mu*( lubnuf ippllaflani by
November «. 198S. incineraton mu»( luhmil
appiicatua»hy Nn»«mh«r n laftn inri lU Thrt
iin muti lubait "^'^'""Tt by N-n— imh^i ft>
1988. A. fauUcy wbica Cui* eo-oMt DMM d*«dJiMB
will, under itaatuiiuu.UMaumnai.Matu*.
can obtain permita for their
impoundments or build alternative
treatment facilities. (See 4d FR at 14519. >
In addition, and as described above.
allowing these interim status surface-
impoundments to store or treat these
wastewater treatment sludges should
present a limited risk, in the short-term
due to the reduced potential of the COOs
and CDFs to migrate into the
environment. These impoundments.
however, must obtain a Part 284 permit
which will include whatever
requirements are imposed by the waste
management plan,
EPA also Judges that interim status
tank and container storage facilities
provide adequate short term-
management of these wastes. Although
not providing maximum protection, they
do provide control ofthese wastes to
prevent them from posing a substantial
environmental hazard or an
unreasonable-risk in the interim: tanks
or containers1 at interim status facilities
that will accept these wastes must meet
most of the reqnirements required for
fully permitted1 tank and- container
facilities: See. e-gi. Jf 285.171. 285.173.
and 2833.74 (containment, management
and inspection of containers) and
§5 28S.I92 and 285.194 (containment and
inspection of tanks}.
In addition, tfte Agency judged that
storage in interim status enclosed waste
piles also represents a minimal and
acceptable risk. By "enclosed waste
pile" we mean a pile that meets the
requirements of § 284.250(c)—namely.
that the pile is inside a structure that
provides protection from run-on.
precipitation-, and wind disperal. does
not generate ieachate. and does not
contain free-liquids. This regulation
allows enclosed waste piles to accepf
these wastes without first obtaining a
permit because enclosure of this 'ype
will guard in the short-term against the
exposure pathways of concern f run-off.
wind dispersal, and leaching). Allowing
this type of interim status facility to
accept these wastes should help provide
necessary management capacity until
disposal facilities receive permits to
manage these waster.
The Agency also believes that interim
status incinerators that are evaluated by
EPA to-determine whether they can
meet the performance standards Tor
these wastes contained ia f 264.343 will
provide adequate protection to human
health1 and the environment fse»? ^i-rton
IV. B. 2. far detailed discussion on '*•«
use of interim, status incinerator* to burn
these dioxin wastes). Similar
considerations1 justify allowmg interim
status thermal treatment units aubtect !o
regulation, under Subpart P of Pin JBA to
-------
receive these wastes. (Examples are
pyrolysis units not designed as
incinerators.) These units will be
evaluated the same way as interim
status incinerators, and. thus, must be
certified as meeting the applicable
performance standards in I 264.343
(including the 99.9999% ORE for POHC's
in the waste). Procedures for obtaining
certification likewise will be the same
as for intenm status incinerators.
Another reason for allowing these
interim status thermal treatment
facilities to receive these wastes is that
there are presently no Part 284 permit
standards for these facilities. A
prohibition on intenm status facilities
consequently, would prohibit these
facilities from receiving these wastes at
all. This result is unwarranted since a
means exists to evaluate their
compliance with the most important
environmental standard, and these
facilities may prove to be one of the
optimal means of managing these
wastes. Managing these wastes at these
types of interim status facilities is
therefore judged to present minimal
risks until final permits are issued.
Several commenters stated that
intenm status facilities should be
allowed to handle wastes containing
PGP. since these wastes do not contain
TCDD. other CDDs do not pose
substantial risks of chronic or acute
toxjcity, and there is no history of
mismanagement of these wastes.
We generally agree that wastes
derived from the production or
manufacturing use of PCP are unlikely to
contain 2.3.7,8-TCDD or other TCDDs or
TCDFs at levels of concern. These
wastes, however, are likely to contain
high concentrations of HxCDDs and
HxCDFs—the PCP'in these wastes is
contaminated with these potent
carcinogens. While we agree that these
congeners are less toxic than 2.3,7,8-
TCDD, we believe them to be
sufficiently toxic to warrent the
designation of wastes containing these
substances as acute hazardous wastes.
(The reasons for this determination were
outlined earlier in this preamble.)
In addition^there is a substantial
history of mismanagement of wastes
(including spilled or abandoned
formulations) resulting from the use of
PCP in wood treatment processes. These
wastes, or very similar wastes, have
been mismanged repeatedly, causing
very senous damage incidents. There
have been many actions under RCRA
and CERCLA involving wood treatment
facilities using PCP solutions and wood
preservation wastes: in addition, there
are 22 damage incidents involving these
chemicals at sites on the National
L£ f°r Action»
. These mismanagement
incidents (outlined in the revised
Background Document for this listing)
include discharge of process wastes into
off-site drainage ditches, storage (in
most cases for many years) of such
wastes in impoundments which were
improperly sited, improper storage of
treatment solutions in leaky tanks and
containers, etc. These mismanagement
incidents resulted in PCP contamination
of soil, surface water, and ground water
in several instances, this contamination
was at very high levels. In one instance.
the soil of a residential area surrounding
a wood treating facility that
mismanaged these wastes was analyzed
for HxCDDs and HxCDFs. In four
samples, HxCOOs ranged from 1.5 to 12
(average. 4) ppb, while HxCDFs were
present at 1.7 to 21 (average 9.5) ppb.
The clean up of these contaminated
sites can be quite costly.
Because these wastes are very toxic,
because the toxic components of the
waste are mobile, persistent and
(particularly the HxCDDs and HxCDFs)
will bioaccumulate. and because of their
history of mismanagement. EPA judges
that they must be managed at fully
permitted facilities when land disposed.
incinerated (except as already
discussed), or stored in open piles.
2. Requirement of a Waste Management
Plan
Several respondents commented on
EPA's proposal to require a waste
management plan to specify additional
requirements for land disposal facilities
intending to manage these wastes. Most
agreed that such a requirement is
desirable. (In fact one commenter
stated that a waste management plan
should be required for all management
options for these wastes.) However.
several respondents stated that a waste
management plan would not be
adequate to ensure proper handling of
these wastes. Still others stated that
intenm status facilities which meet the
Part 264 requirements should be allowed
to submit such a plan (and thus be able
to handle these wastes) before receiving
a final permit.
After reviewing these comments, the
Agency still believes that a waste
management plan will help provide
assurance, as far as is practically
possible, that these wastes are properly
managed in a land disposal situation.
The waste management plan will be the
interim vehicle for assuring
individualized consideration that the
wastes will be managed safely. The plan
must be submitted by the owner or
operator of the facility as part of the
permit application."Therefore, it will be
considered in the normal course of the
permitting process, so that no special
fc-PA review procedures are required
ad,.,t
address the factors mentioned at
proposal (see 48 FR at 14520) including
waste volume, concentrations of CQOs
and CDFs m the waste, aerosol/
paniculate dispersion, volatilization of
the toxicants of concern, soil
attenuation properties, waste leaching
potential, and anticipated solvent co-
disposaL To assist the owner or
operator in preparing this document.
EPA will provide detailed guidance for
the presentation of a waste management
plan. This document will discuss the
physiochemical properties of the waste
constituents, and the specific factors to
be addressed for disposal of these
wastes at each type of land disposal
facility (i.e., land treatment units,
surface impoundments, open waste
piles, and landfills). The document will
explain (1) how the existing Part 264
standards should and can be
implemented for these wastes where
specific guidance is appropriate (i.e.
wind dispersal, liner compatibility) and.-
(2) what new requirements should be
imposed for such wastes [e.g. soil types.
co-disposal, etc.).
More specifically, this guidance
document will address a number of
areas where existing regulations already
provide adequate control. However, due
to the extreme toxicity of the toxicants
in these wastes, further guidance is
provided to the permit writer and the
owner or operator of the land disposal
facility on how the existing regulations
can be applied to these wastes. For
example, the existing management
standards under Part 264 are adequate
to prevent the dispersion of the CDDs
and CDFs by wind dispersal. See
5 3 264.221, 264.250. 284.273. and 264.301.
However, because of the toxiciry of the
CDDs and CDFs, the waste management
guidance document will provide specific
management techniques for controlling
this exposure pathway [i.e.. immediate
cover of wastes when-placed in landfills
and open waste piles, air monitoring to
ensure compliance with this provision.
etc.). In addition, the existing regulations
already address liner compatibility. See
51 264.221. 264.251. 264.301. and 264.302.
However, the waste management
guidance document includes a
•Section* 270.17. 270.18. 270 20. and 2ro :i ji the
hazardous watte regulations nave also been
amended to include the specific Part 9 information
requirement* concerning the watte management
pian that muat be included in the permit appuca: an
for surface impoundment*, non-enclosed wave
piles. land treatment unit*, and landfills.
-------
Federal Rayatat / Vol. 5« oottrf t*«* tint yudaac* docsmmt
may alio b» appropriate far txhtr haantoti* wu««
that contain similar hazardou* constituents (i e..
chlorophenofsh
"As already dtKusMdi we will iBow »Jadge»
thai arc generated in inttnm itatu* surface
impoundments (even if uniinedl u pan of the
plant's wasrtwattr treatment system to manage
these waste*. Thes* impoundment* are sublet to
all Part 254 standard!, however. TTius. the permtf
wntw wi9adUmt whetfter it u apocopnsri for
unlined unpcandmsna ro conflnue ro recaive theie
waste*.
thermal treatment units, tanks,
containers, or enclosed wast* piles ta
submit a waste management plan. Foi
incinerators, the requirement (see
below} of a trial bum showing 99.9999%
(six 9s} destruction and removal
efficency (DREJ ia adequate protection
for proper incineration of these wastes.
The same is also true for thermal
treatment facilities. The regulatory
requirements for tank, container, and *
enclosed waste pila storage facilities
likewise provide the Agency with
sufficient information to evaluate the
storage facility's ability to contain these
wastes, and the additional requirement
for secondary containment for such
facilities (see Section IV. A.4, below}
provides further protection.
We also do nor agree with the
suggestion that interim status facilities
be allowed to submit a waste
management plan and manage these
wastes. (See. also. Section IV. A. t.
above rejecting the suggestion that
interim status facilities meeting the
requirements of fully-permitted facilities-
be allowed to accept these wastes.} We
have determined that interim status
facilities, in general, should not be
allowed to manage these wastes, In fact.
where management ar interim status
facilities is allowed. EPA expects to
issue permits quickly, in order to limit
the interira status period. Therefore, the
Agency will not allow interim status
facilities that have submitted a wasta
management plan to manage these
wastes.
3. Prohibiting Land Disposal of These
Wastes
Several covmenters suggested .that
land disposal oi these wastes should be
prohibited except "in exceptional
circumstances*." One person, however.
felt that a better approach would be to
develop * "levei of concern' (LOG}
above which all dioxin-contaming
wastes should be prohibited from land
disposal: however, the commeater did
not specify what such a lerei should be.
The recently enacted legislation gives
the Agency two years to determine
whether these wastes should be banned
from some or all types, of land disposal.
except for underground injection in
whicn the Agency has 45 months to
make such, a decision, and the
cicumstances under which they should
be banned. The Agency has recently
initiated a program, to explore whether
certain hazardous wastes, should be
restricted from, some or all types of land
disposal, what the nature of the
restrictions should be. and what
treatment and recycling alternatives
exist for such, wastes. CDD/ CDF-
containing wastes ace currently being
examined under this program for
possible restriction. For more details on
this program, see the Advance Notice o£
Proposed Rulemaking published oa
February IS. 1984. at 49 FR 5854. In
addition, as discussed in the April 4
proposal for this regulation (48 FR
14521). EPA is considering developing
special management standards for
CDD/ODF-contaminated wastes in
addition to the special standards
required by today's rule, it is possible
that our investigations may enable us to
define concentration limits within which
land disposal should be prohibited.
However, until these studies are
completed, we believe it inappropriate
to make any deosion with respect to
prohibiting these wastes from land
disposal.
4. Secondary Containment at Permitted
Tank and1 Container Storage Facilities
EPA solicited comments as to whether
secondary containment for tanks that
store or treat CDD- and CDF-
contaminated wastes should be required
as part oi their permit. (Interim status
facilities would not be sublet to this
requirement.). As justification, we cited
the wastes' toxicity as weil as long
storage periods, and described
mismanagement incidents involving
both containers and in-ground and
above-ground tank a. Some commenters
disagreed with, such a requirement and
argued categorically that secondary
containment requirements at such
facilities are not warranted. However.
many other commenters argued just as
strongly that secondary containment
requirements are needed, and ursed
their adoption.
We have decided that secondary
containment should be required as a
permit requirement for all tanks T.-I
treat or store these wastes present:/
subject to the existing tank design and
operating standards in 40 CFR Part :&*.
Subpart |. namely above-ground and in-
ground tanks, and all underground unks
that can be entered for inspection, it is
the Agency s-intent to guard against tne
risks posed by storing or treating :r.rse
wastes in all types of tanks, im.luuuig
covered underground tanks that c..rmui
be entered for Inspection. Howewr this
latter type of tank is not preset-.::>
subject to the Part2&4 Subpart 1
requirements (see i 264.190ibi) ^no. a*
such, cannot receive a permit to Lrtai or
store these wastes. In addition. ;r.« ...*«
of secondary containment at suc.i
facilities, was not explicitly aijco»*rxl in
the April 4.1983 proposal Therpfur*. we
believe we must first solicit public
comment on our inteat to requir*
secondary containment at covered
-------
T
Federal Register / Voi. 50. No. 9 / Monday, fanuary 14. 1985 / Rales and Regulations
1989
underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection that handle CDD-
and CDF-contaminated waste*. We
intend to address this issue in'
forthcoming regulation* dealing
comprehensively with management
standards for tanks.
We believe that the secondary
containment requirement for the storage
or treatment of these wastes in tanks is
justified based on the following three
considerations: (1) When released into
the environment, it is well-documented
that these extremely toxic wastes
present a substantial hazard to human
health or the environment: (2) these
wastes may be stored for a long time
before a disposal or incineration facility
is found that is willing or able to accept
them (for example, the same wastes at
the Vertac facility have now been stored
on-site for nearly ten years); and (3)
EPA's experience indicates that these
wastes are particularly difficult and
expensive to cleanup, when spilled, and
therefore warrant the additional
protection afforded by secondary
containment.
For the same reasons cited above, we
believe that secondary containment
should be part of the permit
requirements for all facilities that store
COD- and CDF-containing wastes that
are not free liquids in containers. (EPA
specifically solicited comments on this
approach in the proposal, but
commenters did not reach a consensus
on this issue. Some commenters
supported it while others opposed this
aspect of ihe proposal.} Accordingly, all
the present requirements for secondary
containment will apply to container
storage facilities, except for the waiver
provision in 5 284J.75(cJ. This waiver
allows an exemption from the secondary
containment requirements for non-Uqtad
wastes, an exceptxm which we believe
should not apply to container facilities
storing CDDV CDF-contaminated waste*.
Rather, we have concluded that all
possible releases of these wastes to air.
ground water, and sacsaae water from
such facilities must be prevented.
Therefore, a waiver of secondary
containment requirements for containers
will aot be allowed. A container storage
area must have a base which is
sufficiently impervious and continuous
to prevent spill* or leaks of these non-
liquid wastes into the environment
With respect to tanks, we have
chosen to implement the secondary
containment requirement through a
general performance standard.
Therefore, the rule does not specify the
types of designs Cor the containment
system, but rather requires the owner or
operator to choose a design and propose
it in the RCRA permit application for
EPA review. Under new § 284.200(a).
facilities seeking permits for tanks that
store or treat these wastes must have a
system designed and operated to detect
and adequately contain spills or leaks
from the tanks. The design of acceptable
containment and detection systems can
vary considerably according to the type
of tank and other factors, as discussed
below.
An example of a containment system
that might be acceptable for a tank
situated above-ground is one with an
impervious base (such as concrete, or a
synthetic liner) underlying the tank, and
walls or dikes around the tanks that
provide containment for at least 100% of
the design capacity of the largest tank in
the containment area. This is to prevent
release of CDD- and CDF-contaminated
wastes into the environment from the
tank in the event of a complete
(worstcase) tank failure. The Agency
does not believe that the regulations
need protect against the extremely
remote possibility of simultaneous
multiple tank failures in one
containment area. Each containment
system must also have a method of
mechanical or visual detection that will
identify leaks of CDD- and CDF-
contammated wastes from the bottom of
the tank.
An example of a containment system
that might be acceptable for an in-
ground tank is one with a synthetic-type
liner underlying the tank, or a liner
placed inside the tank so that the tank
itself provides the secondary
containment. In either configuration, the
containment system must be compatible
with tie wastes being stored, and must
be installed and have sufficient strength
and thickness so as to prevent failure
due to abrasion, pressure gradients, or
climatic conditions. A method to detect
any leaks between the primary and
secondary containment system must
also be provided.
An example of a containment system
that might be acceptable for
underground tanka that can be entered
for inspection is a vault structure
constructed of material impervious to
the wastes being stored in the tank or
simply compatible with the wastes and
lined or coated with an impervious
material This type of containment
system must also have a method to
detect any leaks from the tank.
As a general alternative to these
examples of containment systems.
double walled tanks equipped with an
interstitial zone monitoring device to
detect leaks that enter the space
between the walls would also be
considered acceptable for meeting the
new standard prescribed in §264.200(a).
Today's rule requires tank facilities
storing or treating CDD- and CDF-
contaming wastes to provide EPA with
information in its permit application
specifying: The precise design of the
secondary containment system and its
accompanying leak detection method:
the choice of construction material and
specifications: and whether additional
run-on or precipitation controls are
needed to preserve the system's
integrity. These new technical
information requirements are specified
in new } 270.16(g) and must be
addressed by each individual facility in
its RCRA permit application. This
information wul be evaluated by EPA
before a permit is issued.
With the addition of today's
secondary containment requirements.
we have also decided it is necessary to
require tank facilities storing CDD /CDF-
containing wastes to address in the
facility contingency plan the steps to be
taken should a leak be detected. When a
leak is detected, the owner or operator
must act promptly to prevent release of
the hazardous waste into the
environment and wastes most be
removed from the secondary
containment system as soon as possible.
The plan also needs to specify how the
tank wril be removed from service and
repaired, if there ia a leak and
containment is breached. These new
steps are provided in revised
§ 264.194(c} and build upon the
procedures that already must be
specified in the contingency plan under
existing } Z84.194(c%
It should be noted that today's action
should not be viewed as a determination
by EPA that secondary containment
requirements are only appropriate for
tank* that store or treat CDD- and CDF-
containing waste*. EPA is presently
considering whether to require
secondary containment for hazardous
waste storage and treatment tanks.
including tanks that have not yet been
permitted and that are presently
covered under the existing Part 263
interim status standards. In addition, we
are also considering whether to propose
several more requirements that w«
believe are needed to more adequately
control the risks posed by all hazardous
waste storage and treatment tanks.
including those that store or treat CDD-
and CDF-containing wastes. For
example. EPA is presently evaluating
the need for a secondary containment
system at all hazardous waste tanks
that would provide containment of more
than just leaks in the tank's shell.
Possible hazardous waste discharges to
-------
1990 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
the environment that EPA believes may
also warrant secondary containment
include leaks from nearby tank ancillary
equipment (e.g., valves, pump*, and
flanges in close proximity to the tank)
and spills of hazardous waste in the
area immediately surrounding the tank
from overflows of the top of the tank or
from tank in-filling practices (both
caused by equipment failure or operator
error). An example of another
requirement presently being considered
by the Agency it secondary containment
for all generators storing or treating
hazardous waste in tanks or containers
for less than 90 days without a RCRA
permit under } 262.34. The Agency
believes that leaks and spills at such
facilities an no less prevaJent than at
other RCRA tank facilities and therefore
may warrant similar secondary
confinement requirements.
B. Incineration of Dioxin-Contanunated
Wastes
1. Burning at Interim Status Incinerators
As discussed in the April 4.1983
proposed rule. EPA does not believe that
current regulatory controls on interim
status incinerators are sufficient to limit
the risks associated with dioxins.
Interim status incinerators are not
required to meet the performance
standards for destruction and removal
efficiency. HCI removal, and participate
emissions that are necessary to prevent
an unacceptable level of nsk from
burning these wastes. In addition, they
are not subject to the rigorous scrutiny
of operating and management
procedures that result from the RCRA
permit review process. Thus, the finaJ
regulations prohibit combustion of these
wastes in incinerators that have only
interim status.
We have decided, however, to allow
interim status incinerators to burn these
wastes without first obtaining a RCRA
permit if they are certified by the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response as satisfying
the performance standards in Subpart O
of Part 284 for RCRA incinerators
burning these wastes." In addition.
there must be an opportunity for public
comment on EPA's determination before
the determination becomes final.
We are allowing this exception
because we think incinerators meeting
these conditions are virtually as
protective as those receiving Part 284
permits.12 and to provide additional
incineration capacity for these wastes
until there are more fully-permuted
RCRA incinerators. Interim status
incinerators that have been approved
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) to bum polychlonnated
biphenyls (PCBs) are a type of
incinerator that may wish to apply for
certification. As pointed out by
commenters. PCS incinerators are a
logical choice to burn these wastes
without first receiving a RCRA permit
because they are required to meet the
same performance standard (99.9999%
destruction and removal efficiency) that
we are requiring for the dioxm and
dibenzo-furan-containing wastes, and
PCS'3. in some cases, are more difficult
to incinerate than the dioxins and
dibenzofurans. (See Section IV. B. 2. b.
below.)
We accordingly are promulgating a
new } 265.352(a) stating that RCRA
interim status incinerators may burn
these wastes if they meet the conditions
outlined above. Procedures for applying
and obtaining a certification are found
in } 285.352{b). Applicants should
submit information to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response demonstrating that
they can meet the performance
standards in Part 284, The most
pertinent data is that required by
5 25Ul9(b) and (c). and if a trial burn is
necessary, § 270.82. The Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response will make a
tentative finding whether the applicant
can meet the Part 284 performance
standards. These tentative findings will
be submitted for public comment, and
persona in the vicinity will be notified
by newspaper announcement and radio
broadcast (this last requirement is
consistent with the f 124.10(c)(2)(ii)
notice procedures for RCRA permits).
The comment period will remain open
for 60 days. At the end of that time, the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response will issue a
decision whether or not to certify the
incinerator. This decision is final
Agency action. Any facility receiving a
certification, however, must still obtain
a Part 284 incineration permit.
A number of commenters stated that
the complexity in complying with the
standards in Subpart O and the time
required to obtain a full RCRA permit
would, in the short term, limit the
11 It thouid b* noted that some typ« of test bum
dati will b* required which demonstrate* that the
incinerator achieve* W 8ne% deatracaon and
removal efficiency iDREI before *• incinerator
would b* certified. S«e Section rV.B-lb. below.
"The only ngniflcant difference It thai thct*
incinerator* woujd not yet b* evaluated to
determine if they meet th< facility itaadarda in>
Subpart A througn H of Part 284. (Moat of theee
standarda, however, art required by the Part 288
interim Kama standarda.)
locations where these wastes could be
incinerated, creating a capacity short
fall. We believe that the potential
problem should not become severe.
First, the wastes to which this restriction
applies are generated in relatively small
quantities. Secondly, as discussed
above, we are allowing interim status
incinerators that have been certified by
the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response to burn
these dioxin wastes. Finally, an owner
or operator of an interim status
incinerator who wishes to incinerate
these wastes can speed up the permit
process by voluntarily submitting the
Part B of their permit application instead
of waiting until the permitting official
requests that it be submitted. This
should reduce the time lag and give
more incinerators the capability of
burning these wastes.
2. Burning at Fully-Permitted
Incinerators
The proposed rule also discussed the
management of these wastes at fully
permitted incinerators. It was EPA's
initial view that burning these wastes in
an incinerator which has a proven
capability to assure 99.99% destruction
and removal efficiency (DRE) for the
principal organic hazardous constituents
(POHCs) which are as difficult, or more
difficult to incinerate than the CDDs or
CDFs. was sufficiently rigorous to
ensure the proper management of these
wastes. However, we specifically
requested comments concerning the
possibility of requiring a DRE greater
than 99.99% when these wastes are
incinerated. The Agency also discussed
the possibility of requiring special
notification to the Regional
Administrator when a facihtv burn*
these wastes.
a. Alternative DRE for Dio\ in-
Contaminated Wastes. While some
commenters were opposed to changing
the present DRE requirement, most of
the comments focused on more strmseni
standards, i.e.. 99.9999% (six 9s) DRE.
The commenters pointed out that SIT 9s
DRE is required of incinerators hurnir.a
polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs) (40
CFR "61.70) compounds that are less
toxic than the CDDs and CDFs. T!-p>
argue that, since CDDs and CDFs are
among the most toxic compounds
known, nothing less than the best
achievable performance should b*
required. In addition, they argued 'Nrft
six 9s DRE will result in the lowest
achievable emission rate. Furthermore.
one commenter submitted nsk nrxi«(!in.a
data indicating that a large incinerator
burning wastes containing 20 part* p«r
million of TCDD with a 99.99** 'four «s)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
1991
ORE could result in ambient air
concentrations which cooid present a
public health hazard for residents living
m the facility's immediate vicinity.
In evaluating these comments, die
Agency conducted its own risk
assessment in order to determine Che
potential nsks from burning these
wastes at different leveis of
performance m certain hypothetical
situations. As part of this analysis. EPA
evaluated the potential risks presented
by the TCDD content of the wastes, and
by the content of total CDDs and CDFs.
The latter analysis assumed that the
CDDs and CDFs in tola have thirty times
the carcinogenic potency of TCDO. (This
may not be a very conservative
assumption, since, for the soot generated
in the Binghamton. NY PCS transformer
fir?, it was estimated that the CDDs and
CDFs present had 56 times the
carcinogenic potency of TCDD (Eadon,
1982).) If only the HxCDD components
are considered, the potential
carcinogenic nsks are about one twenty-
fifth of those calculated for the TCDD
component, since that is the ratio of
their carcinogenic potencies. The risk to
the maximum exposed individual " and
the average exposed individual was
then estimated. The variables examined
were the concentration of the dioxins in
the feed, the size of the incinerator, and
the ORE (which ranged from 99.00% to
99.9999%).
The conclusions reached from this
effort indicated that wastes containing
ppm concentrations of TCDDs. HxCDDs
or CDDs/CDFs. burned in large
incinerators achieving four 9s DRE could
result in ambient concentrations that
present a lifetime excess cancer nsk
level of 10" *. With small incinerators.
lower feed rates, lower (ppb) dioxin
concentrations, or better meteorological
conditions, the modelling showed that
four 9s DRE provided leveis of nsk
lower than 10"'.
Based on these results, the Agency
considered three options. The first was.
to establish "acceptable" levels of risk
and to use nsk modelling on a case-by-
" 4 person who^pends 24 hour* * day. 365 days
a year for 70 yean at the site of maximum ground
level concentn (ion. This person weight* 70 kg.
breathe* 20 m1 of air per day. and remix 50* of all
contaminants inhaled. It wa» also assumed :hat the
incinerator burns the waste consistently for the 70>
;.ear exposure period, and thai 'wont ease'
meteorological condition* would prevail. Obviously.
•has* art conservative aMunpooe*. However, thi*
analysis does not consider other source* of
exposure, the possible synenpstic effects of
concurrent exposures to other carcinogens, or the
Tact that some of the POHCs. such a*
chlorobenzenes and chlorophenol*. can. in the
rourst of incineration, give nee to COO* and COFs.
Thus, like ail nsk assessments, this analyst*
represent* a rough beiance of factors relevant to
polemic! miorws.
case basis to set limits on the waste
concentration or feed rate for each
incinerator, the second option was to
leave the standard at 99.99*% DRE: the
third option was to establish a
performance standard of six 9s DRE. the
current standard for PCS wastes.
The first option is now effectively
precluded by statute. See RCRA
amended Section 3004(o)(l)(B) stating
that facilities receiving permits after
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 must at a
minimum meet the 99.99"% DRE standard.
The Agency also rejected the first option
because, while it is theoretically more
precise from a conceptual standpoint
and allows for tailoring of the regulation
to specific circumstances. U ia extremely
resource intensive for the government
the regulated community, and the
interested public. It also requires
agreement on the models, assumptions.
and acceptable risk levels. Since such
modelling is inherently subject to
debate. EPA questions its practicality
for case-by-case applications in this
context.
As described above, a four 9s DRE
could result in risk levels for certain
situations that are in a range that is of
questionable acceptability. Partly
because of this, we have decided to
impose a more stringent performance
requirement of six 9s DRE for CDD/CDF
wastes. In addition, this level of
destruction, and removal is technically
feasible. Incinerators burning PCSs are
required to operate under conditions
that result in six 9t destruction.
Consistent destruction to six 9s have
been measured at a number of
incinerators [e.g., those of SCA. Inc. in
Chicago. IL; Rollins Environmental
Services, in Deer Park. TX the facilities
operated by Energy Systems Company
in El Dorado, AR: and by the General
Electric Corporation in Waterfard. NY
(MRI. 1983: USEPA. 1981c and 1981d)).
Similar DRE's are expected ss be
achievable for CDDs and CDFs. since
PCSs. and CDDs. and CDFs have a
similar degree of inonerabuity. (See
Table I below.) The second factor is one
of general environmental policy. If one
is to incinerate waste containing one of
the most toxic substances known, one
should use the best incinerators
operating at their peak capability. (See.
for instance. 48 FR at 768a January 23.
1931.) Several commenters mad« this
point, including a commenter for a
facility that incinerates hazardous waste
commercially. In addition, the decision
is reinforced by our estimate that in
certain situations, the other principal
technological option (four 9s DRE) might
r.ot be sufficiently protective of human
health.
b. Requirements far Conducting a
Trial Bum eor These Wastes. One
commenter argued that incinerators
burning these wastes should be required
to demonstrate compliance with the
incinerator performance standard for
oraamcs by conducting trial bums for
dioxms. rather than by using a surrogate
Principal Organic Hazardous
Constituent (POHC) that is more
difficult to incinerate. The commenter
also argued that trial burns should be
conducted on waste matrices physically
similar to those that would be burned.
Although the commenter's point is
desirable in theory, determining
compliance with a six 9s DRE (or even a
four 9s DRE) standard for these wastes
would be very difficult if not
impossible, without a system for
surrogate POHCa as established in
5 284.342. The concentrations of the
CDDi/CDFs in these wastes are too low
to find measurable amounts in the stack
gas (at six 9« DRE) at present limits of
detection, and public health
considerations preclude, in most cases.
"spiking" the waste with higher
concentrations of CDDs or CDFs.
Therefore, it is not possible to measure
and calculate a six 9s DRE using CDDs/
CDFs as the pnnapai organic hazardous
constituents (POHO) with the needed
accuracy. However, by selecting a
POHC in the waste mixture or by
spiking the waste with a compound that
is more difficult to incinerate than the
CDDs and CDFs. and that is present in
sufficient concentrations to determine a
six 9s DRE. it is possible to use a tnal
bum to predict compliance with a six 9s
DRE for the CDDs and CDFs.
We also agree with the commenter
that the waste mixture used for the tnal
burn should, as nearly as possible, be tn
the same physical matrix as the wastes
to be routinely burned (see § 284.345{b)
indicating that incinerator permits will
allow vanations in the waste feed
physical properties so long as the
variations will not affect compliance
with the incinerator performance
standards), and the waste should be fed
into the incinerator at the same rate. For
example, if the CDD/CDF wastes that
are to be incinerated are contained in a
sludge, the trial burn should be
conducted on a similar sludge
containing the POHC selected to pro%e
compliance. Additional information
concerning POHC selection and physical
state is contained in the "Guidance
Manual for Hazardous Waste
Incineration Permits", SW-966 (July
1983).
-------
1992
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
M
s
EPA uses heat of combustion as its
incinerabtlity hierarchy. Table I lists the
heats of combustion of the CDD and
CDF homologues. as well as of PC3
homoiogues and a few compounds
commonly selected as POHCa. The
lower its heat of combustion, the more
difficult a compound is to incinerate.
c. Special Notification to the Regional
Administrator. In the proposal. EPA
considered requiring owners or
operators of incineration facilities
burning these wastes to notify the
Regional Administrator of that fact
Such notification was considered
because it was felt that Regional
authorities might wish to determine
compliance monitoring priorities for
facilities incinerating these wastes.
Although a few commenters did not
believe that a notification requirement is
necessary, most of the commenters felt
that such a requirement is important
and should be required. The requirement
of a six 9s ORE standard for these
wastes will, in most instances, require a
trial burn and full permit issuance
procedures. Thus, the Regional
Administrator will, in most instances, be
aware that a facility may burn these
wastes. However, this is not true in all
cases. If an incineration facility has a
permit based on trial bum data showing
six 9s ORE capability for a substance
more difficult to decompose than the
CDDs or CDPs (e.g.. trial bum data
showing six 9s ORE for certain PCBs)
there would be no need to inform the
Regional Administrator that the facility
plans to bum CDD/CDF wastes. EPA
will, therefore, require owners or
operators of incinerators managing
these wastes to notify the Regional
Administrator of that fact
d. Periodic Compliance Tests. A few
commenters suggested or implied that
incinerators burning CDD /CDF wastes
should undergo periodic performance
verification. Repeating the trial bum on
some periodic schedule might be
reasonable in cases where strict
operating parameters are not
established. For example, under the
Clean Air Act 1 stack could not emit
more than some amount of pollutant per
given time. No specific operating
parameters are established by the
regulators, and. instead, periodic
compliance checks are conducted.
TABLE I
TABLE I—Continued
Comoound
P«mm~... .. -
w«x«
CfltonrwMO OtO*nrotunr»
CXionnMM 9«Mny<*
rk
Tn
T«r%
P«no..._ „. _ _
H4U., , . ,,
H«oa _
Oca _ _ _ _. ...
type* POO
T«u»j*uniif*tg|*>«
r«a«cnioro«
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14.
3,
a
to
in
40
es
rn
or
:se
;nm
ct to
regulation under Subpart P of Part 26S
are insufficient to limit the risks
associated with dioxins. just as they are
insufficient to limit risks associated with
intenm status incinerators (i.e.. most of
the requirements address administrative
rather than technical controls).
However, the Agency also believes that
means exist to determine their
environmental performance. Therefore,
we will allow interim status thermal
treatment units to be certified if they
can demonstrate that they can properly
treat these wastes.
Under the existing regulations, these
units cannot be permitted since there
are no existing RCRA permitting
standards. However, such treatment
units may provide a very promising way
of treating these wastes. In particular, a
Dumber of emerging thermal treatment
'technologies may be used to treat CDD/
CDF-containtng wastes in order to
render them non-hazardous (or at least.
less hazardous). Some of these
technologies are thought now to be
practical, while others are in the pilot
stage, and pilot scale field experiments
need to be performed. In the absence of
RCRA permit standards, such pilot scale
research activities would not be
allowed. This would stifle and
discourage the development of new
alternatives and the development of
innovative technology for treatment of
these very toxic wastes. We believe
such an outcome is undesirable.
As a result, we have decided to
promulgate a new 5 285.383 stating that
tntenm status thermal treatment units
may bum these wastes if they are
certified by the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response that they can properly treat
these Wastes. These units will be
evaluated the same way as interim
status incinerators, and thus must be
certified as meeting the applicable
performance standards in § 284.343
(including six 9s ORE for POHCs in the
waste). In addition, the procedures for
obtaining certification will be the same
as for interim status incinerators (see
Section IV. B. 1.. above). In particular.
the applicant must submit an application
to the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste aad Emergency Response which
demonstrates that they meet the
applicable performance standards in
Subpart O of Part 264. The most
pertinent data to be submitted is the
same as for intenm status incinerators.
that is the information cited in § 270.19
(b) and (c) and. if a trial burn is
necessary, I 270.82. However, since
these units are somewhat different than
incinerators, additional data and
information may be required. See
S 270.19 (c)(7). Because the type of
additional information that may be
required will vary with the type of
thermal treatment unit, we suggest that
the owner or operator of the thermal
treatment unit contact the Agency
before submitting their application to
determine whether any additional
information will be required, and if so,
what type of data will be needed. This
information will then be evaluated for
compliance with the appropriate
performance standards. The Assistant
Administrator's tentative decision will
then be published (after public
notification) for a 80 day comment
period: at the end of that time, the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response will issue a
final decision whether qr not to certify
the thermal treatment unit As with
interim status incinerators, this decision
is final Agency action.
V. Relation of This Rule to Regulation of
TCDD-Contaminated Waste* Under the
Toxic Substances Control Act
Many wastes containing TCDD are
presently regulated under 40 CFR Part
775. a regulation issued under Section a
of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA).J* The relationship between that
regulation and the rule being
promulgated today under RCRA. was
discussed at proposal (see 48 FR at
14518). At that time, we stated that the
regulation of the treatment and disposal
of hazardous wastes properly belongs
under RCRA. and that the Agency
should avoid overlapping and
potentially contradictory approaches to
the same problem under different
regulatory authority, e.g., TSCA and
RCRA. In fact Section 9(b) of TSCA
provides that EPA must utilize its
authority under the other environmental
laws it administers where these laws
are adequate to protect against
unreasonable risk, and where there is no
strong public interest in taking action
under TSCA,
In the proposal, we argued that RCRA
provides the appropriate long-term
solution for controlling the management
of TCDD-contaminated wastes. EPA
promulgated the TSCA § 6(a) rule based
on a determination that the unregulated
disposal of TCDD-contaminated wastes
presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment, and
determined that removal for disposal of
certain TCDD wastes at Vertac's
Jacksonville. Arkansas site would
:'TCOD wane* are defined a* tnose mulling
from the production of Z.4.5-TCP or Hi pesticide
derivatives, or jubilance* produced on equipment
that was previously uud for the production of 2.4.5-
TCP or its pesticide derivative*.
pnor
wastes by •
notification to i UU1U
unreasonable risk. These -
were reached, in . _... -(MW
existing RCRA regulationsTor the*
treatment and disposal of hazardous
waste were not appropnate for TCDD-
contaminated waste, since EPA had not
yet developed final permit standards for
the land disposal or incineration of
hazardous wastes.
As explained at proposal (see 48 FR at
14518). the general RCRA regulations
are now effective, and provide a means
for properly evaluating the land disposal
and treatment (i.e.. incineration) of
TCDD-contaminated wastes, thus
ensuring that these wastes are managed
in a manner that does not present an
unreasonable nsk. (This also is true of
those interim status incinerators and
interim status thermal treatment units
that are certified to burn these wastes.
since these units must be able to meet
the same performance standards as
fully-permitted incinerators, and must
notify and be evaluated by the Agency
before they begin burning.) Therefore.
when the RCRA dioxin waste rules are
effective and the TCDD-contaminated
wastes are controlled under RCRA. their
disposal will no longer pose an
unreasonable risk finding under TSCA.
Consequently, we proposed to revoke
the TSCA rule when the rule, under
RCRA. becomes effective. No one
disagreed with this provision of the
proposal: in fact, several commenters
explicitly agreed that EPA should
revoke the TSCA rule. Today's, action.
therefore, revokes the TSCA Section
6(a) regulation that applies to the Vertac
Chemical Corporation, and those that
require a sixty-day notification to EPA
on the part of persons wishing to
dispose of TCDD-contammated wastes.
VI. Comments on Other Issues
A. Development of a Toxic:ty
Characteristic for Defining Dioxtn-
Contaminated Wastes as Hazardous
Several respondents commented on
EPA's question regarding the
advisability, practicality, and
desirability of developing a
"characteristic" definition of
hazardousness under 40 CFR Part 261
for CDD/CDF-containmg wastes.
Several commenters agreed with EPA
that this might not be a suitable
regulatory alternative, adding that to se
a lower limit of concern might encourag
dilution as a means of circumventing
regulation. Several others, however.
-------
1394.
Federal Ragbter f Voi 50. No. a / Monday. January 14, 198& i Ruies and
stated that a dear indication of a Lower
ieroi of njin.BU'1 WBofdt&c s. dssnafrflt
regulatory yak one crmmeniar
suggested wfta* such s fowwrlfmit might
be. startup iflul a T ppftlteratin staf
might be a srrifcrtriV Fevet. One 0*0-
cui'iuuunrter dfso suites teiL tjcist a* NJVWI or
concent sicHifd be set as a*
threshohf.
Qua/consideration of tfte advantages
and disadvantages, of setting a Tower
lev*! of omcira (T.OC5 fot tie toxicants
in mew wastes; and. of tie dat* needed
to perform tfie needed risk assessments.
we have concluded that with the data
PR9RW7 sflwiwwei rr is no^ posstore' to
make a* JiUmijUBGuu ruga* ifiai sucfr a
ievet. rae* isaxm va
filter aids to emtaanwted wifet hr »«ry
fS IKJr jOVDJWR it
diffiq* % Mie the ft w« ugaWil
the-COTtetfH*€Df*ia
exauufy ARcojr Mi Ai>
rnoty M»piU t>a» JJ»
becauc* 4 woMitf tatail rf««
*, anrf ev«n>
sue* • jvockdun. Ti»nJuM, ETA h
not cfcrataptd a UPC Sit tW t
in
the
additional irfama feov bcce
. Ul'scafUed Cnusftf fnemn blinn*.
This
pentachii n ayami iuf asssl
(EPA Baavdaes Was*
except fteaa dMeardaa*
ft*. POP),
soliottdi CBMOMBI a* la l*wi»
couid JcknaMf winter ttew
formula tim «ne Mhpcr » tki«
Two
problem. One person itaterf tnat
chemical pr
Loathi»
OSHA. to require that QSHA Fonn 20
(Matertaf Safety Da/a Sheet SWSD5B &a
amended to reqaire diapo»al
information. En paxtioaiar. ffiey indicated
that Section VTT. of the MSQS ^oilt and
LeakProcediiEeilnnmdes space far the
marnrfacfursr'i recoannendaflooa.£a«
disposal' of Aw dtamcai or its watte
residues. T&a; snajert tftat
manufacturer* o« reqtured to state fa
ttfj spacv tint tfie prodoct. wnea
Jfecaatmi ai x frazardbus waste, list the
hazairfoni wuft number, and include a
statement concerning, the
waste cfigpo-sat met&oyd.
EPA agrees tftaJ 'inpfementatfon of
these aaggssnons wcmld go a fong, way
toward1 sofiing toe probrem. IT chemical
prodacts were idennffed on. the fabef as
an EPA hazardous waate. when.
discarded c&err wonfd i« no need to
divulge aireufic (and pcssibty
proprifitaryt nifbranAorr. and users' of
sucir prodncts- woald nor he in cfoufcr
that tfte~ pi'uduut in quesdon. vrfren
discarded, cs sobtert ttz RtIRA
r0^iMf»i»_ However, crjft uues nuf uuve
the antftorfff onderKRA to fafrerf
products and provide dfapuiai
informatfotr. fit addttfon. form OSFtA-a^
seldom acconpanrev a* prndnct, antr
tlmenjie ^rouJd nof sorre1 the
unJei1 otfic? statuses' f9 deai
problem. Under *e FederaJ nwedSritJe.
Fungteirfe. and RutfentkiA Aef (FTFRA?,
the Agency, under *e Lafeef
Imprn««ient PrvgnjK. kn leal * ao todu&M &at at»
RCRA hazardous wastes, when
discarded, nnst UKfuiAr a stamsmeirf
hhA end tea tea chat the'pvstKrdv fwfra
is* a* Sazarrterij or SIT dcafs
e. Thrr rs
beLUiiies effetlnB otr fanaarv'l, 196S fbr
all pesticide gioimcfs except for
This same* bfreJ prBvrsiow w*
re^uii'Bif for tftun pesfl'tide products
co^prwf BJP (wfajF*? reyriation* (/.*;. fbr
the j» ye jtfLiJg productgi tfre- Patw* wrif
indicate (*Bt ftey are- aewe haardouj
wastes (EPA ?fcarafi<«uj
FOE7? v^iwi dwcarrtei*. The tacvf wiff
not prow*' j^tjIK ins SUCCORS a» fo i »
disposeA 81»*?«1*«' will refer tnwwer or
any oJ t»con»cf Jfw EPA
R«^w*wl OUfce* ar tfw
envimnncwM uffite f sw
instruction*. Ttai. Q»JaM aa ai?
or pcwtsc&isnphenof w thew
derivatives, will identify whether the
femufklimi J» fcvnnfeuft if Aearrfed.
and wiiff pnniiis *r uevr w«t>
dispowri
Act LCSHLLAJ Clean. Up Activities.
Several*
.wfa
important v pndtnaaaaiiy stasJeai
toward ^aanaiMJuiv of future accfdeatai
releases of CDDs and CDFs to the
anvirrmmftnt »iafrK*t> than
exis
proposed caies may binder or prevent
remedial action of contaminatedi y'*M-
For example, incineration of a
spills aca iJBfawrt a» being m the BC2A
syst«ni.3*e4flFH2aoa taaaary lSs.S«3c
sea i ?ft| ^rH?)1 Q&g**^ ioci
intinpatarf cbeanop actmoea harf a
gaaesatedw and will ffntinu«» to ^caezatc.
large vohsoea of sod* cotrcammHSeri
with CDDs/CDF*. Foe iastaacr. it n»
consenraatoor eaconatrdtkex aboa*
500.000 eaaae yastis of CDO/CDF-
contsjzssxataflr son wa£' ^-T^M^ u'uaL
CERCiA ceawdiaJi actro* *uu»*mj isi
Missoun.
The AgesK*- dtrrdowa a sOaactjr 5o»
deaJfeii with dtoua !LS£PA. 13B3*
whic&. anjnna other ttrmgr- deals witk
alternatrras far tie dtxmsp of
cootaouatEd sites. These
include setaoma As sou in place,
reme«tiatia« terimiquej (
extraction). LaeraeralKsa. and
soil to a secure coarainmeai rrrasa («^u
a concrcta vault), The Agency ,ia*
indicated tteat conediaaaa aad
enforcanKStt neaBans under CHBTLA
will, be earned out as expedmstu^ as
posaoilav
disposal of residues- resvrtfTTf? frsm the
incinerafww ar *»rm*f trearwerK of
droxirv-enateimnated se«>» at i«tenm
status lamf disposaJ faohtve». • and to
alfew »«B«)iteut. stara^a. or dis^esaf a<
facilities pwsHatrt V? vhe wu»4 Psrrt 2S4
stand«Ki»(/e.. no»mee
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, lanuary 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
1995
there are very few data on the
characteristics of the residues resulting
from soil incineration, data are available
'n the incineration-of materials such as
PCS capacitors and sewage treatment
sludges. These data indicate that the
residues resulting from such incineration
contain PCBs at levels three to four
orders of magnitude less than that
contained in the original waste before
incineration. Most dioxm-contammated
soils contain less than 1 ppm of TCDD.
Thus, it is expected that the
concentration of this isomer in the
residue from the incineration of soils
will be less than about 1 ppb. This
concentration in soil was determined to
be a reasonable level at which to
consider limiting human exposure in a
residential setting (USDHHS. 1984). We
believe the same ts true for the other
chlorinated dioxm isomers of concern.
as well as for the dibenzofurans.
Data on carbon regeneration show
similar results. These data indicate that
toxicants such as PCBs. that bind
strongly to activated carbon or organic
carbon can be effectively removed and
destroyed from such matrices such that
very low levels of the toxicants remain
m the resulting residues. There is no
reason to doubt that CDDs and CDFs (of
similar memorability) when bound to
organic carbon in a soil matrix will
behave any differently. We have
therefore determined that the residues of
incineration or thermal treatment of
CDD/CDF contaminated soils, present
much less risk than the untreated soils.
and thus can be managed at interim
status land disposal facilities.21 We
have, therefore, provided a special
designation (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
FO23) for these wastes.
D. Other Wastes Containing CDDs aiid
CDFs
Several respondents commented on
the need to list other wastes which
contain CDDs and CDFs. i.e..
chlorinated benzenes and PCBs.
dichlorophenol process wastes, fly ash
and emission control dusts from the low-
temperature combustion of
dioxin-comaimng wastes art expected to
contain much higher concentrations of the dioxins
and cubenzofurans. Therefore. we would expect the
residue from me >nc:neration of these wastes 10 also
contain much higher concentration* of the dioxms
and dibenzofurans. Consequently, we believe that
all other incineration residue* should be managed
as acute hazardous wastes and comply with the
special management standards. However, any
person may petition the Administrator (under
Si Z60.2O and 260.221 to exclude their waste from
regulatory control for at least argue that the waste
should not be considered an scute hazardous
waste) if they can demonstrate such facts m their
petition.
chlorophenols, and presently unlisted
residues from wood preservation.
The recently enacted HSWA
specifically provides additional time to
the Agency for evaluating whether to list
additional dioxm-containmg wastes. See
RCRA amended Section 300l(e). As
stated in the preamble to the proposed
regulation (48 FR 14523). EPA is
presently conducting a study on wastes
from the production of dichlorophenol.
Under EPA's Industry Studies program.
the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has
performed engineering analyses, and
has gathered sampling and analysis data
from several dichlorophenol production
facilities, and from facilities that use
dichlorophenol. These data are
presently being evaluated. In addition.
under Tier 4 of the "Dioxin Strategy"
(USEPA. 1983). EPA is investigating
possible combustion sources of CDDs
and CDFs. These materials will be listed
if evidence demonstrates that they are
indeed hazardous (or acute hazardous)
wastes. We also have begun
investigating whether additional wastes
from wood preservation processes using
PCP should be listed as hazardous (or
acute hazardous) wastes, and whether
CDDs and CDFs should be added as
constituents of concern in the wood
preservation process waste already
listed (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K001.
Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol). After
completion of those studies, we will take
regulatory action, if warranted.
With respect to wastes resulting from
the manufacturing use of
chlorobenzenes. such processes are not
expected to generate CDDs or CDFs
except under alkaline conditions and
elevated temperatures. We therefore
judge that these processes are
adequately covered by the present
listings. It is possible that commercial
preparations of mono- and
dichlorobenzene (which are not covered
by today s listing) contain homologues
with higher degree of chionnation. and
thus could give nse to CDDs and CDFs
at levels of concern. If further
investigation proves that this is the case.
we will list the wastes from such
processes.
With respect to PCBs, we agree that
CDDs and CDFs may well occur in
processes involving these materials.
However. PCBs are no longer
manufactured in the U.S.. and their use
and disposal are currently regulated
under TSCA (40 CFR Part 781). The
major problem at present is the
generation of CDDs and CDFs resulting
from transformer fires. The regulation of
the disposal of the wastes (including
soot) from such fires is presently be-.ng
studied under the dioxm strategy, and
EPA recently proposed a regulation
intended to control the potential hazards
resulting from PCB transformer fires (see
49 FR 39966-39989. October 11. 1984).
E. Wastes Containing Other
Haloger.erated Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans
Two respondents commented that
EPA should not limit its consideration to
processes which are expected to
generate tetra-. penta-. or
hexachlonnated dioxms and
•dibenzofurans. because the brominated
analogues are also of great concern in
terms of their potential to harm human
health, and because the congeners of
higher degree of chionnation can
undergo dechiorination in the
environment.
We agree that the brominated
analogues are a potential threat. EPA
haa investigated whether there are at
present manufacturing processes
generating these toxicants. It was
determined that there are at present no
U.S. manufacturers of the brommated
chemicals (bromophenols,
bromophenoxy derivatives, brominated
• biphenyls) which are expected, from
knowledge of chemical reaction, to be
contaminated with brommated dioxms
and -dibenzofurans. We are continuing
to investigate, however, whether there
are users (formulators) of such
compounds. We are also evaluating
other organobromme manufacturing
processes. If warranted, we will list
wastes from such manufacturing
operations, and will include brominated
dioxms and -dibenzorurans as toxicants
of concern.
With respect to the higher chlorinated
liioxms, we agree that dechionnation
occurs. However, it is very difficult to
predict the extent of this process, and
the equilibrium composition of the
various isomers. Both photochemical
synthesis and degradation of CDDs and
CDFs can occur under ambient
conditions. The photochemical
formation of OCDDs from PCP has been
shown to occur, both in solution, and on
PCP-treated wood (Crosby et al.. 1973:
Crosby and Wong, 1973: Lamparsky.
1980). Resistance to degradation
increases with degree of chionnation
(Hutzinger. 1973: Crosby, 1973: Desiden.
1979; Dobbs and Grant. 1979: Nestnck.
1980). In most situations,
photodegradation by reductive
photodechlormation exceeds
photosynthetic processes, and reaction
routes and rates are dependent on
reaction conditions. Rate constants
-------
1
¥<* sa 5*o. 9 / Monday. Jancary M. 1985 I Riries and» Regulation*
show tea that peaoa* at a sal
muaae paiamay fiar that destoactiaai at the
octa-. »c»». «c« toacMtaadiaaina»
a*d Gaaat. 1909* Uaaa«*rftiie4
retention times longer than that of
OCDD are alsu formed. Worfr
photodechloriiiafiou can otxuriapfdlj fn
solution under laboratory
can be satm* t* MM. ar
. tt
have bee* obtained- ia. &• laboratory
experiments on p&atadayadaiieik ia
adsorbed state fcCcoabr. 1977: Waof>
1978V Wh«a defrarlitinra doe*. Uka.
are 'iiifiMy thoae oi W** t*vi^
atoms
occur (Buses. 1S79-. Craiby. 1472
Lamparski. 1380), most investigaJon.
have noted thai ths lalar ai halogen
atoms are die nast labile CSetL 1971;
Dobbs and Grant. 1379: IHestricJL 15801.
Therefore. Cfte iJ^.S^uiauiufiscf
isomers are tboaeaxost defy to
degrade. Tnua. (ne pnotndegfaAtSan of
highly cnlorauued CDT7s ami CDFs is
not nicely (o generate the Teas-
chlorinated isomers of most foxfc
concern. We therefore conciude that. in.
view of present knowJedgjB. tfle
regulation of wastes containing retra-.
perrta-. and1 ftexaddorodfowns and
-drbenrorhrans adequately address our
present regnfartory concams.
F. Smast QuanoCf Geaaeoar rnrmnrntt
this refBiahorr coiwwttrtes1 an excejjiie
and unwanmngj ftjululatj bmdtia
the? .r. .r .._..
quantity generators now exempt frow
re*u£aooa wooW need to app^ fai
stato* a* saraav (ao&tier. Onepenoa
argued &*£ EPA nuat jfao«r a "wuadi
basiaT for «•» l tea/aioruit soatli ouamrfy
generator Smiaaataal tor tin
ctaoursanu sMi _
represents at oaatntanihir bcrdca am
aaaJjOKS^pef acmedl tear this
thai A* coata iaajamal by tiar w^ravfton
are ejr&ceQMcz^ OOB^BST t^&owt coKsit
"million
Wh
cleaam$ ap dkr o
(moc* thaar tterty ns»iiea
Times Beach. MO.
economic
Moreover. tW
w«artiircm«i vi
£*»
already IM c«««ecdr by R£SA or TSG%
regulation, and riaat the 0*09090* a* lone
of til* ii3*ed ianmiiatiaa* it MI IT u>
vwiaca tW Lks^ati cirietop««»ofa ar tiwu:
derwatives ai* soie osttve iA^edJ«au^
is already re^nhttad. aocber i ^at y? at
RC&A. AddickBaMy. hacauae ai uaeu
inherent vafuev we a» not beiieva '.
:ha rgguJiitaft coounuuty
discaid, Jii
fonauiauoa*.
Widireswo tot±i*
must show a b flsss
/55«*
Several cammenfera stated that tba
provuioas in tne proposed regulation
which, wouid (far and regjifata tfteia
wastes 33 hazardous wastes would
prohioff tftefrrBuse and recycling. Tftfs
was said to be at odd* wffft tfte
recycling objerSves of HC3M. Two
conunenters suggested1 tftaf crti sftonid
affow on-site recycfing and1 reuse of tfce
listed! wastes wifhuat regnian'OTr.
^fftj^r Oi UTP CT7PT^3?T7Tj" CQZFCSST
whicft are part of x different rate
proceeding, amencnng'tfte
definittrwr of soifd waste ami
manayBHieiif jtaiuJanJs for
hazardoor wastes «ftaf are recycted. See
48 FR T442?. Apnf 4. 19BJ proposing
there infes. TTius. we wiH auTiA ess iftusu
conimgnfy nr ffnaferng' riraf rofena Jony.
We note, however, tftatriothhrg in tftw
proposal ornrextslfngTafes wcwftf
profiruft i'eL^.*Aiy or tnti?e WHSTHS.
Rather, these wastes- wotrid rernam
suopscjf ft? n^ofatioft whfifj tney sre try
be recyded-.
H. AppJifa&ititj- gf tbe MUiuro. Rule
One commandT c(«*suonHl wr»| (KeportacJe QnantiriesJ
All: iiazavbaawaatBa (oc. in this case.
acafit kanu-cbua vx»tas» aidaded a
today's fiaai robe avtaaulicaMT become
hazaniavc svbataoces nans* the
Compreh
C«a«*fi*iUo«. and
Act of
Section
pen«o* iai charts oi TCMCIS or
froat wwck *aaanioa» tubatancss
beta reieaaid IA awavbties chat a*e
eq.aai toot gr*ate* than th* ;ep0tiabl*-
quantitjea tEQs? masediatciy sotify tS&
.•Satiwaai Resfooae Center (NRCi ot ia*
releawi (SeeCZHCLA SeciMxi 103.1
Except for Aoa*sub«Uaces akeatiy oo
the list oi CERCIA aaaardou
subetanceai wkid» w%U reiain di» RQ
already a«a^Ma^ aii hazirdoiM wastes
desjfns«ed taadef SOLA witi have as
RQ of oike 9OMmi until adiua^ed by
regulate* vrtaer CERCIA. Se« S«cao«t
102.
If a waste haa more thaa ace
ccnstrruaert ai cancsm rhe fot»e3« RQ
assigned to any one of the eoruaracnts
present in the waste represi?r:s ;"i> RQ
for the waste, if a person comp'r'p'y
analyzes the waste, however ar.d
deterrmne* that the RQ fat each of ins-
constihierrta «i concent are beio • tbt
RQ established for each of ifcose
compound*. a« aetiiicauon rs ---
Thas. £o» tiwdtoxia-contacnirra
listed tod»v. a one pound RQ ikau be
assigned upon prwnuiaauon of IKB» nue.
since a one pound RQ has ai"a
Silvex and its esterj: 100 ib*.
-------
Fedbiat ftefUtet / Vol 50. No. a / Monday. |anuary 1-t. 1988 / Rule* aad
that (ken » less &*• aa RQ oi eacfe
hazardous caactMaea* « tfc* «cae4*.
The one pouna RQ t* camattjr eta*
lowest level established tor reporting
relesscs of hazardous sobctances for
emergency response reporrinf . The basis
for this RQ level was established under
the Clean Water Act (CWA) as the
smallest quantity container generally
rn uuinniKrca. Many substances
on the CERCLA Section 101(14)
hazardous substance fist may be
extremely toxic, or otherwise extremely
hazardous and. therefore. may need to
be coruroiUd at levaU well below the
RQ levels. For instance, the CDOs and
CDF* deserve special note lor thetr
extrena* iciwcsry.
The RQ tngsjers are intended to
provide notice of releases so that an On-
Seene Coordinator (OSC). parsaant to
the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
300). can assess the hazard and the
actions that may b» taken by the federal
government. It i» emphasized that the
legal obligation for the responsible part>
to notify the NEC i» independent of
actione'taken by an O5C The different
RQ levels do not reflect a determination
that a release of a substance will b«
hazardous at tie RQ level, or sot
kazardoas beiew that ierei EPA has not
attempted to make ssch a determination
becau*« the actual hazard will vary with
the unique circumstances of the rt»te»?e.
ami extensive scientific data and
analysis would be necessary to estimate
the precise hazard presented by each
substance in a number of plausible
circumstances. Instead, the RQs reflect
EPA's judgment thai the Federal
government should be notified of
releases U> whch a response might be
necessary. The RQs. in themselves, ck>
not represent a»y detfinmnatJon that
release* of a particular size are acroalK
harmful to public health or the
environment. See 46 FR 2356O. May 25.
1983.
Many other considerations be-?tdes
the quantity released affect the
government's decision concerning
whether and how it should respond to a
particular release. Tbe location of the
release, its jiroxuairy to drinking water
supplies ec other vainaW* resowcas, the
likelihood of exposure or injury to
nearby populations, and other factors
roust be assessed OB a case-bv-case
basis. Tbe refracting' reoo seme/it ts.
however, the trigger for assessments to
be made (see 49 FR 23589).
While the- one pormd RQ rs c^arfy tht-
smallest emergency response
notification trigger at the present time
for CERCLA and CWA releases, EPA
can lake response, cleanup, and other
actions betow RQ levels. The RQ is a
legally requirts resortuig by
the responsible party. There obviovsry
may be instances where EPA wouid
need to knew of releases w«il below the
one poond RQ level While EPA, in
future refinements to the RQ scales, may
consider lower levels, this process is
independent of today's rwemaking. The
reader is also advtsed that notification
requirements withia RCRA may require
notification for releases which may be
harmful regardless of RQ
determination* under CERCLA or the
CWA. Specifically, the responsible party
may be required to provide notice to
EPA or the National Response Center
under RCRA regarding spills and leaks
of hazardous waste or hazardous, waste
constituents that may enter the
environment (see 40 CFR 262.34 283J0,
23448. and 2S5.56). hi addition, aaca
person who generates, transports, treats.
stores, or disposes of these wastes moat
notify EPA of their activities, and this,
EPA will be aware of those persons who
handle these extremely hazardous
wastes,
VUL Slate Authority
A. Applicability of Rufes m Amhortzed
States
Under Secnon 300» of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program wrthm their States. (See 40 (~FR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Authorization, either interim or final.
may be granted to State programs that
regulate the identification, generation.
and transportation of hazardous wastes
and the operation of facilities that treat.
store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
Interim authorization is granted to
States with programs that are
"substantially equivalent" to the Federal
program (S«cnon 3006(c)). Final
authonzatxm :s granted to States with
programs that are equivalent to the
Federal program, consistent with the
Federal program and other State
programs, and that provide for adequuce
enforcement (Section 3006(b)].
Under RCRA. pnor to the Hazardous
r-nd Solid Waste Amendments of 1384.
once EPA authorizes a State prosram.
EPA suspends administration and
enforcement withm the State of those
parts of the Federal program for which
the State is authorized. In authorized
States. EPA does retam enforcement '
authority txuier Sections 30Q& 7003. and
:013 of RCRA. although aa&cnzed
States have pnmary enforcement
responsibility. However, under Section
3006(g) of the Hazardcors and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1964. aay
requirement pertaining, to hazardous
wastes promulgated pursuant to ;he
Amendments is effective »
States at the same tune it i* efiectrve
other States. EPA w>U adsumstcr and
enforce the requirements in each State
until the State is authorized with respect
to such requirements.
The listing and related management
standards promulgated m today s mie
are applicable in all States since the
reo/oireraents are imposed pursuant to
the Amendments. Thus EPA wiil
implement these standards until
authorized States revise chew programs
to adopt these rules.
8. Effect an State Aathorizatiijns
Under RCRA. authoczed State
program* total be revtsed to incorporate
new requirements imposed by statute or
EPA regulations. The procedures and
schedok (or State adoption of these
reqsirementa is described in 40 CFR
27t23. See40 EH 21073 (May 22.19*4).
States that »ave final authorization
must revise their programs w.thts a year
uf promulgation oil today's regulations sf
only regulatory changes are necessary.
These deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases. Sec 40 CFR rn.n(«).
States that submit official applications
for frnei authonzatxm less than 12
months after promulgation of today's
regulations- may be approved untHocH
including standanfr equivalent to ifxwe
prerrralgated. However, once authorrzed.
a State must revise its program to
include the Ksthif and related
management standard* substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within
the time period discussed above.
Under the HSWA. states revising fteir
programs to adopt new requirements
imposed under the HSWA may do so
based on state requirements rhat are
equivalent or substantially ecu;* a^rrt to
the HSWA requirements. Se? Secnon
3006(g)(2). Thsis a state
authorizarjon for today a
may do so based on controls that are
equivalent or substantially equivalent to
today's rule.
tX. Economic. Environmental, and
Regulatory impacts-
A. Regulatory (Ttpact Analysis
Under Executive Order 1.291. EPA
must determine whether a reguiauoR is
"major", and therefore subjecl to the
requirement of a Regulatory impact
Analysis. These amendments, in part.
replace regulations under a different
statute (Secnon 6(d) of the Toxic
Sub*:aoc8 Conlrot Act), and impose an
additional regulatory burden on only a
small number of manufacturers o£
chlorophenoi*. and their chioroohenoxy
denvatives. In addition, some
-------
Federal Ragister / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
JRB Associates. 1984. Coat impact analysis
nw fnf propowo rine rv^BMrcitg* ccrtarn
wastes containing certain chlonnaMs)
dioxins. -dibenzorurans, and -phenols.
April. \
Kimbrough. R.O. et al. 19** KUt Aseeswmertt
document on 2. 3. 7. 8-Tetrachloro-
dibenzodioxin ( TCDD ) levels in 301!
L'SDHHS/CUC/TfTEHS. December,
Lamparski. LL. et al. 1980. Photolysis of
pentachlorophenol-treated wood:
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxm formation.
En f. Scr. 7* ojtcaranflfesnc potency
estimate tor HxCDOi. April 19.
Miles. W.F. et al 1984. Isomer specific
determination of hexachioredioKiaa is,
tednical ^jfcMUMu»u|ia.iiiud (PC?) and its
sodium salt. 4th. Inteml. Symp. Chid.
Droxins- and- Held. Cpds. Ottawa. Oct. 18-
19.
MR1. 1983. Determination of the destruction
of PCB» a< SCA Chemical Semces Inc.
Chicago incinerator. Final Report. Part I.
Technical Suasaary. MKJ Protect Number
73020. Nnmr? a.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977.
Drinking water and health. National
Academy of Sciences. Washingtcn. D C.
Nestncx. T.J. et al. 1980. [[identification of
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin isomers at the
1 ng level by photolytic degradation and
pattern cacegrutioa tecaauiua*. AnaL
Chem. 32:1865-1874.
Plimmer. J.R. and U.I. Klingbiel. 1971.
Ritmtla-vui pbotoMJWtttsed oxidation oi 2.
4-dichiorophenoi: assessment of possible
chionMted dictum facnauon. Science
174:404-408.
r jjj_ at aL 1373. Photccaami&tfy of
dibenzo-p-dioxms. Adv. Chem. 120:44-34.
Povger. M. and C Schlatlet 1380. Influenct of
solvents and aMorbaoce on denial and
ruiejueai sbeerpoo* at TCDD. Fd. Casmet.
T&moi. 78:477-4*1.
Ris. C. (EPAVOROt 1383. Memorandum to |.S.
BeUiA (EPA-/OSW). ateauMandniM on 1981
Hawaii epideraroi«?y s*ady. September 18.
Sambetfi, J. 1983. The Seveso accident.
Scfcwee. B.A, et ai 1S79. Results of tvku-year
twriorf ami reprodnctien sruches on
pentachtorophenol in rats. In:
. ralo* eu.J* Wennro Press.
.V.T.
S^iare, SLA. 1903» A* uniisiarnt of the
experimental evidenci* for potential
diojun. iuae
StW. R. etai 197T !>• jUmtitr of
pentachiorophene4 and eirfm mated dioxins
to sunlight, heat and combustion. lS2nd
onnuet mealing. A/rrer. drern. See. Sept.
(Abstract 92).
USOHH5. 796R Oli^essay tjf 3 miAiure of
1.2.3.S.7.8- am! LZ3.7.8.9-
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins for posmbte
caruaogeucty. 1380. STP. Ma. 40-12.
U5DUHS. 198*. HeaWJ rtsfc esthnates for 2. 3.
7. 3-tetrachloro-dibenzodiozm rn soil;
Morbility ana mortality wekly rap»rt
33:25-8.
USEPA. 1978, Report of (he Ad Hex; Study
group for pentacntaropheoet coatarmnams.
Environmentai health advisory committee.
Science AUvistury Board. Deoemtjer. fEPA/
SAB/78/OW?.
USE?A. 1381 a. Creiaod. noc^injc
arjemcals. pentachiofophenol Position
Document No. 2/3. Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. January.
L'SEPA. I98lo. Interim evaluations of health
risks associated with emissions of
tetrachionnated dioxins from municipal
waste resource recovery facilities. Office of
the Administrator. (November 19).
L'SEPA. 198lc. Incineration of PCSs:
Summary of Approval Actions: Energy
Syttesa Comma? (ENSCOt. El Dorata.
AR. EPA Regwn 8. Febrnary 9. JSB1.
L'SEPA. TSSld. loonention of PCBc
Summary of Approval ACOOOK SloUiaw
EnwomneBtai ServicM. Dwr Psrk. TX
EPA Reason 8. Pebniary 9.198X
USE?A. TO*?, Dfiveiopaeni DocumeiU Ebr
Efflueal LimtcaiUottt Gwdehae* aad
Standards for the Pesticides. EPA 440/1-
82-079b. fPropowrf}.
L'SEPA. 1983. Dioxin strategy. OWRS-
OSWEB. November 28. Wt»i ax. et ai.
1978. Field trnk on pholodegndMion of
TCDD on vegetables after spraying with
vegetable oil. In: Dioxins: toxicological and
chemical aspects. Op. Of.
L'SEPA. 1984. Proiect for performanca of
remedial response activities at
uncontrolled hazardous substance
facin'oes. 100* 1. Anaiytrcai reauks froea
Brady Metals. Newark. N.J. EPA Reyo* 2.
NL'S Corporation. March 21 (final draft).
L'SEPA, I9&4b. Aabient Water Quality
Catena for 2.3.7-3-TetrachIorodibeazo-p-
dioxm. EPA 440/5-84-OOT.
VViFIianis. P.I. 1987. Pentachlorophenol. an
assessment of the occupational hazard.
,4m. Ind. Hyy. Assoc. /. 43.799-810.
Wong, A.S. and D.G Crosby. I978a.
Decontamination of 2.3.7.3-
tetrachiurodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDCs) by
photochemical action. In: Dioxins:
toxicological and chemical aspects. Op. Cit.
Wong. A.S. and D.C. Crosby (197Sb).
Photolysi* of Pentachlorophenol in Water
Errvmtt. Sc7. Sea. 12:19-25.
XI. List of Subject*
40 CFR Part 291
Hazardous materials. Waste
treatment and disposal. Recycling.
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous materials. Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Security measures.
Security bonds. Waste treatment and
disposal.
•tO CFR Part 265
Hazardous materials. Packaging and
containers. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Security measures.
Security bonds. Waste treatment and
disposal. Water supply.
•to CFR Part 270
An% waste listed i»
5 § 281 Jl.
or. 2SL33(e) is empty if:
4. In 5 261.30. paragraph (d) is revi
to read as follows:
-------
2000
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
J 261.30
(d) The following hazardous waste,
listed in } 281.31 or 5 281.32 are subject
to the exclusion limits for acutely
hazardous wastes established in 5 281.5: 5. In § 261.31. add the following waste
EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. FO20, streams:
FO21. F022. FO23, FO28. and FO27. ^^ ^^
..... nonspecific source*.
FO20 WMIM (ooM wnvwr mo jewi carton mm nvorooan a»ono» gwrtcaoonl ton m» aoouaon or iwruMcumg >JM {*» • '••earn. cnonca/ (B>
«it*nMBM, or eomoomr* n i lormuuono, am. ml o» iv or tMracnorooranoL or a fiwrnwawM uMd to groduc* Mr otftKU* ^i.nfat.i^wv o» H^xAcMoroomna {.o.^ tojiry pt^ifMd 2.*.5*(ncntorccrxnoM.
TO21 W*m* («ic*ot ••••«MII ana *g«nt careen from n?0roojn cnMno* wiflcaneni from 9w gradueaan or m«nufaclunng UM !u • 'Octant :rwmcal HI
rtww^aan*, or ctworMnt M i tofmuMonQ procvHI 04 ov^ttcMQroQAflnoi. or of YttflrmBdMttft uAMd to moijuov ftv 9vwvw^
FO22 W«MM I«R>0( «m«««Mr and ae*m careen from nwioqw cmana* owiAenen» fnjm tn« m«nuf*ca*ng UM (in • rvactwit crwrvctf «t«rm*oww. or I,H>.
ony tor n« praducaon or uM o* H*i«0«orapn«n« from ^grwy punft«d 2.4 5-
or «moornr« n • farmumng gtar.tml al am-. 0cm*.. or
ctteregraneai (Th« mng now not fauo*
pnouiAM 2.4.j.MenonjpiMnot •
FOM. K»1, FC2Z
FO26.
8. i 281.33(f) is amended by revising
the hazardous waste numbers for the
following substances:
} 2*143 Dtecarttod com>n«feM ctwnlcrt
product off-«p«cMc«tion
conUtfMf rMMuM, «nd «pUI
(Q * ' *
SuMtano*
FO37
7. Amend Table 1 in Appendix HI of
Part 281. by removing the entry
"chlorinated dibenzodioxins", and
adding the following entries in
alphabetical order
Appendix III—Chemical Analysis Test Appendix VTJ—Basis for Lasting
Methods Hazardous Wastes
TABLE 1.—ANALYTICAL METHODS TOR
ORGANIC CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-346
Comeound
Second
CMonrtoM
8. Amend Table 3 in Appendix III of
Part 281. by adding the following entry
under Organic Analytical Methods—
Gas Chromatographic/Mass
Spectroscopy Methods (GC/MS) after
the entry entitled "GC/MS Semi-
Volatiles. Capillary:
TABLE 3—SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS METHODS
CONTAINED IN SW-&46
Sw-
oon
No.
Ounin* tnd
9.2 9240
9. Add the following entries in
numerical order to Appendix VII of Part
261:
£PA
Hmiuom conmMmi for vncn ist«a
nv«K« toot. «t«n. itrwn. tmn* ana otr«
un*.
grwnoi tna n tMm«ev«.
-022. ..._ T«r».
«na p«macnoroaMnxaiuran«. TV trd ;«i
ailoroorwnot* ««» trwr cffloroor^noiy a«n
av« toca. our*, tmra. imrw and a
sara.
and ri«
vd oTtv Mitm.
. and
n-, '.*n-. ana
cmaroancnarr
trran* anaoiTMr UK*.
10. Add the following constituents in
alphabetical order to Appendix VIII of
Part 281:
Appendix Vin—Hazardous Constituents
* * • * »
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
hexachlorodibenzofurans
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
pentachlorodibenzofurans
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Ruiea and Regulation*
2001
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
tetrachiorocnbenzofurans
*****
11. Appendix X is added tb- Part 281 to
read as follows:
Appendix X—Method of Analysis for
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dio.xins and
dibenzofurans u * x '
Method 8280
\. Scape and Application
1.1 This method measures the
concentration of chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans in
chemical wastes including still bottoms, filter
aids, sludges, spent carbon, and reactor
residues, and in soils.
1.2 The sensitivity of this method is
dependent upon the level of interferences.
1.3 This method is recommended for use
only by analysts experienced with residue
analysis and skilled in mass spectral
analytical techniques.
1.4 Because of the extreme toxicity of
these compounds, the analyst must take
necessary precautions to prevent exposure to
himself, or to others, of materials known or
believed to contain CDOs or COFs.
2. Summary of the Method
2.1 This method is an analytical
extraction cleanup procedure, and capillary
column gas chrornatograph-iow resolution
mass spectrometry method, using capillary
column CC/MS conditions and internal
standard techniques, which allow for the
measurement of PCDDs and PCDFs in the
extract.
2.2 If interferences are encountered, the
method provides selected general purpose
cleanup procedures to aid the analyst m their
elimination.
3. Interferences
3.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and
other sample processing hardware may yield
' This method is appropriate for the analysis of
tetra-. penta-. and hexacnlonnated diberuo-p-
dioxmi and -dibenzofurans.
'Analytical protocol for determination of TCDDs
tn phenolic chemical wastes and soil samples
ootamed from the proximity of chemical dumps.
T.O. Tiernan and M. Taylor 3rehm Laboratory.
Wright Statt University. Qeyton. OH 43425.
' Analytical protocol for determination of
chlorinated ditwnzo-p-dioxina and chlorinated
dibenzofurana in nv«fr water. T.O. Tieman and M.
Taylor. Breton Laboratory. Wnght Statt University.
Oaytoa OH 45435.
' In general, tha technique* that should b« used to
handle thee* outenaia art thot* which are followed
for radioactive or inteetiout laboratory materials.
Aitiatanct in evaluating laboratory practice* may
be obtained from mduatnal aygiemst* and persons
specializing m safe laboratory practice*. Typical
infectious watte incinerator! are probably not
satisfactory device* for disposal of material* highly
contaminated with COD* or COFs. Safety
instructions are outlined in EPA Test Method
313(40)
See alto: l) "Program for monitoring potential
contamination in the laboratory following the
handling and analyse* of chlonnated*dibenzo-p-
dioxuu and dibmiohirans" by F. 0. Hileman et a!..
In: Human and Environmental Risks of Chlorinated
Dioxin* and Related Compound*, R-E. Tucker, tt al.
edt_ Plenum Publishing Corp.. 1983. 2) Safety
procedures outlined m EPA Method 613. Federal
Register volume 44. No. 233. December 3. 1979
discrete artifacts and/or elevated baselines
causing misinterpretation of gas
chromatograms. All of these materials must
be demonstrated to be free from interferences
under the conditions of the analysis by
running method blanks. Specific selection of
reagents and purification of solvents by
distillation in ail-glass systems may be
required.
3.2 Interferences co-extracted from the
samples will vary considerably from source
to source, depending upon the diversity of the
industry being sampled. PCDO is often
associated with other interfering chlorinated
compounds such as PCB's which may be at
concentrations several orders of magnitude
higher than that of PCDD. While general
cleanup techniques are provided as part of
this method, unique samples may require
additional cleanup approaches to achieve the
sensitivity stated tn Table 1.
3.3 The other isomers of
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin may interfere
with the measurement of 2.3.7.8-TCDD.
Capillary column gas chromatography is
required to resolve those isomers that yield
virtually identical mass fragmentation
patterns.
4. Apparatus and Matenals
4.1. Sampling equipment for discrete or
composite sampling.
4.1.1 Crab sample bottle—amber glass. 1-
liter or 1-quart volume. French or Boston
Round design is recommended. The container
must be washed and solvent rinsed before
use to minimize interferences.
4.1.2. Bottle caps—threaded to screw on
to the sample bottles. Caps must be lined
with Teflon. Solvent washed foil, used with
the shiny side towards the sample, may be
substituted for the Teflon if sample is not
corrosive.
4.1.3. Compositing equipment—automatic
or manual composing system. No tygon or
rubber tubing may be used, and the system
must incorporate glass sample containers for
the collection of a minimum of 250 mi. Sample
containers must be kept refrigerated after
sampling.
4.2 Water bath—heated, with cor.centnc
ring cover, capable of temperature control
( = 2 'C). The bath should be used in 2 hood.
4.3 Gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer data system.
4.3.1 Cas chramatograph: An analytical
system with a temperature-programmable gas
chromatograph and all required accessories
including syringes, analytical columns, and
gases.
4.3.2 Column: SP-2250 coated on a 30 m
long x 0.25 mm 1.0. glass column (Supelco
No. 2-3714 or equivalent). Class capillary
column conditions: Helium earner gas at 30
cm/sec linear velocity run splitless. Column
temperature is 210 "C.
4.3.3 Mass spectrometer Capable of
scanning from 33 to 450 amu every 1 sec or
less, utilizing 70 volts (nominal) electron
energy m the electron impact loruzation mode
and producing a mass spectrum which meets
ail the criteria in Table 2 when 50 ng of
decafluorotnphenyl-phosphme (DFTPP) is
iniected through the GC inlet The system
must also be capable of selected ion
monitoring (SIM) for at least 4 ions
simultaneously, with a cycle time of 1 sec or
less. Minimum integration time for StM it 100
ms. Selected ion monitoring tt verified by
injecting .015 ng of TCDD Cl" to give a
minimum signal to notse ratio of 5 to l at
mass 328.
4.3.4 CC/MS interface: Any CC-to-MS
interface that gives acceptable calibration
points at SO ng per injection for each
compound of interest and achieves
acceptaole tuning performance criteria (see
Sections 8.1-6.3) may be used. GC-to-MS
interfaces constructed of ail glass or glass-
lined materials are recommended. Glass can
be deactivated by silamzmg with
dichlorodimethylsiiane. The interface must be
capable of transporting at least 10 ng of the
components of interest from the GC to the
MS.
4.3.5 Data system: A computer system
must be interfaced to the mass spectrometer.
The system must allow the continuous
acquisition and storage on machine-readable
media of ail mass spectra obtained
throughout the duration of the
chromatographic program. The computer
must have software that can search any GC/
MS data file for ions of a specific mass and
that can plot such ion abundances versus
time or scan number. This type of plot is
defined as an Extracted Ion Current Profile
(EICP). Software must also be able to
integrate the abundance, in any EICP.
between specified time or scan number
limits.
4.4 Pipettes-Disposable. Pasteur. ISO mm
long x S mm ID (Fisher Scientific Co.. No. 13-
678-8A or equivalent).
4.S Flint glass bottle (Tefion-lmed screw
cap).
4.3 Reacti-vial (siiaruzed) (Pierce
Chemical Co.).
5. Reagents
5.1 Potassium hydroxide-(ACS). 2"% in
distilled water.
5.2 Sulfunc acid-(ACS). concentrated.
5.3 Methylene chloride, hexane. benzene.
petroleum ^ther. methanol. tetradecane-
pesticide quality or equivalent.
5.4 Prepare stock standard solutions of
TCDD and 37C1-TCDD (molecular weight 328)
m a glove box. The stock solutions are stored
in a glovebox. and checked frequently for
signs of degradation or evaporation.
especially just poor to the preparation of
working standards.
5.5 Alumina-basic, Woelm: 80/200 mesh.
Before use activate overnight it 600'C. cool to
room temperature in a dessicator
5.6 Prepunfied nitrogen gas
8.0 Calibration
8.1 Before using any cleanup procedure.
the analyst must process a senes of
calibration standards through the procedure
to validate elution patterns and the absence
of interferences from reagents.
8.2 Prepare GC/MS calibration standards
for the internal standard technique that will
allow for measurement of relative response
factors of at least three CDD/"CDD ratios.
Thus, for TCDDs. at least three TCDD/ "Cl-
TCDD and TCDF/"C1-TCDF must be
determined.4 The "Cl-TCDD/F concentration
» "Cl-labelled 2.3.7.&-TCDO and 13.r 3-TCDF act
available from K.O R. Isotope*, and Cambridge
Continued
-------
/ Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, Jamrary 14. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
in the standard ahouU be Bend and selected
to ywld • reavoduabae reaponee at the moat
sensitive settlne of tit* man spectrometer.
Respanee faaort for PCUD tod HxCDO mar
be determined by measuring the" response of
the tetrachkoro-iabeikd couipowuii relative
to thai of the unlabeiied 1.2JJ.4- or 2J.7.S-
TCDD. 1-2.14.7-K2H) or 1.2J.4.7.3-HXCDQ.
which arc commercially available.*
aj Ataemoie the necessary GO'MS
appartfuf tad establish operating
parameters equivaiew to those adioiwi in
Sectie* 11.1 of 'Joue method. Calibrate tht
CC/MS system according to Eidtefoerger. si
al. 41975) by tneuee of decafluoroanpaenyi
phoaphine iEtfTPPl- By mjectina ouroration
jtandajoa. estattiafc the teapaoM facsocs for
CDDt vs. "Cl-TCDD. and for CDFs vs. "O-
TCDF. Tbe detection taut provided in Table
1 shook! be veofied by iDJecBnf .015 09 of
"Q-TCDD wtecfe. foooid pv« a mmimoia
signal to oa>»e ana of 5 so 1 at tnaaa 32S.
7. Quality CaaoeJ
7.1 Before procaams; any saaapies. the
analyet shoeM denuaaauaai through the
analyna of a dJarrikri water method blank.
that all jtaaaware and reagents are
hiierferenea-fre*. Each one a ft* of sample*
i^ extracted, or then i* a chang* m reagents.
a method blank arwuld be procaseed at a
safeguard agannat laboratory contamination.
7.2 Standard qnUty asewance* practices
must be uaad vrrtb this method. Field
replicates must be collected to measure the
pieoaum of the sampling' technique.
Laboratory repocaie* moat be analysed to
establish the precision of the analyst*.
Fortified laayfri must be married to
establish the accuracy of the analysis.
8. Sampi* Catitetion. Preservation, and
Handling
8.1 Crab and composite sample* mast be
collected in giaa* contanien. Conventional
sampling pracnces should be followed
except that the bottle most not be prewasiied
with sample before collection. Composite
sample* should be collected in fiast
containers in accordance with the
requirements of the RCRA program. Sampling
equipment must be> fre* of ryjon and other
potential ujujix of contamination.
8.2 The sample* most be iced or
refrigerated from tbe time at eofleeiion ontH
extraction. Chencai preeerranYes shoald
not be used in the field tiniest more man 24
hour* wifi eiapae More deanery to tire
laboratory. If an aqaeous sanpie t* taken and
the sample will not be extracted wttfem 49
hours of collection, the *anpte -shooid be
adjusted to a pH range of 9.9-8.9 wrft Jocftura
hydroxide or wffonc acid.
Isotope*, inc. ("jmnnd
itindarcfization requim tht use erf i ipecific
labelled itomtr for «»ch congtfltr to be determined.
Ho^^^w. rtw tjfily1 iebeRed iiuBieTi mdlty
avaitabW an '^3-1^7. 1-1UA) and "Ci-2J.7.»-
TCOP. Thw aethod tbtnfaf* o*e» the** ttomera at
surroeitat ftr ft* COD* ana OF*. W»«a otfwr
labcliad CSOl an« COF* «• a
• Tin proeadua * aitoined b«jMj* «la«i«hirr1a
are not available for moat of the CDDt and CDFi.
and aaaumet that ail the congener* witt «*)• !fw
itandavd. AltkM^* ai« aamoaoa twy ntl b* tra«
rntti. the error will b« imalL
8J Ail semvies must be mtracted within
7 days and completely analyzed wtthm 30
day» of collec?x)n.
9. Extraeaoa and Cleamm Procedures
9.1 Use an aiiqnot of 1-10 ; sampte of the
chemical waste or toil to be analyzed. Soris
should be dned gsing a amant of prepuhfied
nitrogen and porvenzed in a ball-mill or
similar device. Perform this operation in a
clear area wth proper bocd space. Transfer
!he samoie to a tared 125 mi flint glase- bottle
(Teflon-lined screw cap) and determine the
weight of the sample. Add an appropriate
quantity of 31CMabefted 2J.7 8-TCDD (edfust
the qoanoty according to the required
tniniamai detectable coacentratioa). which it
employed as an internal standard.
9.2 Extraction
9.2.1 Extract chemscai waste samples by
adding 10 mi methaooi. 40 a) petroleum
ether. 30 mi doubly diaaJled watec, and then
shaking the mixture for 2 amotea. Tan
should be completely diaaorred in any of the
recommended neat solvceta, Acnrwed
carbon Miaptet mutt be ealt acted wrth
benzene uaing method 3S4O in SW-OM (Test
Method* for EvaiMtin* Solid Waata--
Physical/Chemical Methods, available from
C.P O. Stock S055-G22-S1001-2).
Quantitatively transfer tbe organic exffact or
dissolved sample to a clean 250 mi flint giaea
bottle (Teflon lined screw cap), add 50 ml
doubly distiilad water and shake for 2
minutes. Discard the a^uaous Layer ^«^
proceed with Step 9J.
9.2.2 Extract soil samples by adding 40 ml
of petroleum ether to the sampie. »*"< then
shaking for 20 minules. Quantitatively
transfer the organic extract to a clean 250 ml
flint glass bottle (Teflon-lined screw cap).
add 50 mi doubly distilled water and shake
for 2 minutes. Discard the aqueous layer and
proceed with Step 9*3.
9.3 Wash the organic layer with 50 mi of
20% aqueous potassium hydroxide by shaking
for 10 minutes and then remove and discard
the aqueous layer.
9.4 Wash the organic layer with SO ml of
doubly distilled water by shaking for 2
minutes, and discard the aqueous layer
9.5 Cautiously add SO mi concentrated
suifuric acid and shake for 10 minutes. Allow
the mixture to stand until Layers separate
(approximately TO minutes], and remove and
discard the acid layer. Repeat acid washing
unoi no color is visible in the acid layer.
9.8 Add SO mi of doubly distilled water to
the organic extract and shake for 2 mir.utes.
Remove and discard the aqueous layer and
dry the organic layer by adding lOg of
anhydrous rodram jui'ate.
9.7 Concentrate the extract to incipient
dryneat by beating in a 55" C water bath and
sirmiltaneocsry "owing a stream of
prepunfied mtrogen over the extract.
Quantitatively transfer the restdue to an
alumina microeohonn febrrated as follows:
9.7.1 Cat off the top section of a 10 mi
disposeWe Pyrex prpemt at the 4.0 at marie
and insert a piiif of riranized glass wool mto
the tip of (he lower {jurMuii of the pi^iefte.
9.7.2 Add 2.8j of Woeiro basic alumina
(previously activated at 800" C oTemight and
trfen cooled to room teinpetatme m a
desiccator jmt prior to rue}.
9.7 3 Transfer sampie extinct with a small
votame of melhytewe cntende
9.8 Elute me microcninmn with 10 ml of
3% methyiene chohrfde-m-hexane followed by
IS m! of 20% methyfene chlonde-m-hexane
and discard these effluents. Bute the column
with IS ml of 50^ methyiene chtonde-oi-
hexane and concentrate this effluent (So' C
water bath, stream of prwpnrified nitrogen) to
about 0.3-0.5 mi.
9.9 Quantitatively transfer the resrrfae
(using methyiene chloride to nnse the
container) to a silamzed Reacti-Vial (Pierce
Chemical Co.). Evaporate, using a stream a/
prepunned nitrogen, almoat to drynesa. nnse
the walls of the venal with approximately 0-5
ml methytene chloride, evaporate lust to
dryness. and Ughtlr cap the vial. Stare the
vtai at 5' C until analysis, at which tisie i»e
sample is reconstitntad by the addition of
tndecane.
9.10 Approximately 1 hour be/ore GC-MS
(HRCC-UlXSi aoaiyoe. dilute the restdue m
the micro-feache* Mturl wok an appropriate
quantity of tndecane. Gently ***"* the
tndecane am the luwi portion of the vessel
to ensure cbaeoioaxai el the CPPaand CDFs.
Analyze a aaaapie by CC/EC to nrertde
insight rmo the cootpiexity of the problem.
and to determine the manner m which the
mass spectrometer should be used, raiect an
appropriate afteaet of the swmpfe into the
GC-MS instrament osmg a syrmge.
9.11 If. open pielimmary CC-MS arrarysis.
the tampie Jfpean to oaujm intarfermg
substances which abacnre the analyses ior
CDDs and CUTS, high periocmance liquid
chromatographic (HPLC] cleanup of the
extract is accomplished, prior to further GC-
MS analysis.
10. HfLC Cjsanup Pncedufa'
10.1 Place approximately 2 ml of hexane
in a SO ml flint glass sample bottle fitted with
a Teflon-Lined cap.
10.2 At the appropriate retention tmxs.
position sample bottle to collect the required
fraction.
10.3 Add 2 ml of 5% fw/v) sodium
carbonate to the sample fraction collected
rind shake for one nunute.
10 4 Quantitatively remove the hexaee
layer (top layer) and transfer to a micro-
reaction vessel.
10.5 Concentrate (he fraction to dryness
and retain for farther analysis.
11. GC/MS Analysis
11.1 The following column corustuos are
recommended: Glass capillary cohtmn
conditions: SP-2250 coated on a 30 m iong x
0.25 mm LO. giaa* column tSupelca No. 2-
3714. or equivalent) with helium earner gas at
30 cm/sec linear velocity, run splitiess.
Column temperature is 210' C. Under theaa
conditions the retention time for TCDD* it
about 9.5 minutes. Calibrate tbe system datty
with, a minimum, three in>athon» of standard
mixtures.
11.2 Calculate response factors for
standards relative to "C7-TCDD/F fsee
Section 12}.
11.3 Analyze samples with selected too
monitoring of as least vwo toot from Tabie 3.
' Far cleanup MA aisa authed -3320 or =
SW-»4& Test Methods Cor £>&lMtuig Stu< '.V
Phyjicsf/Oiemica/ Methoda (1982).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. January 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 2003
Proof of the presence of CDD or CDF exists if
the following conditions are met:
11.3.1 The retention time of the peak in
the sample must match that ;n the standard.
within the performance specifications of the
analytical system.
11.3.2 The ratio of ions must agree within
IDS with that of the standard.
11.3.3 The retention time of the peak
maximum for the ions of interest must
exactly match that of the peax.
11.4 Quantitate the CDD and CDF peaks
from the response relative to the "Cl-
TCDD/F internal standards. Recovery of the
internal standard should be greater than SO
percent.
11.5 • if a response is obtained for the
appropriate set of ions, but is outside the
expected ratio, a co-eiuting impurity may be
suspected. In this case, another set of ions
characteristic of the CDD/CDF molecules
should be analyzed. For TCDD a good choice
of ions is m/e 237 and m/e 259. For TCDF a
good choice of ions is m/e 241 and 243. These
ions are useful in characterizing the
molecular structure to TCDD or TCDF. For
analysis of TCDD good analytical technique
would require using all four ions, m/e 257.
320. 322. and 328. to verify detection and
signal to noise ratio of 5 to 1. Suspected
impurities such as DDE. DDD. or PCB
residues can be confirmed by checking for
their major fragments. These materials can be
removed by the cleanup columns. Failure to
meet cntena should be explained in the
report, or the sample reanalyzed.
11.6 If broad background interference
restricts the sensitivity of the CC/MS
analysis, the analyst should employ cleanup
procedures and reanalyze by GC/MS. See
section 10.0.
11.7 In those circumstances where these
procedures do not yield a definitive
conclusion, the use of high resolution mass
spectrometry is suggested.
12. Calculations
12.1 Determine the concentration of
individual compounds according to the
formula:
Concentration.
here:
AxA,
G/.A.xR,
A = ;ig of internal standard added to the
sample ' .
G=gm of samptt) extracted
A, = area of characteristic ion of the
compound being quantified.
A,, s area of characteristic ion of the internal
standard"
R,= response factor *
'The proper amount of standard to b« used is
determined from the calibration curve (Sue Section
6.01.
Mf standardi for PCDD*/F» and H.xCDDs/Fj are
not available, responx factor! for ion> derived from
these congeners ar» calculated relative to :TJI-
TCDD/F. The analyst may u« response factors for
1.2.3.4- or 2J.r 8-TCDO. 1.2J.4.7-P*CDD. or
1.2.3.4.7a-HxCDO for cmanmation of TCDD«/Fs.
PeCDDs/F« and HxCDOa/Ft. respectively. Impl'cit
in this requirement 11 the assumption thai the same
response is obtained from PCOOa/Ft ccontaming
(he same numbers of chlorine atoms.
Response factors are calculated using data
obtained from the analysis of standards
according to the formula:
1 0»wcson 'unit 'or IKJUK) janows « 0003
catcuiateQ from me •ntnm^jTt 3«tec:aoi« GC
Mua* 10 fe»« vntt tn« 3C oaci-g/ouna 'XJI
mi tfecttv* Aral *oHim« ot 7>« ' 'i
3C irt«crion ot 5 -mcrom«f9 -etsctton
9*«ctron ca0njf» and GC MS deiocson
sw 44 SB 69£iS iGvcVMr 3 '9~9>
«tract ana i
aooiv to sotn
'urtn«r setaits
Rf
A.xC.
A..XC,
where:
C,. = concentration of the internal standard
C, = concentration of the standard compound
12.2 Report results in micrograms per
gram without correction for recovery data.
When duplicate and spiked samples are
analyzed, all data obtained should be
reported.
12.3 Accuracy and Precision. No data are
available at this time.
TABLE 1.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY OF TCOO
s«wv \ erne-
tion Qfne> | oofi Mm
(iron i
TABLE 2.— OFTPP KEY IONS AND ION
ABUNDANCE CRITERIA '
ax 'ox tounaanca amen*
51
68
70
127
'97
'9*
198
271 I
3«5 .
441
M2
443
30-60% ot iass -98
-n* cn«n 2% at -nas* 59
.«» nan 2% ot mau 99
4O-so% at maia ")»
La« man 1% ot -nua '98
5-9% C*
1 319897
321 994 i
= 347 S8S •
' 25*933
1 258930
' 353 Bia
35S 8SS
389818
391 913
vic^'io^ao ~< ' *
0'
C ;H.-,OC;,
' 303 90?
305903
1 :;i 9S4
• 33-953
339360
3" 321
mat*
Tworttical
'»no
XI 04M *
eil*d itinuard ««kj.
* '«<• wncn can M nxjr»or«d « TCOO anai>M» for csnMmation nrpOM*.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS ANO OPERATORS Of
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT.
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
12. The authority citation for Part 264
reads as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 200:1 a). 3004. and
3003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905. 6912(a). 8924. and 6925).
13. In Subpart I of Part 264. the
introductory text in paragraph (c) is
revised and a new paragraph (d) is
added to § 284.175:
§ 244.17S ContataffMfit
• • « • •
(c) Storage areas that store containers
holding only wastes that do not contain
free liquids need not have a containment
system defined by paragraph ib| of this
section, except as provided by
paragraph (d) of this section or provided
that:
(d) Storage areas that sture containers
holding the wastes listed below that do
not contain free liquids must nave a
containment system defined by
paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) FO20. FO21. FO22. FO:3. FO28.
and FO27.
(2) [Reserved]
14. In Subpart J of Part 264. dmend
§ 254.194 by redesigr.atma paragraph (c)
as paragraph (c)(l). and dtfdmg a new
paragraph (c)(2):
§ 264.194 Inspection*.
-------
/ Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday. Jarreary 14. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
fcJtl) ' ' *
[2) Por EPA Haz8Tti0B5 Wastes .
FO20. FOZ1. FO2Z FOa. FOS&, and
PO27, the contingency piaa must also
include the procedures for responding to
a spill or leak of these wastes tram
tanks into (be containment system.
These procedures shall include
measure* far immediate removal of the
waste from the system and replacement
or repair of the leaking fqpfc-
15. In Subpwt ] of Part 2M. add the
following } 264.200:
3204JOO Special r«4uire«»a«t» tar
hazardous waste* POM, Htt, fQO. TO23,
FO20, and P027.
(a) In addition to the othar
requirements of Sabpert J. the following
requirements apply to tank* staring or
treating hazardous wastes FO2O. FOZ1.
PO22. PO23. F028, and FO27.
(1) Tanks must have systems designed
and operated to detect and adequately
contain spills or leaks. The design and
operation of any containment system
must reflect coasidennoa of ail relevant
factors, ujchtding?
(i) Capacity of the tank:
(») Volumes and characteristics of
wastes stored or treated in the tank
(hi) Method of collection of spills or
leaks;
(iv) The design and construction
material* of the tank and containment
system: and
(v) The need to prevent precipitation
and run-on from entering into the
system.
(2) As part of the contingency plan
required by Subpart D of Part 284. the
owner or operator most specify such
procedures for responding to a spill or
leak from the tank mto the containment
system as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
TheM procedure* shall otctade
tneasares for tSMMdiata- removal of the
waste from tm jystasa aa« replacement
or repair of tae ^rninnj tank.
IS. In Subpart £ of Part 264. add the
following section f 264.231:
J2*4J3f Special rauulrainyits far
haurttuus »Mlu fOSO, fOIf, FO22, F023,
FC28, at* FO77.
(a) Hazardom? Wastes PO20, FOZi,
FO22, FO23. PD20. and FO27 must not
be placed HI a surface impoundment
unless the owner or operator operates
the surface impoundment rn accordance
with a tnaaagexneot plan for these
waste* thai >» approved by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to th* standard*
set out in this paragraph, and ia accord
with all other applicable requirements of
this Part. The factors to be considered
are:
(1) The vohnne. physical and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including their potential to migrate
through soil or to volatilize or escape
into the atmosphere
(2) The attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
(3) The mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes: and
(4) The effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
(b) The Regional Administrator may
determine that additional design.
operating, and monitoring requirements
are necessary for surface impoundments
managing hazardous wastes FO20.
FO21. FO22. FO23, FO28. and FO27 in
order to reduce the possibility of
migration of these wastes to ground
water, surface water, or arr so as to
protect human health and the
environment.
17. In Subpart L of Part 264. add the
following section $ 264.259:
8 264.2S9 Special faquir S(!ievi is flof
hazardous wastes FO20, FO21, FO22. FO23,
FO2S, and FO27.
(a) Hazardous Wastes FO20. FO21.
FO22, FO23. FO26. and FO27 must not
be placed in waste piles that are not
enclosed (as defined in \2£A.?.*n{i\\
unles* the owner or operator operates
the waste pile in accordance with a
management plan for these wastes that
is approved by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to the standards
set out in this paragraph, and in accord
with all other applicable requirements of
this Part The factors to be considered
are:
flj The volume, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including their potential to migrate
through toti or to volatilize or escape
into the atmosphere:
(2) The attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
(3) The mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes: and
(4) The effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
(b) The Regional Administrator may
determine that additional design.
operating, and monitoring requirements
are necessary for piles managing
hazardous wastes FO2O. FO21, FO22,
FO23, FO28. and. F027 in order to
reduce the possibility of migration of
these wastes to ground water, surface
water, or air so as to protect human
health and the envircmmerrt.
18. In Subpart M of Part 284. add iha
following section f 264.233;
I 2«283 Spaclai requirements for
Hazardous wastes FO20, FO21. FO2Z ?O2&
FO28, and FO27.
(a) Hazardous Wastes FO20. FO21.
FO2Z FO23. FO28 and. FO27 must not
be placed in a {and treatment unit unless
the owner or operator operates the
facility in accordance with a
management plan for these wastes that
is approved by she Regional
Administrator pursuant to the standards
set out in this paragraph, and m accord
with all other sppficaWe requirements of
this Part. The factors to be considered
are:
(1) The volaane. physical and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including (hear potential to migrate
through soil or to volatilize or escape
into the atmosphere
(2} The atteouative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other otatenaia:
(3) Tha mobifiziug properties- of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes; and
(4) The effectiveness of additional
treatment design, or monitoring
techniques.
(b) Tie Regional Administrator may
determine (hat additional design.
operating, and momionng requirements
are necessary for land treatment
facilities managing hazardous wastes
FO2Q. FO21. FO22. FO23. FO28. and
FO27 in order to reduce the possibtiiry
of migration of these wastes to ground
water, surface water, or air so as to
protect human health and the
environment.
19. In Subpart N of Part 284. add the
foliowmg section J 264.3T7:
5 264.317 Special requirements for
hazardous wastes FO20, FO21, FO2Z FO23.
FO2S, and FO27.
[a) Hazardous Wastes FO20. FO21.
FO2Z FO23. FO28. and FO27 must not
be placed in a landfills unless the owner
or operator operates the landfill ui
accord with a management plan for
these wastes that is approved by the
Regional Administrator pursuant to the
standards set out in this paragraph, and
in accord with ail other applicable -
requirements of this Part. The factors !o
be considered are:
(1) The volume, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including their potential to migrate
through the soil or to volatiiizE or escape
into the atmosphere:
(2) The sttenuaitva properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
-------
Federal Register / Vol 50; No. a / Monday. January 14. 1965 / Rules and Regulations 2005
(3-iThe mobilizing proper.ti«» of other
ma ten ail co-disposed with, thesa
wastes; and.
W The effectiveness o£ additional
treatment, design, or mooitonng.
requirements.
(b) The Regional Administrate* may
determine thar additional design.
operating, and rnooitormg requirementa
are necessary for landfills- managing
hazardous wastes FO2O. FO21. FQ22.
FO23, FQ2&, and FQ27 in. order to reduce
the possibility of migration Q£ these
wastes to ground water, surface water.
or air so as to.protect human health and
the environment.
20. In Subpart 0 of Part 264. amend.
§ 264.343 by revising.paragraph, (a) and
redesignating paragraph {a) as
paragraph (a)(l). and adding a new
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows-
§264.343 P«rformaoc<
(a)(l) Except as provided in paragraph
(a|(2). an incinerator burning hazardous
waste must achieve a destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE). of 99.99% for
each principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) designated (under
I 264.342) in ita permit for each waste
feed. DRE is determined for each POHC
from the following equauonr
DR£
* TOO"".
where:
W n = mos» feed rate of one prncioai organic
hazardous constituent (POHC1 in the
waste stream feeding the incinerator
emission rs;e of the same POHC
present m exhaust emissions prior to
release to the atmosphere.
(2) An incinerator burning hazardous
wastes FO20. FO21. FQ22. FO23. FO28.
or FO2T must achieve a, destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE} of 99.9999** For
each principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC] designated (under
5 264.342) in its permit. This
performance, must be demonstrated on
POHCs that are more difficult to
incinerate than tetra-. penta-. and
hexachlorodibenzo-ivdioxins and
dibenzofurans. DRE is determined for
each POHC from the equation in
5 264.343(aj(l). In addition, the owner or
operator of the incinerator must notify
the Regional Administrator of his intent
to incinerate hazardous wastes FO20,
FO21. FO22. FO23. FO28. or FO27
PART 265-JNTERI** STANDARDS
FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS Of
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE. AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
21. The authority citation foe Part 285
reads as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3004. and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. a>
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. as amended (42 (J 5.C.
6905. 6912(af. 6924. and 992S).
22. ! 265.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (d)
§ 265.1 Purpose, scop*, and applicability.
v • * * *
(d) The following hazardous- wastes-
must not be managed at facilities
subject to regulation under this Part.
(1) EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FQ2Q.
FO21. FO22. FO23. FO28. or FO27
uniessi
(i) The waste water treatment sludge is.
generated in a surface impoundment as
part of the plant's wastewater treatment
system:
(ii) The waste is stored in tanks or
containers:
(iii) The waste is stored or treated in.
waste piles that meet the requirements
of § 264_250(c) as well as ail other
applicable requirementa of Subpart L of
this Part:
(iv) The waste is burned in
incinerators that are certified pursuant
to the standards and procedures in
5 235.352: or
(v) The waste is burned in facilities
that thermally treat the waste in a
device other than an incinerator and
that ara certified pursuant to the
standards and procedures in § 235.383.
23. In Subpart O of Part 265. add thp
following 5 :85.352:
§ 265452 Interim Statu* Incinerators
Burning Pstttcuiar Hazardous Wastes.
(a) Owners or operators of
incinerators subject to this Subpart nia\
burn EPA Hazardous Wastes FO20.
FO21. FO22. FO23. FO26. or FO27 if they
receive a certification from the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response that they can meet
the performance standards of Subpart O
of Part 264 when they burn these
a a 3 tea. •
(b) The following standards and
procedures will be used* in determining
whether to certify an incinerator?
(1) The owner or operator will submit
an application to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response containing
applicable information in §§ 270.19 and
270.62 demonstrating that the
incinerator can meet the performance
standards in Subpart 0 of Part 264 when
they burn these wastes.
(2) The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
will issue a tentative decision as to
whether the incinerator can meet the-
performance standards in Subpart O of
Part 284. Notification of this tentative
decision will be provided by newspaper
advertisement and radio broadcast in
the jurisdiction where the incinerator is
located. The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
will accept comment on the tentative
decision for 60 days. The Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response also may hold a -
public heanng upon request or at his
discretion.
(3) After the dose of the public
comment period, the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response will issue a
decision whether or not to certify the
incinerator.
24. lrr Subpart P of Part 285, add the
following 5 265.383:
§ 265.383 Interim Status Thermal
TrMtnMKtt DtvtcM Burning Particular
Hazasooua Wsst*.
(a) Owners or operators of thermal
treatment devices subiect to this
Subpart may burn EPA Hazardous
Wastes FO20. FO21. FO22. FO23, F028.
or FO27 if they receive a certification
from the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
that they can meet the performance
standards of Subpart O of Part 264 when
they bum these wastes.
(b) The following standards and
procedures will be used in detemmtna
whether to certify a rher-r.J -p^rTient
•.•.n:t:
(1) The owner or operator *•• • submit
an application to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Wa-'e -.!' - -\n> e the
thermal treatment dev u »• •< < ,.ied The
Assistant Administrator 'or ^. .1 Waste
and Emergency Respcn>*- .» i ,u cept
comment on the tenu.t •. * .:i-< * -rfor
-------
2008-
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9 / Monday, January 14. 1985- / Rules and Regulations
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
also may hold a public hearing upon
request or at his discretion.
(3) After the dose of the public
comment period, the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response will issue a
decision whether or not to certify the
thermal treatment unit.
PART 270— EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
25. The authority citation for Part 270
reads as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3005. 3007.
and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. a«
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. as amended (42 U.S.C.
9605. 8912(a). 8925. 3027. and 9974).
28. In Subpart B of Part 270. paragraph
(b)(7) of { 270.14 is revised to read as
follows:
} 270.14 Contorts of Part B: G*n«ral
(b)' * '
(7) A copy of the contingency plan
required by Part 284. Subpart D. Note:
Include, where applicable, as part of the
contingency plan, specific requirements
in J5 284.227. 264.253. and 284.200.
*****
27. In Subpart B of Part 270. §270.18 is
amended by adding paragraph (g):
§ 270. 19 Specific Part 8 Information
requirements for tank*.
*****
(g) Where applicable, a description of
the containment and detection systems
to demonstrate compliance with
§ 264.200(a) must include at least the
following:
(1) Drawings and a description of the
basic design parameters, dimensions.
and materials, of construction of the
containment System.
(2) Capacity of the containment
system relative to the design capacity of
the tank(s) within the system.
(3) Description of the system to detect
leaks and spills, and how precipitation
and run-on will be prevented from
entering into the detection system.
28. In Subpart B of Part 270. § 270.17 is
amended by adding paragraph (j):
§ 270.17 Sp*cmc Part B Information
r*quir*m«nt» for surface impoundment*.
tj] A waste management plan for EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20. FO21.
FO22. FO23. FO28, and FO27 describing
how the surface impoundment is or will
be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to meet the requirements of
5 264.231. This submission must address
the following items as specified in
I 264.231:
(l) The volume, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including their potential to migrate
through soil or to volatilize or escape
into the atmosphere:
[2) The attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
(3) The mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes: and
(4) The effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
29. In Subpart B of Part 270. § 270.18 is
amended by adding paragraph (j):
§ 270.18 Specific Part B Information
raquiramanta for wasta piiaa.
*****
(j) A waste management plan for EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20. FO21.
FO22. FO23. FO28. and FO27 describing
how a waste pile that is not enclosed (as
defined in § 264.250(c}>ts or will be
designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to meet the requirements of
5 264.259. This submission must address
the following items as specified in
5 264.259:
(1) The volume, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the wastes to
be disposed in the waste pile, including
their potential to migrate through soil or
to volatilize or escape into the
atmosphere:
(2) The attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
(3) The mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes: and
(4).The effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
30. In Subpart B of Part 270. § 270.20 is
amended by adding paragraph (i):
§ 270.20 Sp*cifle Part B Information
raquirtrmnta for land tr*atm«nt facilities.
• * * * *
(i) A waste management plan for EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20. FO21.
FO22. FO23. FO28. and FO27 describing
how a land treatment facility is or will
be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to meet the requirements of
§ 284.283. This submission must address
the following items as specified in
5 264.283:
(1) The volume, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including their potential to migrate
through soil or to volatilize or escape
into the atmosphere:
(2) The attentuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
(3) The mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes; and
(4) The effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
31. In Subpart B of Part 270. 5 270.C1 is
amended by adding paragraph (j):
§ 270.21 Sp*eH1c Part B Information
r«quir«m*nu for landfill*.
*****
(j) A waste management plan for EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20, FO21.
FO22. FO23. FO28. and FO27 describing
how a landfill is or will be designed.
constructed, operated, and maintained
to meet the requirements of § 264.317.
This submission must address the
following items as specified in § 264.317:
(1) The volume, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the wastes.
including their potential to migrate
through soil or to volatilize or escape
into the atmosphere:
(2) The attenuative properties of
underlying and surrounding soils or
other materials:
(3) The mobilizing properties of other
materials co-disposed with these
wastes: and
(4) The effectiveness of additional
treatment, design, or monitoring
techniques.
PART 775—STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
OF WASTE MATERIAL [REMOVED]
32. The authority citation for Part 775
reads as follows:
Authority: Sec. S of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) ?ub. L- 34-463. 90 Stat.
2020 (15 U.S.C. 2605).
33. Part 775 is removed.
>FR Doc. 85-604 Filed l-U-85. 3 45 am|
SIUJNO COM 1MO-SO-*
-------
ATTACHMENT C
DISPOSAL OF DIOXIN WASTES
-------
ri
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
APR 1 0 1985
MEMORANDUM TH£ ADMINISTRATOR
TO: Regional Administrators
SUBJECT: Disposal of Dioxin Wastes
EPA's rule listing dioxin wastes as hazardous under RCRA
becomes effective July 14, 1985. It imposes special requirements
and restrictions on management of dioxin wastes at treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. The new rule will revoke the
current procedures in place under the TSCA "Vertac Rule", which
allows case-by-case approval of proposals to treat or dispose
of dioxin wastes. EPA must move rapidly to assure that approved
capacity is available to manage the newly listed wastes properly.
I ask that you and your staff take the initiative and
work within your Region to ensure adequate capacity for managing
dioxin wastes. You should, for example, identify those facilities
that can manage dioxin wastes well, and encourage them to apply
for necessary Federal, State and local permits. You should
also work closely with them to expedite their applications and
support their applications with the public and State and local
governments by emphasizing the need for capacity and our confi-
dence in the technologies mandated in our regulations.
At the national level, we are taking a number of actions
to implement this policy. We have provided in the regulations
an accelerated approval process, called certification, for
interim 'status incinerators and other thermal treatment units.
We are oreparing guidance to help expedite certification and
permitting of dioxin facilities. We are working with industrial
and State associations to encourage the private sector to
respond with needed waste management capacity. Finally, we
stand ready to provide expedited technical assistance and
Headquarters reviews.
Your support for my policy is critical to the proper
management of dioxin wastes.
Please contact Michael Cook, Dioxin Management Coordinator,
(FTS 382-5864) for assistance in interpret inn and implementing
tnis guidance.
Lee M. Thomas
-------
ATTACHMENT D
CERTIFYING INCINERATORS AND
THERMAL TREATMENT UNITS
-------
-»- ST.,,.
**
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
J(JN WOO SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
1 Treatment units
SUBJECT: Certifying Incinerators and T
FROM: Michael B. Cook//!/!'"
Deputy Directoy," '*
Office of Solid'
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
As discussed in his memorandum of April 10, 1985 (copy
attached), the Administrator expects the Regions to take the
initiative and work quickly to ensure adequate capacity for
managing dioxin wastes. The recent listing of certain dioxin
and dibenzo-furan containing wastes as acute hazardous wastes
allows interim status incinerators and thermal treatment units,
which want to manage these wastes before receiving a permit, to
be certified by the Assistant Administrator for OSWER that they
meet the Part 264 Subpart 0 performance standards. A copy of
OSWER's final draft procedures for conducting the certification
process is attached.
The certification process was developed as an interim measure
to allow incinerators and thermal treatment units to handle dioxin
wastes until they receive a RCRA permit. It can only meet the
nation's needs for dioxin disposal if it is fast, much faster than
the Part B permit process has proven to be in the past. Because
of the delays with permitting, Regions must use the certification
process, unless you can demonstrate that permitting will move
as fast. When the certification process is used, the Notice of
Deficiency should be mailed within two weeks of receipt of the
application.
I would like to receive a copy of your expedited schedule
shortly after you receive an application for certification, and
any Part B application for managing dioxins. We anticipate
working closely with you on these priority applications. I hope
this will allow us to quickly resolve any problems that arise as
we implement the new regulatory procedures.
-------
-2-
This guidance"~ls being distributed in final draft for your
use. Please provide any comments to Art Glazer, manager of the
PAT program, at 382-4692. We will revise the guidance if necessary
based on comments after some experience with its use.
If you have questions on the priority for processing permits
or certifications for dioxin waste, please contact me on 382-5864.
If you have questions on the procedures for certifying incinerators
or thermal treatment units, contact Arthur Glazer, or Barry Korb
of the Dioxin Task Force staff at 382-4654.
Attachments
cc: John Skinner
Gene Lucero
John Lehman
Eileen Claussen
Bruce Weddle
Peter Guerrero
Truett DeGeare
Matt Straus
Arthur Glazer
Barry Korb
Steve Silverman
Permit Writers Incinerator Work Group
Regional Dioxin Policy Contacts
-------
18 JUN1985
OSWER Procedures for
CertifyMug_Incinerators_and_Thermal Treatment
Units to Manage DioxinjVastes
I. Background
The recent listing of certain dioxin and dibenzo-furan
containing wastes as acute hazardous wastes imposed restric-
tions on the treatment, storage, or disposal of these wastes
in interim status facilities. See, 50 FR 1978-2006, January 14,
1985. The only units which are eligible to receive interim status
to manage dioxin wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027
are:
1. Surface impoundments holding wastewater treatment
sludges that are generated in those impoundments as
part of the plant's wastewater treatment system
2. Waste piles that are enclosed and meet the §264.250(c)
requirements
3 . T anks
4. Containers-
5. Incinerators, if certified
6. Thermal treatment units, if certified
F028 waste can be handled in any hazardous waste unit which
has interim status. The burning of dioxin wastes in interim
status incinerators or thermal treatment units requires the
Assistant Administrator (AA). for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response to "certify" that the unit is capable of
meeting the 40 CFR part 264 Subpart O performance standards for
fully permitted facilities. The performance standards were
amended to include a requirement that dioxin wastes be incinerated
at 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)(50 FR 2005).
This guidance describes the certification process. Since
EPA is seeking to ensure that approved capacity is available to
manage dioxin wastes, all certification applications should be
expeditiously processed. The certification procedures have been
designed to provide frequent opportunities for communication
between the Regions and Headquarters to ensure the overall.Agency
effort is expeditious and well-coordinated. Regional and
Headquarters staffs must work closely together to take steps to
expedite reviews and reach consensus on individual applications.
-------
-2-
II. Certification_Processing_Procedures
Interim status incinerators and thermal treatment units
which want to mana*ge dioxin wastes before receiving a permit
must be certified by the AA that they meet the Part 264 Subpart 0
performance standards before the units can burn these wastes.
Because the Regions have the personnel and expertise, and because
the Regions are generally more familiar with the facilities
applying for certification, the Regions will review certification
applications and prepare the documentation for the AA (in
accordance with this guidance). The Regions should expedite
the processing of the certification applications in accordance
with the Administrator's April 10,1985, memo (copy attached).
The Dioxin Task Force staff will monitor the review process in
the Regions, ask the Regions to provide milestones for individual
application reviews, and provide general technical assistance.
Headquarters staff in the Incinerator PAT Program and the
DDAG are also available to assist the Regions in their review
of certification requests. To ensure the reviews are timely
and beneficial, the Regions must clearly define the issues on
which PAT and DDAG assistance is needed. All requests for PAT
and DDAG assistance for certification reviews should be directed
to Arthur Glazer, Permits Branch, at FTS 382-4692.
If the Region (or authorized State) has not inspected the
facility within the last 6 months, the Region and/or State should
inspect the facility and advise the AA of any noncompliance with
RCRA found at the facility, as well as any pending enforcement
actions.
The Region should prepare a memo from the RA to the AA
assessing the certification application, send a copy to the PAT,
and be prepared to brief the AA, if the Region or AA believes a
briefing is necessary. The PAT will review the Regional package
for national consistency and to be familiar with the facility
in case the AA asks for PAT input in his decision-making process
This memo should transmit copies of:
1. Tentative decision for AA's signature (see Attachment B)
2. A document summarizing the data submitted and a technical
evaluation of it, which provides the basis for the
certification conditions that the Region is recommending
3. Fact sheet or statement of basis
4. A document which discusses any RCRA noncompliance at
the facility and all pending EPA or S-tate enforcement
actions
5 . The public participation plan for the facility
-------
t -3-
If a briefing is necessary, the certification package should
be received by the AA and PAT at least 10 working days before the
Region is scheduled to brief the AA. Regions are strongly
encouraged to send drafts of these naterials to HQ in advance
to reduce the poss~"i5ility that any last minute concerns might
arise from Headquarters review.
The AA will make a tentative decision to deny or approve the
certification. The regulations require the AA to issue public •
notice of that decision (50 FR 2005). Public notices will be issued
in accordance with Section ll4.lQ. A sixty day public comment period
with opportunity for a public hearing then follows. The Region will
be responsible for issuing the public notices, and preparing the
response to public comments. The Region will then prepare a final
decision package for the AA's signature. The response to public
comments and the final decision package will be sent to the AA for
his signature and a copy to the PAT.
When the AA makes a final decision to grant or deny the
certification, the certification will become effective immediately.
The AA's decision ia final Agency action (50 FR 1990).
III. State Coordination
Before reviewing the certification application, the Region
should contact the State hazardous waste agency to determine if
they will allow the interim status facility to burn dioxin wastes
if EPA certifies the facility meets the Part 264 Subpart O performance
standards. If the State indicates the facility may not burn
dioxin wastes, the Region should work with the State and the
facility to try to resolve any problems or issues the State has
identified. If the State has a State Certification program
similar to EPA's and the company seeks certification, then the
State and Regional Offices should jointly review and process the
company's application for certification.
If the facility chooses to seek a permit rather than
certification, and the State hazardous waste program has not re-
ceived specific authorization for the dioxin regulations under the
HSWA (1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments), then EPA must
issue a HSWA permit to the facility imposing the more stringent
dioxin regulations (50 FR 1997). Regions must process the dioxin
applications jointly with" the authorized States and issue the HSWA
permits simultaneously with the HW permits so dioxin treatment
capacity is permitted as quickly as possible.
IV. Certification Application Requirements
Although a full Part B application does not have to be
submitted for a certification request, the regulations•(50 FR 1990)
require the applicant to submit the information required by 40
CFR §270.19(b) and (c) and §270.62. The applicant must submit
the following major items (see regulations for specific details):
-------
-4-
1. Trial burn data, or
2. A trial burn plan and later the trial burn data, or
3. Data in lieu of a trial burn . If data in lieu of a
trial buiTi is submitted, the applicant must submit a
detailed comparison of the unit to be certified and
the unit on which the data was taken.
4. Waste analysis (heat value, viscosity, POHCs, detailed
physical and chemical analysis).
5. Detailed engineering description of the incinerator or
thermal treatment system, including all continuous
monitoring equipment and automatic waste feed cut off
systems.
6. The parameters measured during the trial burn.
7. Calculations for ORE, HCl and particulate emission rates.
A unit cannot burn dioxin wastes beginning July 15,1985,
until the AA certifies that it meets the Subpart O performance
standards. If the unit was not tested prior to July 15, 1985
for the DRE of dioxin, then the facility must obtain certification
of the unit using a surrogate POHC which is more difficult to burn
than the most difficult dioxin or furan isomer to be burned.
Facilities applying for certification under interim status
must recognize that there will be two public participation periods:
one for the dioxin certification (60 days) and ^another for the
Hazardous Waste (HW) permit (45 days).
-------
ATTACHMENT A
CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES
Facility plans, to
burn dioxin containing waste
Notify RA by 4/15/85
(3010)
Submit Part A by 7/15/85
Apply for Certification to
burn dioxins
Meet 40 CFR 264 "0"
(show 99.9999% DRE)
Application for Certification
reviewed by Region
Region coordinates with
State
Region/State inspects facility
for compliance with interim
status standards(if no inspection
within 6 months '
Region submits review to AA
and copy to PAT
AA final
decision
GRANT or DENY
Region addresses
comments & prepares
decision memo for AA
Submit copy to PAT
Region briefs AA -if required
AA makes tentative decision
60 day public
comment period
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Model
Tentative/Final Decision Regarding
Certification of a RCRA Interim
Status Facility to Burn Hazardous
Wastes containing PCDD and/or PCDFs*
Facility Name:
Facility Location:
Facility Operator:
Facility Owner (s):
Type of Unit:
L Give brief decription of the incinerator or
thermal treatment unit. Include a discussion of what monitoring
equipment, continuous monitors and automatic waste cut off systems
are present.]}
Type of Wastes:
[List or describe the dioxin wastes the facility is allowed to
burn under the certification. Address the physical matrice.
If a POHC more difficult than the most difficult to combust
isomer of dioxin and furans was not used in trial burn then
address which isomers can and cannot be burned in the unit.]
* PCDFs * all isomers of chlorinated dibenzofurans
PCDDs * all isomers of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
-------
Documents Reviewed
• Notification form dated _ [must be postmarked
prior to April 15, 1985].
* Part A (Forms 1 and 3) dated _ [must be
postmarked prior to July 15, 1985].
• Certification application dated _ as amended on
_ , _ , _ [fill in
blanks as appropriate J .
Tentative /Final_Decision
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the 19b4 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) and the
regulations promulgated thereunder on January 14, 1985, I
have determined, that the unit described above meets the 40
CFR Part 264 Subpart 0 performance standards when operated
as follows:
1. Maximum Carbon Monoxide (CO) level in stack exhaust gas:
2. Maximum waste feed rate:
3 . Minimum combustion temperature of _ as measured
by _ .
4. Combustion gas velocity of no less than _ or no
greater than _ as measured by .
5. [Any other operating conditions that are necessary to
assure compliance with the ORE, HCl and particulate
standards such as pressure drop accross venturi, scrubber
water flow rate, pH of scrubber water.]
To assure that the unit is operated as specified above, when
burning dioxin wastes the operator must continuously record the
following operating conditions:
CO in stack gas, waste feed rate, combustion temperature,
combustion gas velocity, . . .
date Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
-------
I 5222,
*-•-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 10 1985
MEMORANDUM THE ADMINISTRATOR
TO: Regional Administrators
SUBJECT: Disposal of Dioxin Wastes
EFA's rule listing dioxin wastes as hazardous under RCRA
becomes effective July 14, 1985. It imposes special requirements
and restrictions on management of dioxin wastes at treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. The new rule will revoke the
current procedures in place under the TSCA "Vertac Rule", which
allows case-by-case approval of proposals to treat or dispose
of dioxin wastes. EPA must move rapidly to assure that approved
capacity is available to manage the newly listed wastes properly.
I ask that you and your staff take the initiative and
work within your Region to ensure adequate capacity for managing
dioxin wastes. You should, for example, identify those facilities
that can manage dioxin wastes well, and encourage them to apply
for necessary Federal, State and local permits. You should
also work closely with them to expedite their applications and
support their applications with the public and State and local
governments by emphasizing the need for capacity and our confi-
dence in the technologies mandated in our regulations.
At the national level, we are taking a number of actions
to implement this policy. We have provided in the regulations
an accelerated approval process, called certification, for
interim status incinerators and other thermal treatment units.
We are preparing guidance to help expedite certification and
permitting of dioxin facilities. We are working with industrial
and State associations to encourage the private sector to
respond with needed waste management capacity. Finally, we
stand ready to provide expedited technical assistance and
Headquarters reviews.
Your support for my policy is critical to the proper
management of dioxin wastes.
Please contact Michael Cook, Dioxin Management Coordinator,
(FTS 382-5864) for assistance in interpreting and implementing
this guidance.
Lee M. Thomas
-------
ATTACHMENT E
PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
OFF-SITE RESPONSE ACTIONS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
6U^^W
m£ SOLID WASTE AND ivi«-. . -
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site
Respanse Act-i'on*
i<*k<,L' -J */}-**'
FROM: J/ack wV Mc'Sraw^
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
This memorandum addresses procedures that must be observed
when a response action involving off-site storage, treatment or
disposal of hazardous substances is selected under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It prohibits use of a RCP.A facility for off-site manaze-
ment of Superfund hazardous substances if it has significant
RCRA violations1 or other environmental conditions that affect
the satisfactory operation of the facility. It also addresses
requirements for analyzing and selecting response actions that
involve permanent methods of managing hazardous substances.
In November of 1984, amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act were enacted. These amendments impose new
requirements for the safe management of hazardous wastes. In
the case of land disposal facilities, the amendments require
that certain types of units (new, replacement and lateral exten-
sions) be double lined by May 9, 1985. The amendments impose
technical requirements to ensure that when land disposal facilities
are used they are used safely.
EPA intends to follow the direction established by Congress
in the RCRA amendments when undertaking on-site response actions
1 A significant violation includes a Class I violation as defined
by the RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1984).
This policy defines a Class I violation as a violation that
results in a release or a serious threat of releasfe'of hazardous
waste into the environment, or involves the failure to assure
that ground water will be protected, that proper closure and
post closure activities will be undertaken, or that hazardous
wastes will be destined for and delivered to RCRA permitted or
interim status facilities. The policy contains a list of
examples of violations which are Class I violations. Regions
should recognize that violations other than Class I violations
"««v be significant for purposes of these procedures, dependinz
-------
-2-
and when response actions involve off-sice management of hazardous
substances. This memorandum details how the Agency plans to
achieve these goals.
Section I of this memorandum discusses background issues.
Section II A discusses the need to consider treatment, recycling
and reuse before off-site land disposal is used. Section II B
details procedures that must be followed in selecting any off-sice
facility for management of hazardous substances. This section
also discusses the criteria to be used in making the selection.
For facilities in assessment monitoring, this part states that
conditions which lead to and result from being in .assessment
monitoring may constitute conditions that render the facility
unsuitable for disposal of hazardous substances. Therefore,
when a facility is in assessment, the conditions which lead to
the required assessment, and any monitoring data, must be evalu-
ated to determine if the facility poses such conditions. If so,
the facility may not be used unless the owner or operator commies
to correct the problems and the unit to be used for disposal
poses no problems.
Section III discusses RCRA manifest requirements. Section IV-
discusses PCB disposal requirements. Finally, Section V details
how this policy will be implemented. Attachment A is a chart
summarizing the policy on use of off-site RCRA facilities. This
chart should be used in conjunction with the policy document, not
in lieu of it.
These procedures are applicable to all response and enforce-
ment actions taken pursuant to CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA.
This memorandum replaces guidance entitled "Requirements for
Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Superfund Response Action",
dated January 28, 1983. This policy is an interim one that the
Agency intends to publish as a notice in the Federal Register
in order to receive public comment on its provisions. After
reviewing these comments EPA will determine whether revisions
are necessary.
These revi si ons., st rengt hen previous requirements in several
ways :
* Coverage - This memorandum extends requirements to
enforcement actrons under S106 of CERCLA and (7003 of RCRA,
and expands requirements for removal actions.
• Use of Treatment - These procedures require consideration
of treatment, recycling or reuse for all response and
-------
enforcement actions, to foster the use of aore permanent
solutions, and, in the ease of remedial actions, where
cost-effective. The Agency is not certain whether
sufficient capacity is available at this time to use
treatment, in all cases where it is feasible. As more
information on capacity becomes available, the Agency
will re-exaaine requirements for treatment to determine •
whether they can be strengthened. The previous procedures
did not address use of treatment.
* Requirements for a treatment, storage or disposal faci 11ty
Previous guidance required inspection within 12 aonths
before contract award for storage, treatment or disposal.
The revisions require inspection within six months of
actual storage, treataent or disposal. It also stated
that if a facility had deficiences that resulted in unsound
treatment, storage or disposal practices it should not be
used. The guidance also required RCRA violations that
adversely affected facility performance to be corrected
prior to contract award. Under the revisions, a facility
that has significant RCRA violations or other environmental
conditions that affect its satisfactory operation may not
be used unless certain conditions are met. First, there
must be a compliance agreement in place to correct all
deficiencies at the facility; second, the unit that is
used must not cause or contribute to significant problems
., at the facility. This provision recognizes that in some
situations it is infeasible to complete correction of all
violations prior to using a facility (for example, it may
take several years before pumping and treating of ground-
water is completed) and that there may be a unit at such
a facility that is sound.
* Land Disposal Facilities - The 1984 RCRA amendments impose
new requirements on land disposal facilities. When use
of such facilities is contemplated, the policy requires that
the facility meet these minimum technical requirements.
I. BACKGROUND
Facilities that are not in compliance with RCRA requirements
may be unacceptable to use for treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous subs tances.^ from response actions. Facilities used for
management of substances in connection with response actions
should not pose a significant threat to public health, welfare or
the environment.
CERCLA contains two'references to off-site management of
hazardous substances. First, CERCLA section 104(c) requires, as
a condition of Fund-financed remedial response, that the State
assure the availability of an acceptable facility in compliance
with the requirements of subtitle C of RCRA for any off-site
management of hazardous substances. Second, where remedial
measures include off-site storage, treatment, destruction or
secure disposition, the statute also requires such measures to
be more cost-effective than other remedial measures, create new
disposal capacity in compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA or be
necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment
-------
-4-
from a present or potential risk which may b« created by further
exposure to substances. Section 300.65 (b)(6) of the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300) states that when off-site action is
taken in connection with a removal action the facility used for
off-site management must be in compliance with Subtitle C of
RCRA. This memorandum establishes procedures for implementing
these CERCLA and BfCP provisions.
These procedures apply to all removal, remedial, and enforce-
ment actions taken pursuant to CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA.
Any other parties undertaking cleanup under other authorities
are urged to comply with these procedures. In the case of
Superfund-financed removal actions or enforcement actions taken
as a removal action in response to an immediate and significant
threat, compliance with these procedures is mandatory unless the
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) determines that the exigencies of the
situation require off-site treatment, storage or disposal without
following the requirements. This exception may be used in cases
where the OSC believes that the immediacy of the threat posed by
the substances makes it imperative to remove the substances and
there is insufficient time to observe these procedures without
endangering public health, welfare or the environment. In such
cases, the OSC should consider, to the extent possible, temporary
solutions (e.g., interim storage) in order that the feasibility
of using treatment can be evaluated prior to a decision to use
land disposal. Also, in such cases, the OSC must provide a
written explanation of his decision to the Regional Administrator.
This explanation should be provided within 60 days of taking
the action. In Regions in which authority to make removal deci-
sions has not been fully delegated by the Regional Administrator,
the decisions discussed above must be made by the Regional official
that is delegated removal decision making authority.
II. PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
This section discusses in detail the requirements Regions
must follow in assessing and selecting an off-site RCRA facility
for management of Superfund hazardous substances. Part A requires
consideration of treatment, recycling or reuse for on-site and
off-site actions in order to foster the use of more permanent
methods of managing hazardous substances. These policies are
consistent with directions taken by Congress in the 1984 amend-
ments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Furthermore,
Part B of this section establishes procedures Regions must use
in selecting an off-site RCRA facility for management of hazardous
substances. Where off-Vice land disposal must be used, this Part
requires that disposal facilities be in compliance with the appli-
cable technical requirements of RCRA.
• . .
A. Treatment
It is EPA's policy to pursue response actions that use
treatment, reuse or recycling over land disposal to the greatest
-------
-5-
extent practicable, consistent with CERCLA requircoents for
cost-effective remedial actions. EPA requires that such alterna-
tives be considered for all Fund-financed and private .party
removal and remedial actions. For Fund-financed removals or
enforced actions In response to immediate and significant threats,
treatment, reuse or recycling must be considered, unless the OSC
determines that treatment, reuse or recycling methods are not
reasonably available considering the exigencies of the situation,
or they pose a significant environmental hazard.
When developing remedial alternatives, treatment, reuse or
recycling must be considered. Such alternatives should not be
screened out on the basis of cost alone. Section 30C.68(h)(l) of
the NCP allows rejection of alternatives during the screening
stage based on cost, only when the cost of the alternative far
exceeds the cost of others (e.g., by an order of magnitude) and
does not provide substantially greater public health and environ-
mental benefits.
Detailed analysis of these alternatives should include
consideration of long-term effectiveness of treatment and compara-
tive long and short term costs of treatment as compared to other
remedial alternatives. Finally, when recommending and selecting
the appropriate remedial action, treatment, reuse or recycling
may be found more protective of public health and the environment
than land disposal. Such alternatives may be recommended as the
appropriate remedial action where the detailed analysis of
alternatives shows that the alternative is more cost-effective
than others in minimizing the damage to public health, welfare
or the environment. During the next six months, EPA will be
developing additional guidelines for evaluating the comparative
long-term costs of treatment and land disposal.
At this time, the Agency does not know the current and
projected treatment capacity available, nor the needs or capacity
that will be required for Superfund actions in the future. Over
the next several months, the Agency plans to undertake a study
of available treatment and interim storage capacity and needs.
Once completed, this analysis will provide information on treat-
ment facilities currently operating for Regions to use. Additional
information on capacity will be provided at a later date through
a more comprehensive capacity survey being undertaken in support
of the implementation of the 1984 RCRA amendments.
B» Requirements for selecting storage, treatment or disposal
facilities
4MMMMBMMMHMMMHMBMMW * •
Selection of an appropriate facility for off-site management
of hazardous substances requires that a judgment be made as
to the overall acceptability of the facility to receive the
substances and the acceptability of the unit that will 'receive
the hazardous substances. In making this judgment the following
steps must be observed:
1. The owner or operator of any hazardous waste management
facility under consideration for off-site storage, treatment or
-------
-6-
actions under CERCLA or section 7003 of RCRA aust have an applic-
able RCRA permit or interia status.^
2. A RCRA compliance inapection auat be performed at any
hazardous waaca aanagement facility before it can receive hazardous
•ubatancea from a response action. This inapection aust assess
whether there are any significant violations or other environmental
conditions that affect the satisfactory operation of the facility.
The RCRA coapliance inapection aust have taken place not aore than
aix aonths prior to the storage, treataent or disposal of the
hazardous substances from a response action. If the inspection
has not taken place or is not scheduled, REM/FIT contractor
personnel aay conduct the inspection under the direction of the
Deputy Project Officer, working in cooperation with RCRA Regional
personnel. If Regions use contractor personnel, the Region should
ensure that such personnel are adequately trained to conduct
inspections. Further guidance on conducting inspections when a
facility is being considered for management of hazardous substances
will be iasued in the near future. The FY 85 and FY 86 RCRA Imple-
mentation Plana establiah coapliance aonitoring and enforcement
targets. For FY 85 the guidance requires Comprehensive Ground-
Water Monitoring Evaluations (CGMEs) at one third of the ground
water aonitoring facilities. Top priorities for this type of
inspection are all facilities receiving wastes from Superfund
sites.
In States with Phase I or II interim authorization or final
authorization, the inspection should be conducted in accordance
with State regulations or permit conditions. EPA Regions
should always involve States when undertaking an inspection
at a RCRA facility that is likely to accept Superfund wastes.
Regions aust use the results from the inspection, along
with other information, to determine whether the facility is an
acceptable one.
Both permitsand interim status apply to specific wastes and
apecific storage, treatment or disposal processes. The Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) or OSC must determine that the facility's
permit or interim status includes the wastes that would be
transported to the facility and the type of process for which
wastes are being trken to the facility. Because of these
concerns, it is important that facility aelection be coordinated
with RCRA personnel. However, not all CERCLA substances are
hazardous wastes unde.r RCRA. Therefore, it is possible that a
particular permit aay hot cover a hazardous substance that may
be taken to the RCRA facility if it is not a hazardous waste.
Moreover, in some situations a hazardous substance under CERCLA
aay trigger disposal requirements under other laws
-------
-7-
3. It is EPA's policy to minimize the use of land disposal in
accordance with the direction taken by Congress in amending RCRA.
Where land disposal is used, these amendments establish new tech-
nical standards for land disposal facilities. New disposal units,
lateral expansions and replacement units (defined as of November 8,
1984) of interim status landfills and surface impoundments must
have at least two liners and a leachate detection, collection
and removal system above (in the case of landfills) and between
the liners, if they receive wastes after May 8, 1985. All Fund-
financed and enforced response actions (removal and remedial)
involving the off-site disposal of hazardous substances must involve
use of disposal facilities that are in compliance with applicable
RCRA minimum technical reqiurements . This means that units first
receiving wastes after November 8, 1984 cannot receive wastes
after May 8, 1985 if not double lined. The RCRA statute does
allow continued use of existing units after that date. In consider-
ing whether to use an existing unit that does not meet the double
liner requirements, the Agency will consider the toxicity, persis-
tence and mobility of the hazardous substances and the need to
segregate these substances from others* Such a unit can be
used only if it is shown to adequately protect public health and
the environment.
CERCLA hazardous substances which are not hazardous wastes
under RCRA may, in some circumstances, be disposed of in other
legal units. In such cases, disposal should take place in accordance
with other legal requirements. Hazardous substances which are not
hazardous wastes may be taken to a RCRA unit under the terms out-
lined in the preceeding paragraph, or to a unit legal under other
statutory provisions (for example, PCBs may be disposed of in a
TSCA approved disposal facility and radiocative materials in a
radioactive materials disposal facility). This disposal must be
consistent with Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA, when applicable.
4. Interim status land disposal facilities under considera-
tion for off-site disposal must have adequate ground water
monitoring data to assess whether the facility poses a threat to
ground water. 3 Due to the lack of compliance with RCRA ground
water requirements, available data may not be adequate to assess
the facility. Moreover, lack of evidence of contamination from
the monitoring data'does not necessarily mean the facility is
secure. The monitoring data may be faulty. In addition, there
may be other problems at the facility such as air emissions or
surface run-off. Where doubt exists concerning the acceptability
of a facility, an on-s.i.t.e inspection should be undertaken to
specifically address these concerns. Where possible, this
on-site inspection should be part of the required RCRA compliance
inspection.
All remaining land disposal permit applications will be
requested in PY 1985. These applications contain summaries
of ground water monitoring data obtained during the interim
status period, and are required to identify any plume
contaai nati on .
-------
-8-
5. Using information gathered from the compliance inspection,
other data sources (e.g., RCRA facility permit data), any other
facility visits and all other relevant information, Regional
Offices must evaluate and aake a Judgment on the acceptability of
using the facility for storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous
substances. For the facility as a whole, this evaluation should
consider whether there are any RCRA violations or other environ-
mental conditions* at the facility which affect its satisfactory
operation. This evaluation should include consideration of
facility operations as well as whether there are physical condi-
tions at the facility that pose a significant threat to public
health, welfare or the environment. For facilities in assessment
monitoring, the conditions which lead to required assessment
monitoring, as veil as resulting monitoring data, must be evaluated
The evaluation also should consider the nature and quantity of the
substances and whether it is feasible to treat the substances prior
to land disposal to mitigate any adverse effects.
No Superfund hazardous substances shall be taken off-site to
a RCRA fscility if the Region determines that the facility has
significant RCRA violations or other environmental conditions that
affect the satisfactory operation of the facility, unless
both the following conditions are met:
(1) The owner or operator must commit, through an enforce-
able agreement (i.e., consent order or decree), to
correct the problem. The agreement must be signed
before the facility may receive the hazardous
substances. In addition, the Regional Administrator
must determine that the agreement is likely to result
in correction of the problem and the owner or operator
of the facility is capable of compliance with the terns
of the agreement; and
(2) Disposal only occurs within the facility at a new or
existing unit that is in compliance with RCRA require-
ments. The new or existing unit must not contribute
in any significant way to adverse conditions at the
facility.
III. MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS
If an off-site option is chosen, a manifest for the transpor-
tation of the hazardous- .waste must be obtained. The manifest must
*Itis recognized that the RCRA regulations may not at this
time cover all environmental conditions at a facility. Regional
offices may consider other environmental factors at*1'faci1ity
under consideration including other State and/or Federal
environmental laws. If a facility is in assessment monitor-
ing, the conditions which lesd to assessment monitoring may
constitute environmental conditions that adversely affect
facility operations. In such cases, Regions should assess the
conditions at the facility prior to using the facility for
Superfund purposes.
-------
b< In compliance with RCRA for the transportation of hazardous
wastes* The manifest must be a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
in coapliance with requirements at 40 C7R 262 (see 49 FR 10490,
March 20, 1984). The lead agency or other party undertaking
the cleanup must ensure that the transporter properly notifies
under RCRA section 3010. Where the lead agency allows contractors
to fill out the manifest, the agency should ensure that the
manifest is pro?«r.ly filed.
IV. PCB DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Requirements for the disposal of PCBs are established in
40 CFR 761.60. Generally, these regulations require that whenever
disposal of PCBs are undertaken, they must be incinerated, unless
the concentrations are less than 50 ppn. If the concentrations
are between 50 and 500 ppm, the rule provides for certain excep-
tions that provide alternatives to the incineration requirements.
The principal alternative is disposal in an EPA approved landfill
for PCBs. Landfills used for PCB disposal must be inspected
within six months prior to disposal. Regions must determine the
acceptability of the facility based on the same criteria used to
evaluate RCRA facilities in Section II. B.5.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
Beginning (30 days from date this document is signed) all
Records of Decision (ROOs) and Enforcement Decision Documents
(EDDs) for Superfund-lead and enforcement lead actions, respec-
tively, must include a discussion of compliance with these pro-
cedures for alternatives involving off-site management of Superfund
hazardous substances at RCRA facilities. Decision documents for*
removal actions also should include discussion of compliance with
these procedures. It is recognized that actual offsite facility
information will not be available at the ROD stage. However, the
RI and FS should use actual off-site facilities in costing remedial
alternatives, in order to have cost figures that are as accurate
as possible. It is recognized that additional facilities are
likely to be considered during the bidding process. Any facility
ultimately selected for disposal, treatment or storage must meet
the requirements of this policy.
Provisions requiring compliance with these procedures must be
included in any contracts for response, cooperative agreements
with States undertaking Superfund response and all enforcement
agreements. For ongoing projects, these provisions will be
implemented as follows:
*
•
RI/FS: The Regions shall immediately notify Agency contractors
and States that 1) alternatives for off-site management
of wastes must be evaluated pursuant to the provisions
of this policy, and 2) consistent with th'e'policy on
other environmental laws, treatment alternatives
should not be dropped during the screening stage.
RD: The Regions shall immediately notify Agency contractors,
the States, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that
-------
-10-
•11 remedies chat include off-site disposal of hazardous
substances must comply with the provisions of this
policy pertaining
facility.
to selection of an acceptable off-site
Enforcement
RA: The Regions shall immediately assess the compliance
status of land disposal facilities receiving hazardous
wastes from ongoing projects. For a facility not in
compliance, the Region should take immediate steps
to bring the facility into compliance with the policy.
Actions currently under negotiation and all future
actions must comply with these procedures. Existing
agreements need not be amended. However, EPA reserves
the right to apply these procedures to existing
agreements, to the extent it is consistent with the
release and reopener clauses in the settlement agree-
ment (See the Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy, Part
VII; Thomas, Price, Habicht; December 5, 1984).
If the response action is proceeding under a Federal-lead,
the Regions should work with the Corps of Engineers or EPA
Contracts Officer to negotiate a contracts modification to an
existing contract, if necessary. If the response action is
proceeding under a State-lead, the Regions should amend the
cooperative agreement. Exceptions for existing contracts and
cooperative agreements may be allowed on a case-by-case basis
by the appropriate Headquarters Office Director.
All Regions must adopt procedures to impl
ly monitor compliance with these requirements.
must Include designation of a management offic
sible for providing information on RCRA facili
to other Regions. It is the responsibility of
which the RCRA offsite facility is located to
ability of the facility in consultation with t
ship wastes to the facility. The names of the
be provided to the Office of Waste Programs En
21, 1985. These names will then be forwarded
If you have any questions concerning these pro
contact Sylvia K. Lowrance (FTS 382-4812).
ement and continual-
The procedures
ial who is respon-
ties in the Region
the Regi on i n
assess the acceot-
he Region planning to
se officials should
forcement by May
co all Regions.
cedures, please
At tachment s
-------
ATTACHMENT F
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
-------
$,**t*>9N*''t-f~ • •
Vofe 5ft ME 2» /- Tawd-tyy Fgfereary 1Z 1888 > Propos«--fcRttte»
OSC may authorize the oae of tha
product* without obtaining the*
concurrence of the EPA representative
to the RRTor of the States and without
consultation with other appropriate
Federal agencies.
Appendix
Not*. This is m Appendix to tha
document and will not appear in the-Code of
Federal Regulation*.
Memorandum
Subject CERCLA Compliance With
Other Environmental Statutes
From: Lee M. Thomas, Assistant
Administratar
To: Regional Administrator Regions I-X
This memorandum sets forth the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
policy on tha applicability of the
atandafdftpcriteria. advisories, and
guidanc* of other State and Federal
environmental and public health
statute* to actions-, taken pursuant to
sectiotBYlM and 100 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response^ Compensation, and Liability
Act crflMaMCERCLA). This policy
addresses oansiderations for on-«ite and
off-site actions taken under CERCLA.
The National Contingency Plaa (NCP)
establishes the process for determining
appropriate removal and/or remedial
actions at Superfund sites. In the course
of this process, EPA will give primary
consideration to the selection of those
response actions that are effective in
preventing or, where prevention is not
practicable, minimising the release of
hazardous substances so that they- do
not migrate to cause substantial danger
to present or future public health.
welfare, or the environment As a
general rule, this can be accomplished
by pursuing remedies that meet the
standards of applicable or relevant
Federal public health or environmental
laws. However, because of tha unique
circumstances at particular sites, there
may be alternatives that do not meet the
standards of other laws* hat which still
provide protection of pobac health.
welfare, and the environment
Although response actions which*
prevent hazardous substances from
migrating into the environment are seen
as the moat effective under CERCLA.
action* which minimize migration must
also be considered since CERCLA
primarily addresses inadequate past
disposal practices and resulting unique
site conditions. At certain sites, it may
be technically impracticable,
environmentally unacceptable or
excessively costly to implement a
response action that prevents migration
or restores the site to its original,
uncontaminated condition.
IL Policy
Section 104 of CERCLA requires that
for off-site remedial actions, storage.
destruction, treatment or secure
disposition be in compliance with
subtitle C of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). CERCLA is
silent however, concerning the
requirements of other laws with regard
to all other response actions taken
pursuant to sections 104 and 108. As a
general rule, the Agency's policy is to
attain or exceed applicable or relevant
environmental and public health
standards in CERCLA response actions
unless one of the specifically
enumerated situations is present. Where
such a situation is present and a
standard is not used, the Agency must
document and explain the reasons in the
decision documents. Federal criteria and
advisories, and State standards also will
be considered in fashioning CERCLA
remedies and. if appropriate, relevant
portions will be used. If EPA does not
use a relevant part of these standards.
criteria or advisories in the remedial
action, the decision documents will state
the reasons.
A. On-site Response Actions
(1) For removal actions, EPA's policy
is to pursue actions that will meet
applicable or relevant standards, and
criteria of other Federal environmental
and public health laws to the maximum
extent practicable, considering the
exigencies of the situation.
(2) For remedial actions. EPA's policy
Is to pursue remedies that attain or
exceed applicable and relevant
standards of other Federal public health
and environmental laws, unless specific
circumstances, identified below, exist
CERCLA procedural and
administrative requirements will be
modified to provide safeguards similar
to those provided under other laws.
Application for and receipt of permits is
not required for on-sita response actions
taken under the Fund-financed or
enforcement authorities of CERCLA.
A Off-Site Response Actions
CERCLA removal and remedial
activities that involve the removal of
hazardous substances from a CERCLA
site to off-site facilities for proper
storage, treatment or disposal must be in
compliance with all applicable or
relevant standards of Federal
environmental and public health
statutes.
Off-site facilities that are used for
storage, treatment or disposal of
Superfund wastes must have all
appropriate permits or authorizations.
If the facility or process that is being
considered for receipt of the Superfund
wastes has not been permitted or
authorized, the- State or responsible
party will be required to obtain all
appropriate permits. A State's
responsibility for obtaining any
appropriate Federal State or local
permits (e.g. RCRA. TSCA. NPOES,
Clean Air. etc.) will be specified in a
contract or cooperative agreement with
the State as part of its assurances-
required under section 104(c) of.
CERCLA.
III. Federal and State Requirements That
May Be Relevant or Applicable to
Response) Actions
Federal and State environmental
standards, guidance and advisories fall
nto two categories:
• Federal standards that are relevant
ir applicable.
• Other standards, criteria, advisories
or guidance to be considered.
-------
*ftvgfar-2»7 Tueaday, Fafeuary 1^ MdS / Plnpbaed Rofea
5929
A complete list a£boHt categories of
requirements ii attached. This list iraur
initial effort A re»Iseeii tort annotated
list will b« inciudeatfck the forthcoming
Guidance for Feasibility Studies-.
A. Federal Standards That An Relevant
or Applicable
Applicable standard* are those
standards that would be specifically
triggered by the circumstance*
associated with the proposed Saperfund
remedy except for the fact that the
proposed action would be undertaken
pursuant to CERCLA section 104 or
section 106.
Relevant standards are those
designed to apply to circumstances
sufficiently similar to those encountered
at CERCLA sites in which their
application would be appropriate at a
specific site although not legally
required Standards also are relevant if
they would be legally applicable to
CERCLA 1104 or } 108 actions but for
legeJr technicalities such as trigger dates
or definitions. For example, TSCA PCS
standards would be relevant even
though the PCBs were produced prior to
January 1978. which triggers TSCA
requirements.
B. Other Requirements, Advisories or
Guidances To Be Considered
This category includes other
standards, criteria, advisories and
guidance that may be useful hi
developing- Superfund remedies. These
requirements, advisories and guidances
were developed by EPA. other Federal
Agencies and the States. The data
underlying these requirements may be
used at Superfund sites in an
appropriate way.
IV. Implementation
A. Removal Action*
For both on and off-site removal
actions, the On-Scene-Coordinator
should consult with the Regional
Response Team within the framework of
the Regional Contingency Plan to
determine the moet effective action.
(1) On-sjta. For oa-tfte removal
actions, the OSC should attempt to
attain all Federal applicable or relevant
public health or environmental
standards. The OSC ako should
consider other Federal criteria, guidance
and advisories as well as State
standards in formulating the removal
action. However, because removal
actions often involve situations
requiring expeditous action to protect
public health, welfare, or the
environment it may not always be
feasible to fully meet them. In those
circumstances where they cannot be'
attained the decision documents'. OSC
reports, or other documents should
specify the reasons.
(2) Off-site. Off-site fatilitierthat are*-
used for storage, treatment or disposal
of Superfund wastes must have all
appropriate permits or authorizations.
B. Remedial Actions
1. Presentation and Analysis of
Alternatives. As part of the feasibility
study (FS). at least one alternative for
each of the following must at a
minimum, be evaluated within the
requirements of the feasibility study
guidance and presented to the decision-
maker.
(a) Alternatives for treatment or
disposal in an off-site facility, as
appropriate:1
(b) Alternative which attain
applicable and relevant Federal public
health or environmental standards;
(c) As appropriate, alternatives which
exceed applicable and relevent public
health or environmental standards:
(d) Alternatives which do not attain
applicable or relevant public health or
environmental standards but will reduce
the likelihood of present or future threat
from the hazardous substances. This
must include an alternative which
closely approaches the level of
protection provided by the applicable or
relevant standards and meets CERCLA's
objective of adequately protecting
public health, welfare and environment;
(e) A no action alternative.
In some cases, there may be some
overlap between these alternatives.
2. Selection of Remedy. The dedsion-
maker will consider all of the
alternatives arrayed in the feasibility
study and will give primary
consideration to remedies that attain or
exceed applicable or relevant Federal
public health and environmental
standards. Where the selected remedy
involves an EPA standard criterion, or
advisory, the decision-maker will ensure
appropriate coordination with affected
EPA programs.
In appropriate cases, the decision-
makar may select a remedial action that
includes both on and off-site
components.
The decision-maker may select an
alternative that does not attain
applicable or relevant standards in one
of the following circumstances,
recognizing that a consideration in
making this determination is the extent
to which the standard was intended to
apply to the specific circumstances
present at the site.*
a. The selected alternative is not the
final remedy and will become part of a
more comprehensive remedy;
b. All of the alternatives which meet
applicable or relevant standards fall
into one or more of the following
categories:
(i) Fund-Balancing—For Fund-
financed actions only: exercise the
Fund-balancing provisions of CERCLA
section 104(c)(4); _
(ii) Technically impracticality—It is
technically impractical from an
engineering perspective to achieve the
standard at the specific site in question;
(iii] Unacceptable environmental
impacts—All alternatives that attain or
exceed standards would cause
unacceptable J*myt to the
environment o*
(c) When the remedy is to be carried
out pursuant to CERCLA section 108; the
Hazardous Response Trust Fund is
unavailable or would be used: there is a
strong public interest in expedited dean
up; and the litigation probably would
not result in the desired remedy.
When one of these situations is
present the derision-maker may select
an alternative whkn^does not attain or
exceed applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards. The
basis for not meeting the standard must
be fully documented and explained in
the appropriate decision documents.
The Agency anticipates that most of
CERCLA remedial actions will attain or
exceed applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards.
However, where the specific
circumstances discussed above preclude
the selection of a remedy that attains
standards, the decision-maker will
select the alternative that most closely
approaches the level of protection
provided by the applicable or relevant
standard considering the reasons for
not meeting that standard
EPA also will use appropriate Federal
public health and environmental
criteria, advisories, and guidance and
State standards in developing
appropriate remedial alternatives. If the
decision-maker determines that such
1 Theae alternative* mutt b* conaitteat with
forthcoming guidance on "Procedure* for
Implementing CERCLA {Mutton* for Off-Site
Reeponae Action*." to torn* case*. or7-«ta diipoaal
or treatment may not be feaaibla ud thi»
alternative may be eliminated during initial
screening of alternative*. The decision document*
ihouid reflect thi* screening.
' In determining whether a particular standard ie
applicable or relevant the deeWoa-maker should
refer to the attached li«t "Appncabi* at Relevant
Requirement*." For example. RCRA did not
"contemplate" the regulation of the indiacriininant
disposal of waateoverZlOmilee of roadway, or the
contamination of * river bed with brardoua waste.
In such situation*. XCRA regulation* would not be
applicable per se. bat on a caae-by-caae baaia part
of the regulation may be retevaaft.
-------
/ VaL SO. No. 2» / Tuesday. Fdmumy 11 MBS /
guidaaaca an relevant. bat an .not ased
in fhs selected m&adlaj aJtexsaliicB, 'tiff
decision documents wftUaoleBia that
basis Cor not using them. ^
For Fund-Bflancad acSoos, where
State standards are part of tne coat-
effective remedy, the Fund win pay to
attaia those ^anHarrf^ Where the coat-
effective remedy doe* aot include those
State standards, the Slate may pay the.
difference to attaia them.
3. Adnunistrative and Procedural
Aspect*. The fbflovfing modification*
wifl be -made to the Supexnoul
community relations pmgiem to ensure
that rr prwioea a suBnar fennel
ig) of me other
involvemeat to that prinided by me
pru£ias9 ox other
* A met vaeet ancMihi oe
wi* fee pubic notice aad feaaibflrtr
study which n prmhfed to the pabifc*
weeks before the 3 nuek pufafie
comment period. The fact sheet wifl
csseny vjBBmanca the feeaJBHHy study
veaoeHee ajMBnseuvee eDd otnev teeiiee,
including wMch alteraattrea attaia or
exceed pvbfic heatth and eavironnental
jiaaAajdeeadtTrterie-Porthoae
altematim thai de art attain
applicable and tulewmt staadarda of
other public hesdti and environmental
law* ae fact aba* saaB identify how
they bet to attaia the staadarda aad
expiaai eawtaernonetneiees meet tae-
geafe of aataA.Tt»pvbac notice
samM taduda a bmstaMeta which a
deoaiasi MB be readied, any tantatto
detemioattaBa which the Agency has
made. o«e location where reierant
identification of oiaima
/mrorvoM
opportunities, die naaH of aa Agency
contact and other appropdaae
• A pebJjc notice aad updated fisct
sheet seoaid he pres^red BSMO (1)
Agency seieetka of the final response
action and (2) i
seleetsng the Sad
the Agency may hoada i
inform the pob£e of tk» .
aitematiwte and sistieit i
• if a remedy is identified matt ia
different from moee prastuaed daring m»
feaaihtlky study pobhc oomnient period.
a new 3 week poiafi
period
may be required prior to amending the
record of decision, taking into
coamderaooa the iaacares of the
altennttaea addressed* ia the pvbfic
comment period,
m addirina. oartaia aspect* of the
modified to assuie comparability with
the administrative reqasrements (La,
environmental proyama.
The CERCLA enforcament
rntaniuia propasm will aiao be modified
to provide for an enhanced public
participation program for both consent
decree* and administrative orders. Thia
program will be substantially equivalent
to the revised program for Fund-
financed actiona. Furthermore, coneent
decrees and adsBim'strative orders will
incorporate adeuntatraowe requirements
(i.e. recordkeeptng, noottoringj unto
to those mandated by ot&er
environmental programs.
V. Applicability of Poficy
This policy appiiea to three different
situation*;"
• A site specific FS has not yet been
initiated
• The FS oaa been initiated, but the
remedy haa aot yet been selected.
• The FS is completed and the remedy
has been selected.
All sites where thai FS haa not yet
been initiated muat meet ail of the
requirements of this policy.
Where the FS haa been initiated and
tha remedy haa not yet been selected
the requirements of this policy do not
apply to Record of Decisions (RODs)
signed before March 1,1S8S. RODs
signed before March 1,1985. should
present to the dacision-aiakar at least
one alternative that attains or exceed*
applicable or relevant standards and, if
it is not selected should indicate the
reasons why it was not selected.
Where the FS is complete and the
remedy has been selected, the deciaioo-
maker may on a caae-by-caae basis
revise die selected remedy.
If you have any questions or
comments, please contact William N.
Hedeman. Director, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (FTS 382-2180)
or Drmglcaa Cohen of his Policy Analysis
Staff (FTS 382-3044).
Attachment
AppttcaoM or Retersnt Ket^t&restesrts
1. Office of Solid Waste
• Open Damp Criteria (RC8A Subtitie
D. 40 CTR Part 257}
Noto^-Ooiy relevant to nonhazardous
wattes. In mo*t situations Soperfnnd wastes
will be bandied in accordance with RCRA
Subtid* C reqweetents.
• Hazardous Waste Regulations
(RCRA Subtitle C. 40 CFR Part 284)
including liner, cap. groundwater. and
closure requirements under the
following jubpartc
F. Ground-Water Protection
G. Closure aad Post Qoaore
H. Containers
LTanks
J. Surface Imoow
ICWaate Piles
L Laod Treatment
M. Landfill*
N. Incinerators
2. Office of Water
• Maximum Contaminant Levels (for
all source* of drinkmg water exposure).
• Underground Injection Control
Regulation*.
• State Water Quality Standard*
(apply for surface water diacharge).
• Requirements established pursuant
to section 301 and section 403(c) of the
Clean Water Act
* Ocean Damping Requirements
including inciaeTation at sea.
• Pretreatnent standard* for
discharge into a pvbo'cry owned
treatment worica.
3. Office of Pesticides aad Toxic
Substances
• "PCS Requirements including
Disposal and Marking Role (43 FR 715ft
2-17-78*; PCS Baa Rale (44 FR 31514.5-
31-79) PCS Electrical Equipment Rase
(47 FR 37342. Ansjact 25.1882):
Uncontrofled PCBa Role (48 FR 28172.
July 10.1984) and other related
rulemakings."
• 40 CFR 775 Subpart J—Disposal of
Waste Material Containing TCETD.
4. Office of External Aflain
• Guideline* fior Specification of
Disposal Site* for Dredged or Fill
Material (sectioa 404(b)(l) Goidenaea,
40 CFR Part 230).
• Denial or Restriction of Disposal
Site for Dredged Material: Final rale
(section 404(c}).
5. Office of Air and Radiation
• Uranium mill tailing rules.
• National Ambient Ah* Quality
Standards.
• High and low level radioactive
waste rule.
• Asbestos disposal rule*.
6. Other Federal Requh
' OSHA requirements. ,
• Preservation of scientific, hutorical
or archaeological data.
• D.O.T. Hazardous Material*
Transport Rules.
• Regulation of activities in or
affecting waters of the United States
pursuant to 33 CFR 320-329.
• The following requirements are
triggered by fund-financed ^ctiffntt
—Preservation of riven oa the national
inventory, Wild and Scenic Riven
Act sectioa 40 CFR 8JO2(e).
—Protacaoa of threatened or
endangered specie* and their habitats.
-------
F«d«rai Register / Vol. 30. N«x » / Tuesday. February 12, 1985 / Proposed Rule*
5831
—Conservation or Wildlife Resources.
—Executive Orders related to
Floodplains (11988) and Wetlands
(11990).
—Coastal Zone Management Act
Other Requirements, Advisories and
Guidance To Be Considered
1. Federal Requirements, Advisories and
Procedures
• Recommended Maximum
Concentration Limits (RMCLs).
• Health Advisories, EPA. Office of
Water.
• Federal Water Quality Criteria.
Note.—Federal water quality criteria an
not legally enforceable. State water quality
standards, developed using appropriate
aspect* of Federal water quality criteria, are
legally enforceable. In many case*. States
water quality standards do not include
specific numerical limitations on a large
number of priority pollutants. When there are
no numerical state standard* for a given
pollutant Federal water quality criteria
should be considered.
• Pesticide and Food additive
tolerances and action levels data.
Notsb—Germane portions of tolerances and
action levels may be relevant in certain
situations.
• Waste load allocation procedures,
EPA Office of Water.
• Federal Sole Source Aquifer
requirements.
• Public health basis in listing
decisions under sec 112 of the Clean Air
Act
• EPA'* groundwater protection
strategy.
• New Source Performance Standards
for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids.
• TSCA health data.
• Pesticide registration data.
• TSCA chemical advisories (2 or 3
issued to date).
• Advisories issued by FWS and
NWFS under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Floodpiain and Wetlands Executive
Orders.
• TSCA Compliance-Program Policy.
Z State Requirements
• State Requirements on Disposal and
Transport of Radioactive wastes.
• State Approval of Water Supply
System Additions or Developments.
• State Ground Water Withdrawal
Approvals.
• Requirements of authorized
(Subtitle C of RCRA) State hazardous
waste programs.
• State Implementation Plans and
Delegated Programs Under Clean Air
Act
• All other State requirements, not
delegated through EPA authority.
Note.—Many other State and local
requirements could be relevant The guidance
for feasibility studies will include a more
comprehensive list
3. USEPA RCRA Guidance Documents
A. EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines
(1) Surface Impoundments. Liners
Systems, Final Cover and Freeboard
Control.
(2) Waste Pile Design—Liner Systems.
(3) Land Treatment Units.
(4) Landfill Design—Liner Systems
and Final Cover.
B. Permitting Guidance Manuals
(1) Permit Applicant's Guidance
Manual of Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Storage. Disposal Facilities.
(2) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
Storage, Disposal Facilities.
(3) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Subpart F.
(4) Permit Applicants Guidance
Manual for the General Facility
Standards.
(5) Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
Manual.
(6) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Tanks.
(7) Model Permit Application for
Existing Incinerators.
(8) Guidance Manual for Evaluating
Permit Applications for the Operation of
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units.
(9) A Guide for Preparing RCRA
Permit Applications for Existing Storage
Facilities.
(10) Guidance Manual on closure and
post-closure Interim Status Standards.
C. Technical Resource Documents
(TRDs)
(1) Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid
and Hazardous Waste.
(2) Hydrologic Stimulation of Solid
Waste Disposal Sites.
(3) Landfill'and Surface Impoundment
Performance Evaluation.
(4) Lining of Water Impoundment and
Disposal Facilities.
(5) Management of Hazardous Waste
Leachate.
(6) Guide to the Disposal of
Chemically Stabilized and Solidified
Waste.
(7) Closure of Hazardous Waste
Surface Impoundments.
(8) Hazardous Waste Land Treatment.
(9) Soil Properties, Classification, and
Hydraulic Conductivity Testing.
D. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste
(1) Solid Waste Leaching Procedure
Manual.
(2) Methods for the Prediction of
Leachate Plume Migration and Mixing.
(3) Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model Hydrologic
Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal
Sites. '
(4) Procedures for Modeling Flow
Through Clay Liners.
(5) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes.
(6) A Method for Determining the
Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes.
(7) Guidance Manual on Hazardous
Waste Compatibility.
4. USEPA Office of Water Guidance
Documents
A. Pretreatment Guidance Documents
(1) 304(gj Guidance Document Revised
Pretreatment Guideline* (3 Volumes).
Provides technical data describing
priority pollutants and their effects on
wastewater treatment processes to be
used in developing local limits;
describes technologies applicable to
categorical industries.
B. Water Quality Guidance Documents
(1) Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters (1977).
(2) Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses (1983).
Outlines methods for conducting use
attainability analyses under the Clean
Water Act
(3) Water-Related Environmental Fate
of 129 Priority Pollutants (1979V
Describe the transformation and
transportation of priority pollutants.
(4) Water Quality Standards
Handbook (1983).
Provides an overview of the Criteria
Standards Program under the Clean
Water Act and outlines methods for
conducting criteria standards
modification.
(5) Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
C. NPDES Guidance Documents
(1) NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Manual (June 1981).
Provides a protocol for evaluating
BMPs for controlling discharges of toxic
and hazardous substances to receiving
waters.
(2) Biomoru'toring Guidance. July 1983.
subsequent biomonitoring policy
statements, and case studies on toxicity
reduction evaluation (May 1983).
D. Ground Water/UIC Guidance
Document
(1) Designation of a USDW.
(2) Elements of Aquifer Identification.
-------
3D. Ma 9 i TtMday, Fabrwry 1Z 1*85 /
injecting into, through or «bow
punuaot to I HC
on ^n
WSKPA JriontBct Am tfw OffJcsof
analytic »Miwd».
(2) lab protocols dnreioped
to Cltto W«tor Act section 30401).
-------
ATTACHMENT G
LABORATORY EVALUATION OF
METHOD 8280
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 12
OFPICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Laboratory Evaluation of Method 8280
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-
TO: Ronald Mitchum, Director
Duality Assurance Division
EMSL-Las Vegas
The OSW has reviewed and made recommendation on the draft
report "Single Laboratory Evaluation of the RCRA Method for
Analysis of Dioxin in Hazardous Waste" (Appendix A). In view
of these recommendations, comments returned in response to the
CLP's mult ilaboratory Method 8280 evaluation bid proposal, and
EMSL-Las Vegas concerns, the Methods Program believes that a
multi-laboratory evaluation of Method 8280 at this time would
be premature. We suggest that the remainder of FY-85 be used
to complete the single laboratory evaluation as originally
scheduled in the August 1984 ORD work plan. We will prepare
a detailed work plan for the remainder of FY-85 during the
SW-846 workgroup meeting on July 23, 1985. Included in the
work plan will be the immediate analysis of representative
matrices samples supplied by the Listing Program and documentation
of detection limits for all tested matrices.
"To aid in the evaluation process; the Methods Program will
fund a 2 month familiarization portion of a 3 laboratory confirmatory
testing study. The CLP will initiate the study by July 29, 1985.
The confirmatory study, as outlined in the ORD ' s "Guidelines
for Validation of US EPA ' s Measurement Methods" will confirm
the single laboratory results and refine Method 8280 as a
rugged regulatory method. The final method protocol would
be prepared by October 31, 1985 at the conclusion of the
familiarization period. The multi-laboratory portion of the
confirmatory study would be initiated in October, 1985 and
concluded by Decemoer 31, 1985. Funding of the multi-laboratory
portion could be shared by both the EMSL-Las Vegas and the
CLP. The multi-laboratory study and the remainder of the
fY-86 dioxin work will be outlined in a OSW-ORD work plan
prepared in August, 1985.
-------
The above schedule leaves an interm period from date of
dioxin rule promulgation to the end of calender year 1985 where
the agency will not have finalized the dioxin method. During this
period the Methods Program would distribute the revised
Method 8280 that will be used in the confirmatory study.
The distribution would include printing in my periodic "Methods and
QA" memorandum and also making copies available to interested
persons attending "Tne Solid tfaste Testing and Quality Assurance"
symposium. Once a final method protocol has been prepared
in late Octooer, the Methods Program will prepare a technical
amendment to the Federal Register reflecting the required
modifications of the current Federal Register published
Method 8280.
cc: Mike Cook
Jim Cummings
Steve Lingle
Matt Straus
Alan Corson
Eileen Claussen
Stanley Kovell
Douglas Uillard
Francine Jacott
Stephen Billets
Florence Richardson
-------
Appendix: Review ofc Report "Single Laboratory Evaluation of
the RCRA Method for Analysis of Dioxin in Hazardous Waste.
The above referred report has been reviewed and discussed
by staff of the Methods and Listing Programs and the Dioxin
Task Force. As a result of these discussions several recommondation
were made. The following details these recommendations.
1. Detection limit calculations require more discussion as to
how they were obtained. Projected detection limits need to be
verified by samples fortified at concentration levels near the
detection limits. Documented detection limits of 1 ppb for
all matrices are desired. While somewhat higher detection
limits may turn out to be acceptable for complex matrices
(still bottoms), the high fortification levels used in this
report, make projecting current method detection limits
difficult to predict.
2. The Method needs to be evaluated using a larger sample
set to insure that the matrices used are representive of
the method's proposed application. Currently, all evaluation
data is based on 5 samples (1 sample from each of 5 matrices).
As one source of additional samples, the Listing Program
has agreed to provide the wood preserving samples listed in
Table I. Because the results obtained from the analysis of
these samples will be used in the Listing Program, the
analyses will have to be completed within 6 weeks from the
time of sample receipt.
3. Method 8280 needs to be rewritten and tightend by limiting
the number of options. The numerous options given for sample
extraction are confusing. The method refers to a methanol:
petroleum ether: water extraction but the report doesn't
evaluate the systems performance. A steam distillation/extraction
is also discussed but no information is given when this
system is used instead of the methanol: petroleum ether:
water system. The method refers to "recommended solvents"
but the solvents are not identified. Because 8280 will have
general application, a ground water and aqueous waste extraction
technique has to be included.
4. The carbon column clean-up section needs to be included
in the general method. Extraction steps and washes should not
be repeated in the column section. If possible, a single
alumina column procedure should be used for all matrices.
Currently two different alumina columns and elution schemes 'are
used. The general method indicates that the carbon column
is used after the HPLC -reverse phase step. The need for
riPLC-reverse phase followed by carbon column, however, is
not demonstrated. The carbon column's preparation and description
requires more detail.
-------
5. A brominated dioxin and dibenzofuran determinative
method has been requested by the Listing Program. In response
to this request, the feasibility of extending Method 8280 to the
brominated compounds needs to be investigated. The feasibility
report should include background information, the amount of
experimental work required and a projection of the project's
duration. Information on the compounds and matrices of concern
to OSW will be provided by Howard Fribush of the Listing
Program.
In summary the following additional work is requested:
1. additional performance data, including detection limits,on
representive matrices, 2. an aqueues matrix extraction step,
3. intergration and condensing of the cleanup steps, and 4.
a feasibility report on the extension of Method 8280 to the
brominated compounds.
------- |