Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Organobromine Production Wastes

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to

amend the regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by listing as hazardous waste

solids and filter cartridges from the production of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol. The Agency is also proposing to add 2,4,6-

tribromophenol to the list of commercial chemical products that are

hazardous wastes when discarded. As a necessary part of this hazardous

waste listing EPA is proposing to add 2,4,6-tribromophenol to the RCRA

list of hazardous constituents.

This proposed regulation, if promulgated, will subject the listed

2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes to regulation as hazardous wastes under

Subtitle C of RCRA. In addition, 2,4,6-tribromophenol and the listed

wastes will automatically become hazardous substances under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA). EPA is proposing for purposes of immediate release reporting

under CERCLA section 103 a reportable quantity (RQ) of 100 pounds for

2,4,6-tribromophenol and the listed wastes.

Also, EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous nine waste streams

from the production of bromochloromethane, ethyl bromide,

tribromophenol, octabromodiphenyl oxide, decabromodiphenyl oxide, and

to defer action on one waste stream from the production of

tetrabromobisphenol-A.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed listing

determination until July 11, 1994. Comments postmarked after this date

will be marked ``late'' and may not be considered. Any person may

request a public hearing on this proposal by filing a request with Mr.

David Bussard, whose address appears below, by May 26, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Ed Rissmann at EPA, OSWER,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The official record of this

action is identified by Docket number F-94-OBLP-FFFFF and is located at

the following address: EPA Docket Clerk, room 2616 (5305), U.S. EPA,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket is open from 9 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The

public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling

(202) 260-9327. The public may copy 100 pages from the docket at no

charge; additional copies are $0.15 per page.

To request a public hearing on this proposed listing determination,

file a request with Mr. David Bussard (5304), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800)

424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412-9810, in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area. The TDD Hotline number is (800) 553-7672, or (703)

486-3323, locally. For technical information on the proposed listing

determination, contact Ed Rissmann at (202) 260-4785.

For technical information on the CERCLA aspects of this rule,

contact: Ms. Gerain H. Perry, Response Standards and Criteria Branch,

Emergency Response Division (5202G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 603-8760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed

in the following outline:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

II. Summary of Today's Proposal

A. Organobromine Chemicals Industry Overview

B. Description of Processes Used, Wastes Generated, and Waste

Management Practices Employed

1. Processes Used and Wastes Generated

2. Waste Management Practices

C. Description of Health and Risk Assessments

1. Toxicological Information-Use of Structural Activity

Relationships

2. Plausible Mismanagement Scenario

3. Risk Analysis

D. Basis for Listing Determination Decisions

1. Waste Specific Risk Analyses

a. Wastes from the Production of Bromochloromethane/

Dibromomethane

i. Solids

ii. Wastewaters

b. Wastes from the Production of Ethyl Bromide

i. Solids

ii. Wastewaters

c. Wastes from the Production of Tetrabromobisphenol A

i. Solids

ii. Wastewaters

d. Wastes from the Production of Octabromodiphenyl Oxide

i. Solids

ii. Wastewaters

e. Wastes from the Production of Decabromodiphenyl Oxide

i. Solids

ii. Wastewaters

f. Wastes from the Production of Tribromophenol

i. Solids

ii. Wastewaters

2. Conclusions

III. Waste Minimization Opportunities in the Industry

IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Compliance Costs

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

VI. State Program Implementation

A. Applicability of Rules in States

B. Effect on State Authorizations

VII. CERCLA Designation and RQ Adjustment

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

IX. Compliance and Implementation

A. Section 3010 Notification

B. Compliance Dates for Facilities

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

These regulations are proposed under the Solid Waste Disposal Act

(SWDA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(HSWA). These statutes are commonly referred to as the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and are codified at Volume 42 of

the United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 6901 to 6992k (42 U.S.C.

6901-6992k).

Section 3001(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(a), requires EPA to

promulgate criteria for identifying characteristics of hazardous wastes

and for listing hazardous wastes. Section 3001(b) of RCRA requires EPA

to promulgate regulations, based on these criteria, identifying and

listing hazardous wastes which shall be subject to the requirements of

the Act.

Hazardous waste is defined at section 1004(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6903(5). There are two types of hazardous waste. First, hazardous

wastes are those solid wastes which may cause or significantly

contribute to an increase in mortality, serious irreversible illness,

or incapacitating reversible illness. In addition, hazardous wastes are

those solid wastes which may pose a substantial present or potential

hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.

EPA's regulations establishing criteria for listing hazardous

wastes are codified at volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Sec. 261.11 (40 CFR 261.11). Section 261.11 states three criteria

for identifying characteristics and for listing wastes as hazardous.

First, wastes may be classified as ``characteristic'' wastes if

they have the properties described at 40 CFR 261.20 which would cause

them to be classified as having the characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity.

Second, wastes may be classified as acute hazardous wastes if they

are fatal to humans at low doses, lethal in animal studies at

particular doses designated in the regulation, or otherwise capable of

causing or significantly contributing to an increase in serious

illness.

Third, wastes may be listed as hazardous if they contain hazardous

constituents identified in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 and the

Agency concludes, after considering eleven factors enumerated in

Sec. 261.11(a)(3), that the waste is capable of posing a substantial

present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when

improperly managed. A substance is listed in appendix VIII if it has

been shown in scientific studies to have toxic effects on life forms.

Wastes listed as hazardous are subject to federal requirements

under RCRA for persons who generate, transport, treat, store or dispose

of such waste. Facilities that must meet the hazard waste management

requirements, including the need to obtain permits to operate, are

commonly referred to as Subtitle C facilities. Subtitle C is Congress'

original statutory designation for that part of RCRA that directs EPA

to issue regulations for hazardous wastes as may be necessary to

protect human health or the environment. Thus, facilities like

incinerators or landfills that are required to comply with RCRA

requirements for hazardous waste are referred to as Subtitle C

incinerators or landfills.

Subtitle C is codified as Subchapter III of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste

Disposal) of Volume 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. 6921 thru

6939e. EPA standards and procedural regulations implementing subtitle C

are found generally at 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.

Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes may be disposed of at

facilities which are overseen by state and local governments. These are

the so-called subtitle D facilities. Subtitle D is Congress' original

statutory designation for that part of RCRA which deals with federal

assistance to state and regional planning efforts for disposal of solid

waste.

Subtitle D is codified as Subchapter IV of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste

Disposal) of Volume 42 of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. 6941 thru

6949a). EPA regulations affecting subtitle D facilities are found

generally at 40 CFR parts 240 thru 247, and 255 thru 258.

Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921 (e)(2) requires EPA to

determine whether to list, as hazardous, wastes generated by various

chemical production processes, including the production of

organobromines. In response to this mandate, the Agency undertook a

two-year study of the industry and, eventually, listed several wastes

from the production of ethylene dibromide (EDB) and methyl bromide.

The final rule listing wastes from the production of EDB was

published in the Federal Register on February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5327).

These wastes are listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

section 261.32 (40 CFR 261.32) and are designated by EPA hazardous

waste numbers K117, K118, and K136. The final rule listing wastes from

methyl bromide production was published on October 6, 1989 (54 FR

41402). These wastes are listed at 40 CFR 261.32 and are designated by

hazardous waste codes K131 and K132. Methyl bromide and ethylene

dibromide are also on the Appendix VIII list of hazardous constituents.

In June of 1991, EPA entered into a proposed consent decree in a

lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund, et al. (EDF v. Reilly,

Civ. No. 89-0598 (D.D.C.)), in which the Agency agreed to publish a

proposed determination as to whether or not to list as hazardous wastes

from the production of five other organobromine chemicals by April 30,

1994 and to promulgate a final decision on whether to list on or before

April 30, 1995. The Agency reserves the right to evaluate wastes from

the production of other organobromine compounds in the future, if and

when such an evaluation is deemed necessary.

To provide a sound technical basis for this listing determination,

EPA conducted another study of the organobromine chemicals industry in

1991 and 1992. Six firms were identified as currently manufacturing

organobromine chemicals at eight facilities in the United States. Under

the authority of RCRA Section 3007 (42 U.S.C. 6927), EPA sent

questionnaires to these firms and four of them were selected for

engineering site visits. These four facilities account for over 99

percent of total production. Samples of process residuals were

collected during the site visits to familiarize the Agency with the

types of materials generated by the industry. Later in the study,

record samples were collected at facilities of the two largest domestic

producers. The next section summarizes today's proposal and describes

the basis for EPA's decision to list one waste from this industry. The

Listing Background Document for this listing determination contains a

detailed description of the Agency's basis for proposing to list one

waste, and to not list ten other waste streams. The public version of

this document, which does not contain Confidential Business Information

can be copied at the RCRA public docket. See ADDRESSES section.

The third criteria described above for listing hazardous wastes in

40 CFR 261.11, is applicable to this proposal on organobromine wastes.

That is, wastes may be listed if they contain hazardous constituents

identified in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 and the Agency concludes

the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or potential

hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.

With respect to the other two criteria, the wastes under

consideration here are not acutely hazardous and ``characteristic''

wastes are not listed separately, since their classification depends

upon whether they qualify as wastes based on various tests described in

the regulations. EPA notes that any of the organobromine wastes could

be classified as ``characteristic'' wastes if they ``fail'' the

applicable tests.

Consistent with its regulations, EPA determined whether there were

present any Appendix VIII constituents and whether there was

information on any other constituents of the waste that could lead to

health or environmental concerns. The health effects data, along with

other factors (generally related to exposure) required to be considered

under 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), were then evaluated to decide whether the

wastes should be listed as hazardous wastes. These factors include the

plausible types of mismanagement scenarios to which the wastes could be

subjected and the potential of the constituent or any toxic degradation

product to migrate from waste into the environment under the improper

management scenarios (40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) (iii) and (vii)).

After consideration of data on health effects and exposure to the

wastestreams, EPA decided that certain wastes from 2,4,6-tribromophenol

production warrant listing. None of the constituents have previously

been listed in Appendix VIII, however. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to

list 2,4,6-tribromophenol as an Appendix VIII constituent.

II. Summary of Today's Proposal

A. Organobromine Chemicals Industry Overview

The organobromine chemical-producing industry in the U.S. is

geographically limited by the location of underground bromide-bearing

brine deposits. The only major deposits of this type in the United

States are located in Michigan and Arkansas. Organobromine chemicals

are no longer produced on a large scale in Michigan. EPA identified two

firms in southern Arkansas that produce the organobromine chemicals

listed in the EDF consent decree. These two firms account for 95% of

all organobromine chemical production in the U.S.

The source of all bromine produced currently in the U.S. is the

brine deposit in the Smackover Formation in Union, Lafayette, and

Columbia Counties, Arkansas. Total demand for bromine has fallen 25%

since 1979 and domestic bromine production fell by four thousand metric

tons between 1991 and 1992, so there is little incentive for the

construction of new bromine extraction plants. In addition, all of the

mining rights for bromine-bearing brines in these counties are

controlled by two corporations. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines,

these deposits are likely to satisfy domestic demand for sixty years.

For these reasons, EPA believes that it is very improbable that any new

producers using substantially different technologies will enter the

organobromine chemicals industry during the next several decades.

At the time of the first industry study in 1984, ethylene dibromide

(EDB) was the most important product of the organobromines industry.

EDB was used together with tetraethyl lead in additives designed to

increase the octane rating of gasoline. Other industry products

included methyl bromide, used as a soil fumigant, and brominated

fluorocarbons, which are sold mainly as fire-extinguishing agents.

During the decade that has elapsed since the original industry

study, the product mix has changed, due primarily to the advent of

several environmental regulatory programs. Vehicles requiring unleaded

gasoline were introduced to the U.S. market in 1971, and the phase-out

of leaded gasoline is now almost complete. Other nations have

instituted similar programs, though on different timetables, which has

reduced demand for EDB. The use of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant

has been restricted because of the toxicity of this material. Two of

the important brominated fluorocarbons, Halon 1211 and Halon 1301, are

being phased out of production under the terms of the Montreal Protocol

on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which the United States

is a signatory.

The majority of organobromine chemicals manufactured currently are

sold as flame retardants. Most of these are solid compounds that are

incorporated into polymer mixes. The polymers then are used to

manufacture a variety of household and industrial products, including

electronic circuit boards, television and computer cases, and packaging

and insulating foam. Smaller volume organobromine chemicals are

produced by four smaller firms. The principal uses for these products

are as reagent chemicals and pharmaceutical intermediates. These low

volume chemicals are produced on a batch basis with annual production

often being a few batches per year.

B. Description of Processes Used, Wastes Generated, and Waste

Management Practices Employed

1. Processes Used and Wastes Generated

As discussed above, EPA conducted engineering site visits at four

organobromine-producing firms, based on the information received from

RCRA Section 3007 questionnaires. Two of these four firms have direct

access to sources of elemental bromine (i.e., the underground brine

deposits) and use it to produce substantial volumes of organobromine

flame retardants. All other firms in the industry purchase elemental

bromine and use it to produce smaller volumes of special-purpose

pharmaceutical and chemical intermediates. Frequently, these items are

produced under contract for the pharmaceutical firms.

The processes at the two major sites also differ from those at the

smaller producers with respect to waste management practices. The

smaller producers manage all of their solid wastes as hazardous and

ship them off site to incinerators or landfills operating in accordance

with the standards promulgated under authority of RCRA Subtitle C.

Generally, their production contracts call for the wastes to be sent to

the firms ordering these chemicals. The pharmaceutical firms then

incinerate these wastes from the organochemical production process.

Because bromine is an element and cannot be destroyed by chemical

transformations, the production processes at the major facilities are

designed to make the most effective use of all bromine extracted from

the brine. As a result, there are many bromine/bromide recovery

processes built into the operation. A generalized description of the

wastes and management practices at the major sites follows.

Bromide-bearing brine from the Smackover Formation is pumped to the

surface and routed to the bromine plant, where it is acidified, and

chlorinated to convert the bromide to bromine. The reaction generates a

sodium chloride by-product which remains in the brine. The bromine then

is volatilized with steam and condensed, dried, and used on site as a

feedstock. Most organobromine chemicals are produced by simple one- or

two-step reactions of bromine with an organic feedstock. Many of these

reactions liberate hydrogen bromide gas, which is normally scrubbed in

sodium hydroxide solution, forming a sodium bromide stream that often

is recycled to the bromine plant. Alternatively, the gas is scrubbed

with a lime suspension to produce calcium bromide, a saleable by-

product.

Concentrated sulfuric acid is used as a drying agent for elemental

bromine. The spent acid is sold back to the sulfuric acid producer, who

uses it to produce virgin sulfuric acid.

At major production sites, process wastewaters containing

recoverable amounts of bromine are recycled to the bromine plant for

bromine recovery. The volume of these wastewater streams exceeds that

of all other waste streams combined. Additionally, over 200,000 metric

tons per year of unrecycled process wastewaters are generated at the

two major sites from production of the five organobromine chemicals

listed in the consent decree. An additional 450,000 tons of wastewaters

are generated from tribromophenol manufacture. Less than 800 tons of

process wastes solids are generated. These include spent filters, floor

sweepings and chemical product that does not meet commercial

specifications for quality--so-called ``off-spec'' product. By

comparison, the amount of waste generated by the minor producers is

cumulatively less than 100 tons and is divided among several dozen

processes, most of which are operated only a few days per year. Due to

the very low volumes and periodic generation of these wastes by the

minor producers, the analysis for this listing determination focused

only on the major production plants. The minor producers do not

manufacture any of the products listed in the EDF consent decree. Table

I summarizes the wastes and their constituents of potential concern

generated from production of organobromine products studied.

Table I.--Summary of Organobromine Production Wastes

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constituents of

Product Waste stream potential concern

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dibromomethane/bromochl Filters................ Methylene chloride.\2\

oromethane.

Wastewaters............ Bromochloromethane

Dibromomethane.

Ethyl bromide.......... Filters................ Ethyl bromide.

Wastewaters............ Ethanol.

Tetrabromobisphenol-A.. Off Spec Product....... Tetrabromobisphenol-A

Tribromophenol.

Wastewaters\1\.........

Octabromodiphenyl oxide Wastewaters............ Octabromodiphenyl

oxide Toluene.\2\

Off Spec Product & Brominated

Filters. dibenzofurans.

Decabromodiphenyl oxide Off Spec Product & Decabromodiphenyl

Filters. oxide.

Wastewaters............

Tribromophenol......... Wastewaters............ Tribromophenol.

Filters & Filter cake &

Off Spec Product.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Methyl bromide and tetrabromobisphenol A are generated by the same

process. The process wastewaters are the listed waste K131.

\2\Appendix VIII constituents.

2. Waste Management Practices

The largest volume wastes generated by the organobromines industry

are wastewaters disposed by injection into underground deep wells

regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection

Control (UIC) program (40 CFR parts 144-148). Some of the combined

waste streams being deep well-injected are classified as hazardous

wastes under 40 CFR part 261. As a result, the industry must comply

with applicable regulations under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

program in 40 CFR part 268, which require that hazardous wastes may not

be land-disposed without treatment to specified levels or by specified

methods. Disposal by underground injection is included in the

definition of ``land disposal'' in 40 CFR 268.2. Specific restrictions

on the underground injection of hazardous wastes are codified in 40 CFR

part 148.

One of the two major production plants submitted a petition under

40 CFR 148.20 for an exemption from these LDR requirements for the

disposal of wastes in wells located at its plant. They provided site-

specific information to demonstrate that there would be no migration of

the injected wastes to an underground source of drinking water for as

long as the wastes remain hazardous (40 CFR 148.20). Their

demonstration showed that the geological and geochemical conditions at

the site and the physicochemical nature of the wastestreams were such

that the hazardous constituents in the fluids will not migrate within

10,000 years vertically or laterally. The petition was approved by the

Agency and the exemption was granted. EPA expects the facility to

continue this form of disposal at the same level in the future

regardless of this listing determination because of economic

considerations. As a result, EPA believes that wastes being disposed by

underground injection at this plant will not pose a risk to human

health and the environment.

The situation with respect to the second major facility is

different. This facility consists of several plants located a few miles

apart. Each plant has its own set of injection wells. One plant, which

according to the Agency's information generates listed hazardous

wastewater, has two wells into which listed hazardous waste is

currently injected. Another, which according to the Agency's

information does not produce a listed wastewater, has at least three

wells which do not accept hazardous waste.

None of the wells at this facility have an approved no-migration

petition. Therefore, for currently listed wastewaters, the facility

will have to consider waste treatment prior to disposal. An option

under consideration by the plant is the construction of a wastewater

treatment plant to treat the wastewaters prior to either release to

surface waters or deep well injection. The facility is not likely to

want to abandon the use of deep well injection for economic reasons.

Shipment of wastewaters off site would be economically prohibitive

given the large wastewaters volumes involved. For unlisted wastewaters,

the most plausible management scenario would be continued deep well

injection.

The Agency believes that it would be unlikely that the facility

would attempt to store wastewater in lagoons. The area has a moist

climate, so evaporation is not a viable option. The plant is currently

under several consent agreements to remove contamination resulting from

the previous use of unlined lagoons for temporary wastewater storage.

Therefore, the Agency selected the plausible mismanagement scenario

for modeling purposes for unlisted wastewaters to be the current

practice of underground injection for this plant's wastewaters. EPA has

no information or reason to believe that, if not listed, the

wastewaters would be managed in a different manner.

In addition to underground injection, certain other waste

management practices commonly used in the organobromine chemicals

industry are regulated by specific RCRA regulations. Both major plants

use Bromine Recovery Units (BRUs) to recover bromine values from

organic liquid and vapor waste streams. In these units, the organics

are burned and the combustion products are removed by a wet scrubber.

The BRUs are halogen acid furnaces (HAFs), which meet the regulatory

definition of industrial furnace in 40 CFR 260.10.

The combustion of hazardous waste in industrial furnaces is

regulated under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H which regulate air emissions

from these units and require monitoring and analyses. These regulations

impose emissions standards and air quality limits for the BRUs, which

are designed to control and reduce the level of risk posed by this

management practice (e.g., 40 CFR 266.104(e) establishes controls for

dioxin- and furan-containing wastes). Both major plants burn listed

spent solvents and still bottoms in these units; therefore, they are

already subject to the performance standards of part 266, subpart H.

EPA believes that residuals managed in this manner and in compliance

with applicable regulations do not pose any additional risk to human

health and the environment because the facilities are currently in

compliance with their permits to operate these units. EPA has not found

any compelling evidence indicating that the major plants would manage

these wastes in any other way. These recovery units are integrated into

the major plants and abandoning their use would require considerable

plant modifications to be made with no economic benefit to the

facilities.

The solid residuals generated in organobromine chemicals production

are currently being shipped off site to commercial Subtitle D landfills

and to Subtitle C disposal facilities, even though some of these

residuals are not regulated as hazardous wastes. Other wastes (e.g.,

spent adsorbents, filter cakes, and floor sweepings) are being

incinerated. At the smaller firms production contracts specify that

wastes be shipped to incinerators operated by the pharmaceutical

industry in order to minimize future potential liability. The most

plausible mismanagement scenario for solids is placement in unlined

Subtitle D landfills. The plants currently are not required to send

unregulated wastes to Subtitle C facilities. Because of the lower cost

and wider availability of Subtitle D facilities, the Agency feels that

this is the most reasonable mismanagement scenario.

C. Description of Health and Risk Assessments

The Agency realizes that it has incomplete toxicological data on

several constituents identified in individual waste streams.

Nevertheless, sufficient information does exist to reach the reasoned

decisions shown in Tables 2a & b. The rationale for these decisions

follows.

Table 2a.--Basis for Listing Determination

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Wastestream Analysis Decision

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dibromomethane..... Filters........... De minimis stream (less than 1 kkg/yr) One No list.

producer.

Wastewaters....... Deep well injected at site with approved-no No list.

migration petition (only one producer).

Ethyl bromide...... Filters........... De minimis stream (less than 1.5 kkg/yr)... No list.

Wastewaters....... Only constituent identified is ethanol at No list.

low concentration.

Tetrabromobisphenol Wastewaters....... Stream is already listed as K131 for methyl Already listed waste.

A. bromide. Also contains 15,000 ppm

tribromophenol.

Octabromodiphenyl Filter cake....... Toluene and brominated dibenzofurans No list.

oxide. present at levels below concern. Assuming

worst case for leachate, risk estimated to

be below 10-6 for octabromodiphenyl oxide.

Wastewaters....... Major constituent of concern, brominated No list

dibenzofurans, shows minimal risk;

solubility of octabromodiphenyl oxide is

very low; modelling of worst case for

wastewaters showed risk below 10-6 for

octabromodiphenyl oxide.

Decabromodiphenyl Filter cake....... The major constituent in waste No list.

oxide. (decabromodiphenyl oxide) could not be

quantified. Assuming worst case for

leachate, risk below 10-6 level because of

very low solubility for this chemical.

Wastewaters....... The major constituent in waste No list.

(decabromodiphenyl oxide) could not be

quantified. Assuming worst case for

leachate, risk below 10-6 level because of

very low solubility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2b.--Basis for Listing Determination

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Wastestream Analysis Decision

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tetrabromobisphenol Off-specification Inadequate toxicology data for major Defer action.

A. product. constituent of concern,

tetrabromobisphenol A; not amenable to

surrogate analysis. Waste also expected to

contain tribromophenol, potentially of

concern, but unquantified in waste. None

found in leachate from landfill where

waste was deposited.

Tribromophenol..... Wastewaters....... Inadequate toxicology data on major No list.

constituents in waste, tribromophenol and

dibromophenol. Used surrogate analysis for

tribromophenol.

Risk analysis shows only low risks; ..........................

tribromophenol not detected in groundwater

at site. (Also, level of tribromophenol in

this waste is 2000 times less than the

listed hazardous waste, K131.).

Filter cake....... Used surrogate analysis for tribromophenol. List as hazardous waste.

Leachate analysis estimates risk of 10-3

to 10-5 if waste disposed in unlined

Subtitle D landfills.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Toxicological Information--Use of Structural Activity Relationships

While many chlorinated organic compounds are used widely and have

been studied in great detail, their brominated analogs are more

specialized and have not been investigated in the same detail. EPA has

found that no reliable health effects data directly showing significant

subchronic toxicity are available for a few of the compounds identified

in the record samples from this industry. For the constituents of

concern, validated health effects data, directly showing subchronic

toxicity, are not available for four compounds: ethyl bromide,

tetrabromobisphenol-A, tribromophenol, and the brominated

dibenzofurans. Because of the lack of data on these compounds, the

Agency explored the use of structure activity relationships to develop

toxicological values for these compounds. Structure activity

relationships involve the use of health effects information for a

compound with a very similar chemical structure and properties to that

of the chemical of concern. The Agency determined that this technique

could be used for 2,4,6-tribromophenol and for brominated dibenzofurans

because the chemical behavior and mechanism of action for these

compounds is expected to be similar to their chlorinated analogues.

For ethyl bromide and tetrabromobisphenol-A, this technique could

not be used because suitable surrogate compounds, for which data exist,

could not be found. No toxicological data exist for other halogenated

derivatives of bisphenol A, and ethyl bromide differs from its

chlorinated congeners with respect to its ability to undergo hydrolysis

and other important reactions. The basis for the listing determinations

for the wastes with these two compounds is discussed later in this

preamble.

At the present time, inadequate toxicity data have prevented EPA

from establishing a verified or unverified human health reference value

for 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP). The structures of TBP and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol (TCP) are sufficiently similar to be considered

halogenated congeners of phenol, and their toxicities are explainable

in terms of identified molecular mechanisms. The relative quantitative

activities of halogenated phenol congeners such as TBP and TCP are

derived from the ease of formation and reaction of these compounds and

their metabolites. Both halogenated phenols contain three symmetrically

placed bromine or chlorine substituents which are difficult to remove

by chemical substitution. The presence of difficult-to-remove

substituents at the ortho and para positions inhibits oxidative

decomposition of these moieties via formation of cyclic ketone

intermediates. EPA has used this information to develop a quantitative

structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis for TBP. The critical

endpoint of concern for TCP and TBP is carcinogenicity. The Agency has

determined that, based on QSAR analysis, the long-term toxicity of TBP

and TCP are essentially the same. For today's proposal, the Agency has

estimated the cancer slope factor for TBP to be the same as TCP, or 1.1

x 10-2 (mg/kg per day)-1. In addition, data on TBP analyzed

by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics indicated a ``low to

moderate'' concern for oncogenicity, mutagenicity, liver and kidney

toxicity, developmental, and reproductive toxicity. The Agency's QSAR

analysis reports for TBP are available in the docket of today's

proposal. See ADDRESSES section.

With regard to dibenzofurans, quantitative data comparing the

potency of brominated dioxins and furans to their chlorinated

counterparts are also relatively sparse. Consensus among most of the

studies supports the view that brominated analogs are less potent than

the chlorinated dioxins and furans, although several studies suggest

that the groups are equipotent when considered on a molar basis. EPA

estimated a potency factor of 0.3 for 2,3,7,8-tetrabromodibenzo-p-

dioxin (TBDD) relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).

This report is available in the docket. See ADDRESSES section. However,

application of the toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) methodology to all

of the BDFs is not currently possible because of the lack of research

data. EPA conducted an analysis assuming 30-100% toxicity for the

brominated furans as compared to the chlorinated ones and used the 100

percent value for making risk-based decisions. EPA believes this is a

conservative approach that will ensure protection of human health and

the environment. The Agency requests comment on this approach.

For all other compounds, the Agency is basing its determination of

whether to list on constituents for which adequate health effects data

exist. (For a complete listing of the constituents identified in the

samples of wastes from the production of chemicals listed in the EDF

consent decree and their concentrations, see the Background Document

for this proposed listing determination, available in the RCRA public

docket.)

In summary, published health-based data exist for all but four of

the waste constituents of concern. Inadequate data exist for

tetrabromobisphenol-A, ethyl bromide, the brominated dibenzofurans and

tribromophenol. Structure activity-derived health-based information is

available and was used for the brominated dibenzofurans and

tribromophenol.

Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSARs) have been

used in other ways in other EPA programs. For example, EPA uses QSARs

in evaluating premanufacturing notice data submitted by industry under

TSCA. The Agency may require additional testing of the chemical being

reviewed based on a QSAR analysis.

However, this is the first time the Agency is basing a listing

determination for a wastestream on QSAR analysis. The prospect of using

QSARs to identify wastes for regulation holds significant promise for

the Agency. It is one way to evaluate some potentially hazardous

constituents without requiring expensive and time-consuming toxicity

testing. However, the Agency recognizes that the approach could result

in additional regulatory effects on some waste generators, local

governments, or other federal agencies. In addition, the use of QSARs

in listing determinations could have broad policy implications for EPA.

Therefore, the Agency solicits comment on the following:

1. Under what conditions is the use of QSAR valid in making

hazardous waste listing determinations?

2. Is there another way to characterize the risk potential of

wastestreams for which there is a lack of toxicity data on the sole or

the primary constituent in the wastestream? (Note that limited

resources may restrict the ability of the Agency to conduct testing of

the compounds involved).

3. What type of data would help to either support or refute the

predictions made by QSAR?

2. Plausible Mismanagement Scenario

The Agency developed baseline risk estimates by selecting plausible

mismanagement practices based on information collected in the RCRA

Section 3007 survey for current management operations. For wastewaters,

the Agency selected the plausible mismanagement practice to be the

current practice of deep well injection. The Agency has no information

or reason to believe that, if not listed, the wastewaters are likely to

be managed in a different manner, except if pretreatment of wastewaters

is required prior to injection. For sludges and waste solids, the

Agency selected the plausible mismanagement to be an unlined landfill.

Currently, a portion of the waste goes to a lined Subtitle D landfill.

In addition, the Agency has information that a portion of these wastes,

while not regulated as hazardous, are managed as hazardous with

disposal in Subtitle C landfills. However, the Agency lacks adequate

information showing that, if not listed as hazardous, the wastes would

continue to be disposed in lined landfills and result in significantly

lower estimates of potential risk. The Agency requests comment on this

approach to modelling plausible mismanagement practices.

3. Risk Analysis

Risk characterization approach. The risk characterization approach

follows the recent EPA Guidance on Risk Characterization (Habicht,

1992) and Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA Risk Assessment Council,

1991). The guidance specifies that EPA risk assessments will be

expected to address or provide descriptions of: (1) Individual risk to

include the central tendency and high-end portions of the risk

distribution, (2) important subgroups of the population such as highly

exposed or highly susceptible groups or individuals, if known, and (3)

population risk. In addition to the presentation of results, the

guidance also specifies that the results portray a reasonable picture

of the actual or projected exposures with an open discussion of

uncertainties.

Individual risk. Individual risk descriptors are intended to convey

information about the risk borne by individuals within a specified

population and subpopulations. These risk descriptors are used to

answer questions concerning the affected population, the risk levels of

various groups within the population, and the average risk for

individuals within a population of interest. The approach used in this

analysis for characterizing baseline individual risk included: (1)

Identifying and describing the population of concern for an exposure

route; (2) determining the sensitivity of the model parameters used in

the risk estimation; (3) estimating central tendency and high-end

values for the most sensitive parameters in the risk estimation

procedures; and (4) calculating risk for an exposure pathway that

provides a characterization of the central tendency and high-end risk

descriptor.

Population risk. Descriptors of population risk are intended to

convey information about the risk borne by the population or population

segment being studied. These risk descriptors are used to answer

questions concerning the number of cases of a particular health effect

that probabilistically could occur within the population during a given

time period, the number of persons or percent of the population above a

certain risk level or health benchmark (e.g., RfD or RfC), and risk for

a particular population segment.

Risk assessment. The analysis of risks was developed using both the

input of derived or measured toxicological information and the

modelling of waste mismanagement scenarios. Specifically, for disposal

of solids in unlined landfills, the concentration of the constituents

of concern in the landfill leachate first was determined using the

Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) on selected record

samples, or when TCLP data were lacking, by assuming a leachate

concentration based on the aqueous solubility of the constituent. It

then was assumed that the leachate would be diluted by a factor of 100

(as described in the Toxicity Characteristic Rule 55 FR 11798, March

29, 1990) before reaching the nearest drinking water well. The

resulting diluted concentrations can be then compared with the health-

based values. In the case of this analysis, a one-in-a-million

(10-6) risk level or hazard quotient of 1 was used.

For wastewaters, the situation was more complicated. One facility

has been granted a no-migration variance from the land disposal

restrictions. The second facility, which consists of several separate

plants, has not obtained such a variance. The plants at the second

facility currently dispose of process wastewaters by deep well

injection. Modelling for specific wastewater streams was based on the

possibilities of leakage of injected wastewaters from the injection

zone upward to a drinking water aquifer through the abandoned oil and

gas wells in the area. Details of this modelling are given in the Risk

Modelling Background Document and summarized in the individual

wastewater risk assessment to be discussed in the following sections.

D. Basis for Listing Determinations Decisions

1. Waste Specific Risk Analyses

Risk analyses were performed on eleven individual waste streams.

The models selected for individual mismanagement scenarios are

described in the individual sections which follow.

a. Wastes From Production of Bromochloromethane/Dibromomethane--i.

Solids. Dibromomethane is a low-volume product with limited commercial

applications; therefore, it is unlikely that other firms will enter the

marketplace. The only solid wastes generated from the production of

dibromomethane are spent filters used to remove rust and other

particulate matter from the product. About two drums of the material

are generated per year. As a result, the Agency feels the quantity is

de minimis. The filters are changed yearly and the spent filter

material is sent to a Subtitle C incinerator. The waste is generated in

small quantities and is mixed with other halogenated solids prior to

incineration at the Subtitle C facility. As a result, the Agency

believes that although the waste generated from the production of

dibromomethane contains toxic constituents, it does not pose a threat

to human health and the environment because of the small quantities

generated and current management practices. The Agency is proposing a

no-list decision.

ii. Wastewaters. Dibromomethane and bromochloromethane are

manufactured as co-products at only one facility in the U.S., which has

an approved no-migration petition for its deep well injection unit. The

approved petition means that the waste will not migrate from the

formation into which it is being injected and will therefore not pose

risk sufficient to warrant listing.

b. Wastes From the Production of Ethyl Bromide--i. Solids. Ethyl

bromide is manufactured in low volumes at only one facility. The only

solid waste stream consists of spent filter materials used to remove

impurities from the product. This waste contains about 90,000 parts per

million ethyl bromide and is generated in quantities of 6 drums per

year which is sent to Subtitle C facilities for treatment and disposal.

High dilution with other wastes placed in the landfill would reduce

leachate concentration levels to below those for reasonable concern.

The Agency feels that although the waste does contain toxic

constituents, based on the production history of this chemical, it is

unlikely that other firms will enter the market and that, because of

the minimal waste quantities generated and the current waste management

practice, there is no need for a specific listing of the filters.

ii. Wastewaters. The wastewater stream is condensate water

containing only small amounts of ethanol as a contaminant. This

wastestream contains no other contaminants of concern and is managed by

deepwell injection. Prior to injection, the ethanol-containing stream

is mixed with wastewaters from other processes and the resulting mixed

stream thus is diluted by a factor of over 1,000. As a result, the

Agency believes that the ethanol content of the combined stream poses

little to no risk to human health or the environment, and proposes not

to list this wastestream.

c. Wastes From the Production of Tetrabromobisphenol-A--i. Solids.

The solid wastes generated from the tetrabromobisphenol A process

consist of spilled product and floor sweepings from the production

area. This material currently is managed in Subtitle C facilities.

About 150 tons of this waste are generated annually. Bisphenol-A is

manufactured by condensation of phenol and acetone. As a result,

commercial grade bisphenol-A may contain variable low levels of phenol

and, therefore, the brominated material is expected to contain some

brominated phenols. Some of these will co-precipitate with the product

during the process and be incorporated into the solid product.

At present, the Agency has insufficient information to characterize

the amount of the brominated phenols (including tetrabromobisphenol-A)

in the product or their leachability from the product matrix. EPA

requests any information on the amount of brominated phenols in the

product and their leachability from the product matrix. At this time,

the Agency also does not have information on the toxicity of

tetrabromobisphenol A, and requests any information commenters may have

on its toxicology, including the existence of any toxicological

analogues for tetrabromobisphenol A.

Record sampling of an on-site landfill at one plant where these

solids were formerly disposed for a number of years showed the absence

of any brominated materials in the landfill leachate. Given the lack of

adequate information to perform a risk analysis at this time, the

Agency is concerned about being conclusive about the potential hazard

of this waste stream and its potential to migrate to ground water if

managed in an unlined landfill. The Agency proposes to defer for this

waste stream a listing determination and requests submission of both

characterization and toxicological data, if available. EPA will

evaluate carefully all public comments and information received in

response to this notice. Particular attention will be paid to any data

submitted which tend to either support or refute a finding of risk to

human health and the environment from wastes from the production of

tetrabromobisphenol A. Based on comments received, including any data,

EPA may choose, rather than deferring, to promulgate a final

determination to either list or not list tetrabromobisphenol A waste as

a hazardous waste under RCRA.

ii. Wastewaters. Wastewaters from the manufacture of

tetrabromobisphenol A are already listed and carry the hazardous waste

code of K131. Methyl bromide and tetrabromobisphenol A are produced in

the same process. Process wastewater originates from the distillation

step where methyl bromide is recovered. The Agency feels that no

further action is needed for the waste stream.

d. Wastes From the Production of Octabromodiphenyl Oxide.--i.

Solids. Solid wastes such as filter cakes typically are disposed of in

landfills. This has been the practice of the major organobromine

chemicals manufacturers for many years. Currently, these wastes are

being shipped to Subtitle C hazardous waste facilities. However, it

would be possible for the generators to change their disposal practices

and direct these materials to Subtitle D landfills. The quantities of

these wastes generated are not de minimis as was the case for

dibromomethane solid wastes. Toluene is present in filter cakes from

the production of octabromodiphenyl oxide. To evaluate the potential

risks associated with filter cake containing toluene, EPA applied the

Agency's Organic Leachate Model (51 FR 27062, April 29, 1986) to

estimate the maximum amounts of toluene that would be expected to leach

from the filter cake in an open landfill environment. The Agency also

sampled the on-site landfill at one production site where some of this

waste was disposed. The sampling of the landfill leachate did not

detect any toluene present. The toluene concentrations in the filter

cake were used as input to the Agency's Composite Model for Landfills

(56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991) to estimate high-end (95th percentile)

concentrations of toluene in a hypothetical receptor well. The

hypothetical well concentrations derived from this analysis are about

one order of magnitude below the Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) for

toluene promulgated by regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The formulae used and a more detailed discussion of the application of

these models to the waste samples can be found in the Background

Document, available in the RCRA public docket. See ADDRESSES section.

Because the modelled leachate levels are below acceptable drinking

water levels, EPA does not believe that toluene-containing filter cake

wastes generated in the production of octabromodiphenyl oxide pose a

threat to human health and the environment; thus, the Agency proposes

not to list this wastestream. The waste solids also contained about 4.4

ppb of brominated dibenzofurans (most of which were the hepta isomer),

which the Agency believes are among the least toxic of the brominated

dibenzofurans. The toxicities of these materials were evaluated in

terms of equivalence to that for tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin (TCDD). The

Agency has concluded that the risk posed by this constituent is below

the 10-6 level.

Also, the health-based for a one-in-a-million risk level for

octabromodiphenyl oxide using standard intake and exposure assumptions

is 0.1 mg/L. No leachate data are available for this waste. However,

the Agency assumed an upper-bound leachate concentration of 0.2 mg/L

based on the solubility of octabromodiphenyl oxide. Assuming a dilution

factor of 100 is achievable during migration to the nearest drinking

water well, the concentration in potable water would be below that of

concern. As a result, EPA is proposing not to list this waste stream

based on low estimated exposure to toxic constituents.

ii. Wastewaters. While the Agency has no quantifiable concentration

data on octabromodiphenyl oxide found in the wastewaters, adequate data

exist on brominated dibenzofurans found in the generated wastes.

Brominated dibenzofurans were detected in some of the record

samples from octa- and decabromodiphenyl oxide processes. Studies

conducted for EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and by

research groups in Germany and the Netherlands show that brominated

furans can be formed during the manufacture of brominated diphenyl

ethers, as well as during their fabrication into polymers. The evidence

currently available to the Agency indicates that brominated dioxins and

furans may range from 30-100% as toxic as their chlorinated

counterparts. Using this approach, a record sample of wastewater from

the octabromodiphenyl oxide unit showed a maximum toxicity equivalent

of 3.7 x 10-7 mg/L of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

equivalent. Assuming a 100-fold dilution of the waste prior to reaching

a drinking water well, the level would be below the MCL for 2,3,7,8-

TCDD, which is 3 x 10-8 mg/L. The Agency selected the highest

toxicity value in making this analysis.

Based on this evaluation, the Agency is proposing not to list this

waste stream for brominated dibenzofurans, because EPA believes that

estimated exposure levels to toxic constituents are sufficiently low so

as to not pose a threat to human health and the environment.

The Agency was unable to quantify levels of octabromodiphenyl oxide

present in wastewaters. However, the solubility of the chemical is only

0.2 mg/L. The flow of wastewaters from this process represents less

than one percent of the total amount of process wastewater injected.

The health-based level for a one-in-a-million risk level for

octabromodiphenyl is 0.1 mg/L. Due to the high level of dilution

occurring prior to injection, the resulting concentration of the toxic

chemical expected to reach drinking water aquifers is well below levels

of concern.

e. Wastes From the Production of Decabromodiphenyl Oxide--i.

Solids. The production of decabromodiphenyl oxide generates solid

wastes consisting of collected spilled product. Only limited analytical

results were obtained from the record sampling of this waste and no

TCLP leachate data were obtained for this compound. However, the Agency

assumed an upper-bound leachate concentration of 0.2 mg/L based on the

aqueous solubility of the constituent. The health-based level for a

one-in-a-million risk level for this compound is 0.35 mg/L, (assuming

exposure of drinking 2.0 L/day for a 70 year exposure period) so the

concentration in the leachate is already below the level of concern

before any further dilution. Therefore, the Agency is proposing not to

list this wastestream.

ii. Wastewaters. The manufacture of decabromodiphenyl oxide also

generates a wastewater stream. The Agency was unable to quantify the

amount of the product in the wastewater stream. Based on the process

chemistry, however, a small amount of product would appear in the

stream. The solubility of decabromodiphenyl oxide is less than 0.2 mg/

L. This chemical has a health-based level of 0.35 mg/L so the leachate

concentration is already below the level of concern even before the

subsequent significant dilution occurs. Therefore, the Agency is

proposing to not list this wastestream.

f. Wastes From the Production of Tribromophenol--i. Solids. Solids

from the production of tribromophenol (TBP) consist of spilled

materials, off-specification product and spent filter cartridges which

were used to remove entrained TBP particulates from the gaseous

hydrogen bromide coproduct. The one plant manufacturing this chemical

mixes the three wastes together prior to shipment off site for land

disposal. Most of this waste is sent to a Subtitle C hazardous waste

facility. However, some is being sent to a Subtitle D landfill.

Inadequate toxicity data for tribromophenol (TBP) have prevented

the Agency from establishing a human health reference value for

tribromophenol (TBP). Therefore, as previously discussed, the Agency

performed a structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis in order to

provide a provisional human health reference value for this compound.

Based on the structure activity relationship, the health-based

level for a one-in-a-million risk level for TBP should be the same as

that for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (i.e., 0.003 mg/L assuming exposure of

drinking 2.0 liters per day for a 70-year exposure period). The health-

based level of 0.003 mg/L can be considered a bounding estimate which

could overestimate the exposure in an actual population. TCLP leaching

data presented in the Industry Study Background Document show

concentrations of 760 and 16 mg/L of TBP in leachate extracts from the

off-specification product and the filter cartridges, respectively.

Since the leachate levels exceed the health-based levels for this

wastestream, the Agency conducted an analysis of the potential risk

from unlined landfill disposal. For this analysis, the Agency selected

what are perhaps conservative dilution factors and exposure

assumptions. Using a dilution and attenuation factor of 100 from the

Toxicity Characteristic rule (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) to simulate

the subsurface dilution of the leachate concentration between an

unlined landfill and a hypothetical receptor well, the estimated TBP

concentrations in groundwater are 7.6 and 0.16 mg/L, respectively.

Assuming that people drinking from this hypothetical well are exposed

to the contaminant by drinking 1.4 L/day of contaminated water every

day over a 30-year interval, the health-based limit of a one-in-a-

million increased lifetime risk of cancer is 0.01 mg/L. Thus, the

levels of estimated individual risk from exposure to TBP in groundwater

are 7 x 10-4 and 2 x 10-5, respectively.

For this proposed rule, the Agency did not conduct a more

sophisticated risk analysis. A more sophisticated risk assessment may

suggest different estimated risks than the analysis described above.

For example, the dilution factor of 100 was derived assuming that the

chemical does not adsorb or degrade in the subsurface environment. The

Agency is aware that the fate and transport of TBP in the environment

is dependent on the environment in which the waste is disposed. If

disposal is to a neutral or slightly acidic environment, the octanol-

water coefficient (a constant often related to the soil-water

adsorption coefficient) for TBP is relatively high, exceeding 16,000.

This value suggests that TBP in landfill leachate may bind to

subsurface soils and may migrate at low concentrations over a very long

period of time in some environments. On the other hand, disposal under

alkaline conditions, which are present in areas where organobromines

are produced, would likely result in less sorption to subsurface soils.

This suggests that TBP could become more mobile under these conditions.

In addition, the dilution factor of 100 in the analysis used

corresponds to the dilution factor expected at a drinking water well

500 feet downgradient from the disposal location. The Agency does not

know the distance between landfills or disposal areas that could

receive TBP wastes and the nearby downgradient drinking water wells or

intercept surface waters. Depending on the distance to the nearest well

or environmental receptor, the actual human health and environmental

risks could be substantially greater than or less than those estimated

in the analysis employed in this proposal.

A more sophisticated analysis would also consider other potential

exposure pathways in addition to consumption of contaminated

groundwater. For example, since TBP under some soil pH's is likely to

bind strongly to particulates such as soil, the Agency is concerned

that disposal of these wastes could result in soil contamination around

the disposal site and human health and environmental risks. The

concentration of 2,4,6 TBP in the floor sweepings was very high (up to

400,000 ppm) in the two samples the Agency measured. Since the wastes

are in dry, powdery form, they could be dispersed around the disposal

facility. Depending on the disposal rate and the likelihood of

exposure, exposure to particulates at the disposal site could pose

human health and environmental risks at levels of concern.

The Agency requests comment on the risk analysis used in this

proposal and plausible mismanagement practices of TBP wastes. EPA

requests comment on the issues raised above and on all aspects of the

risk analysis employed. In particular, the Agency requests comment on

the use of the DAF of 100 for this specific analysis.

Disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most plausible

mismanagement scenario, given the lower cost for disposal at such

sites. The model previously discussed assumes that the Subtitle D

facility is unlined. Because the concentrations of TBP at a receptor

well could exceed health-based levels, the Agency is proposing to list

the solids from the production of tribromophenol as hazardous wastes.

The Agency is seeking comment on the risk levels used in this risk

assessment. In the Superfund program, EPA makes clean up decisions

using concentration levels that represent excess upper bound lifetime

cancer risk to an individual of between 10-4 to 10-6.

However, the 10-6 risk level is the point of departure for

determining remediation goals.

Based on the analysis used, EPA is proposing to add tribromophenol

to the list of 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VIII toxic hazardous

constituents based on its structural activity relationship with 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol and the potential exposure as described above. The

Agency also is proposing to add tribromophenol to the list of

commercial chemical products (40 CFR 261.33) that are hazardous wastes

if discarded or spilled. The wastes specifically proposed for listing

are:

K140--Waste solids and filter cartridges from the production of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol.

U408--2,4,6-Tribromophenol.

EPA will evaluate carefully all public comments and information

received in response to this notice, particularly data which tend to

support or refute a finding of risk to human health and the environment

from TBP wastes. Based on the comments received, the Agency may

finalize or re-evaluate today's proposed listing.

ii. Wastewaters. Data available to the Agency suggests that

tribromophenol is produced only at the part of the one major facility

in which the wastewaters are injected into non-hazardous deep wells. As

off-site management of these wastewaters is probably economically

prohibitive, the Agency assumed for the plausible mismanagement

scenario that the plant would continue the use of underground

injection. In order to estimate risk, EPA had to estimate the length of

time injection would continue. The Agency assumed that the plant would

inject these wastewaters for up to 60 years, at which point the

production of tribromophenol could end because the supply of raw

material could run out. Because of the large volume of wastewater

generated by this process, the Agency used more sophisticated modelling

than for the lower volume wastes. Modelling of the risk due to the

management of the wastewaters from TBP production in underground

injection was based on the use of three linked submodels. The overall

model included:

(1) A submodel which simulates the subsurface lateral migration of

TBP from the injection wells to nearby abandoned oil wells penetrating

the injection horizons.

(2) A second submodel which simulates the vertical migration of TBP

from the injection horizon upward to the drinking water aquifer; and

(3) Finally, a submodel which predicts the lateral spreading of the

chemical from the abandoned oil well in the drinking water aquifer and

exposure to vertically averaged concentrations present in drinking

water wells within the aquifer.

It was assumed that the abandoned wells are filled with compacted

sand. Results of the simulated runs are presented in the background

document in terms of concentrations as a function of time for various

exposure distances. The initial concentration of tribromophenol in the

injected wastewater was measured in record sampling to be 7 mg/L and

the health-based level (based on a 10-6 risk level) was assumed to

be 0.01 mg/L (using the same high end exposure assumptions described

above for tribromophenol solids). The modeling results showed that the

health-based level (based on a 10-6 risk) would be exceeded in the

upper aquifer after 60 years (the amount of time the injection is

expected to continue) at very short distances (less than 10 feet) from

a leaking, abandoned, and plugged (i.e., filled with sand) oil well.

The results also indicated that the plume of contamination would

migrate through the aquifer, away from the plugged oil well, and slowly

dissipate over time. Therefore, this plume of contamination could

result in exposure to TBP over the health-based level beyond a short

distance from the abandoned oil well, if a drinking water well is

drilled downgradient from that abandoned oil well. However, this

exposure would probably be limited because of the relatively small size

of the area in the migrating contaminated plume where TBP is above 0.01

mg/L.

The Agency has also sampled drinking water wells at the plant site

and at a private facility 1.3 miles distant. No tribromophenol was

found at a detection level of 0.001 mg/L. The plant has been producing

TBP since 1976. The absence of TBP in groundwater at present, however,

does not completely preclude its presence at a future date. Considering

that TBP was not detected in the aquifer and that the model predicted

only limited exposure to TBP above the health-based number, the Agency

is proposing not to list this wastestream because of relatively low

risk to human health.

However, the Agency recognizes that the modeling results described

above are dependent on numerous assumptions, including the injection

timeframe (i.e., 60 years) and the number and characteristics of the

abandoned oil wells. Modifying certain of these assumptions could

significantly change the results of this analysis. For example, if the

Agency assumes that the abandoned oil well is unfilled, underground

injection of this wastewater could result in a contamination plume

(with TBP levels above the health-based level) of up to 4000 feet from

the well over 60 years and even further away as the plume continues to

migrate after 60 years. Also, depending on the exact location of the

drinking water well relative to the plume centerline, a person drinking

from that well could be exposed to a high concentration of TBP (up to

around 5 mg/L) for many years as the contaminated plume moves by.

Therefore, the Agency solicits comment on the assumptions used in

this modeling, particularly whether or not some of them should be

changed to more accurately predict the risk resulting from the

undergound injection of these wastewaters. The Agency specifically

requests comment on the following assumptions that are particularly

important in this analysis:

(1) Should the timeframe for injection of the tribromophenol

wastewaters be extended beyond 60 years?

(2) The model assumed that only one abandoned well would be open

to flow. Should the Agency consider the potential for more abandoned

wells coming in contact with the spreading plume?

(3) Should the Agency assume the abandoned well(s) are plugged

or unplugged?

Several other assumptions (used in the modelling employed by the

Agency), individually or in combination, could lead to an

overestimation of actual risk and the Agency is requesting comment on

them. They are:

(1) The Agency assumed that a break occurs in an abandoned well

shaft inside the Sparta aquifer. What are the chances that no breaks

have occurred or will occur in the aquifer in any of the many

abandoned wells in the area?

(2) The drinking water well was assumed to be drilled in the

proximity of an abandoned oil well. Is this a valid assumption?

(3) The model assumed an average concentration of tribromophenol

in the Sparta aquifer. If the well tapping the drinking water is

nearer to the top of the aquifer, as it most likely would be, would

this make a significant difference in the risk level calculated?

(4) The Agency assumed that injection of wastewaters and pumping

from Sparta at the site occurs during the same time frame. Should

the Agency consider the pumping from Sparta will continue to occur

after injection of wastewater ceases, which could affect the

modelling calculation?

Finally, the Agency requests comment on whether or not these

tribromophenol wastewaters should be listed as hazardous waste based on

modifications to EPA's analysis or on any additional data indicating

groundwater contamination from the underground injection of these

wastes.

Although today's proposed listing determination models potential

contamination to a drinking water source, it is not a finding under

Section 144.12 of the UIC regulations. Those regulations prohibit

endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) as

defined under the UIC program. A well which fails to meet this

requirement must be denied a permit or placed under an enforcement

action. The threshold for a determination of compliance with Section

144.12 is different from the threshold for listing a waste as hazardous

under RCRA. The test for compliance under the UIC program is whether

the well may cause the movement of any contaminant into a USDW in a

manner that may cause a violation of a primary drinking water

regulation, or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.

2. Conclusions

The Agency is proposing to list as hazardous waste solids and spent

filters from the production of 2,4,6-tribromophenol (K140) and the off-

specification and discarded product (U408) based on their projected

toxicities from structural activity studies, and potential exposure to

these chemicals. EPA's decision to propose these additional hazardous

waste listings represents a determination by the Agency that the wastes

identified meet the criteria for listing as hazardous wastes presented

in 40 CFR 261.11. Specifically, based on available evidence, the Agency

concludes that 2,4,6-tribromophenol is similar in toxicity to its

chlorinated analogue. EPA is proposing that these wastes from

organobromines production be listed as hazardous and subject to the

requirements of 40 CFR parts 124, 262-266, 268, 270, and 271 since they

are capable of posing a threat to human health and the environment when

improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise

handled.

Based on the data collected by the Agency during the recent

organobromines industry study and the unique conditions of the industry

regarding limitations to future expansion, EPA believes there is

justification for a no-list determination for wastes generated from the

production of most of the other organobromine chemicals identified in

the consent decree (i.e., bromochloromethane, ethyl bromide,

octabromodiphenyl oxide and decabromodiphenyl oxide) and for the

wastewaters from tribromophenol production. After considering the

collected information and data from toxicological, chemical,

hydrogeological, and engineering viewpoints, EPA has concluded that the

disposal of any wastes from these processes that are not currently

listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D do not pose a substantial present

or future risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, at this

time, EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous wastes any additional

wastes generated from the production of these chemicals. The Agency

reserves the right to revisit these listing determinations if

additional relevant data become available. In addition, the Agency is

deferring action on the solids waste stream from the production of

tetrabromobisphenol-A.

III. Waste Minimization Opportunities in the Industry

During the industry study, the Agency identified two potential

opportunities for waste minimization. The first involves the recovery

of tribromophenol in the tetrabromobisphenol-A and tribromophenol

process. Commercial bisphenol A is made by condensation of phenol and

acetone and, hence, the feedstock contains some unreacted phenol.

Record sampling of one wastewater stream that leaves the process hot

revealed that it contained up to 15,000 mg/L of tribromophenol. A

second unrelated wastewater stream from the production of

tribromophenol also contains about 70 ppm. This chemical has a

solubility of 70 parts per million at 25 deg.C. From the volumes of

wastewater generated, the Agency believes that enough material

potentially could be recovered to increase annual production of

tribromophenol by up to 70%. Cooling and filtering of this wastewater

prior to deep well disposal might recover phenolics, limit the quantity

of brominated chemicals being disposed, and reduce the plant's overall

requirements for purchased phenol. Brominated phenol recovery also

could make recycling some process wastewater viable, particularly in

the tribromophenol process where the wastewater containing chiefly this

material is disposed of by deep well injection.

The second area where savings could be achieved is in product

packaging. Materials spilled in the packaging areas are drummed and

shipped to Subtitle C facilities. Presently, the two major

manufacturers of organobromine chemicals generate over 300 tons per

year of various spilled solid products. Recovery of this material could

result in significant savings and benefit the environment. The Agency

invites comment on both waste minimization options.

IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Compliance Costs

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

Executive Order No. 12866 requires that a regulatory agency

determine whether a new regulation will have ``significant regulatory

action'' and, if so, that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted. This

analysis is a quantification of the potential benefits, costs, and

economic impacts of a rule. A significant regulatory action is defined

as a regulation that has an annual cost to the economy of $100 million

or more that adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector

of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or state, local, or Tribal governments or

communities; creates a serious inconsistency with actions taken or

planned by another agency; materially alters the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and

obligations or recipients thereof; or raises novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The Agency estimated the costs of today's proposed rule to

determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by Executive

Order 12866. Today's proposed rule is estimated to have an annualized

incremental cost of less than $100,000. Based on this compliance cost

estimate, today's proposed rule is not considered to be a significant

regulatory action. This section of the preamble discusses the results

of the analyses of the proposed rule.

Approach

To estimate the costs, economic impacts, and benefits of today's

proposed rule, the Agency compared post-regulatory costs, benefits, and

economic impacts with those resulting under baseline conditions.

Benefits are addressed in the risk assessment section of this preamble.

The baseline management practices for this waste is disposal in a

Subtitle D landfill.

Results

Due to the extremely small universe of facilities potentially

affected by this rule, the number of facilities actually affected is

insignificant. The requirements promulgated by this proposed rule are

estimated to cost industry less than $100,000 per year assuming

disposal in a Subtitle C landfill.

The economic impact analysis estimates that none of the affected

facilities would be significantly affected by the proposed rule.

Compliance with this proposed rule is estimated to increase operating

expenses at affected facilities by significantly less than one percent.

None of the affected facilities is expected to close as a result of the

rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., whenever an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking, it must

prepare and make available for public comment a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (RFA) that describes the effect of the rule on small entities

(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). This analysis is unnecessary, however, if the rule is

estimated not to have a significant economic effect on a substantial

number of small entities.

According to EPA's guidelines for conducting an RFA, if over 20

percent of the population of small entities is likely to experience

financial distress based on the costs of the rule, then the Agency

considers that the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, and must perform an RFA. EPA evaluated the

economic effect of the proposed rule, as required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and determined that no facilities would be

significantly affected. The Administrator certifies that part 268 and

part 148 will not have significant economic effects on a substantial

number of small entities. As a result of this finding, the Agency has

not prepared a formal RFA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection

requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements in this

proposal were promulgated in previous land disposal restriction

rulemakings and have been approved by the Office of Management and

Budget. Since there are no new information collection requirements

being proposed today, an Information Collection Request has not been

prepared. However, facilities will have to comply with existing

Subtitle C recordkeeping and reporting requirements for newly listed

wastestreams if today's proposals are finalized.

VI. State Program Implementation

A. Applicability of Rules in States

Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to

administer and enforce RCRA programs within the State. (See 40 CFR part

271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) Following

authorization EPA retains enforcement authority under Sections 3008,

7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary

enforcement responsibility.

Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a

State with final RCRA authorization administered its authorized

hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA. The Federal

requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA could

not issue permits for any facilities in the State which the State was

authorized to permit. When new, more-stringent Federal requirements

were promulgated or enacted, the State was obliged to enact equivalent

authority within specified time frames. New Federal requirements did

not take effect in an authorized State until the State adopted the

requirements as State law.

In contrast, under Section 3006(g) of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new

requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take effect in

authorized States at the same time that they take effect in

unauthorized States. EPA is directed to implement these requirements

and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of

permits, until the State modifies its program to reflect the Federal

standards, and applies for and is granted authorization. While States

must still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final

authorization, HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.

Today's proposal for listing EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K140 and U408

is being proposed pursuant to Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a provision

added by HSWA. When the final rules are promulgated, EPA will consider

its HSWA obligation to make a determination regarding listing

organobromine wastes to be fulfilled. Therefore, the Agency is

proposing to add these requirements to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j),

which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated

pursuant to HSWA and that take effect in all States, regardless of

their authorization status. States may apply for final authorization

for the HSWA provisions identified in 40 CFR 271.1(j) Table 1, as

discussed in the following section of the preamble.

B. Effect on State Authorizations

As noted previously, today's rule is being proposed pursuant to

provisions added by HSWA. The addition of K140 to the list of hazardous

wastes from specific sources and the addition of U408 to the list of

commercial chemical products that are hazardous when discarded is

proposed pursuant to Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a provision added by

the HSWA.

As noted above, EPA will implement the HSWA portions of today's

rule (i.e., the addition of K140 to the list of hazardous wastes from

specific sources and the addition of U408 to the list of commercial

chemical products that are hazardous when discarded) in authorized

States until they modify their programs to adopt these rules and such

modifications are approved by EPA. Because this rule will be

promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a program modification

may apply to receive either interim or final RCRA authorization under

Section 3006 (b) and (g) on the basis that State regulations are

substantially equivalent or fully equivalent to EPA's regulations. The

procedures and schedule for State programs modifications for either

interim or final authorization are described in 40 CFR 271.21. It

should be noted that all HSWA interim authorizations will expire on

January 1, 2003 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)), 52 FR 60129, December 18, 1992.

It should be noted that 40 CFR 271.21(e) requires that States

having final RCRA authorization must modify their programs to reflect

Federal program changes and subsequently must submit the modifications

to EPA for approval. The deadline by which States must modify their

programs to adopt today's proposed rule will be determined by the date

of promulgation of the final rule in accordance with 40 CFR

271.21(e)(2). Once EPA approves the modification, the State

requirements become RCRA Subtitle C requirements.

States with authorized RCRA programs already may have regulations

similar to those proposed in today's rule. Such State regulations have

not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed today

to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, these

State regulations will not be deemed as RCRA requirements until the

State program modification is submitted to EPA and approved. Of course,

States with existing regulations may continue to administer and enforce

those regulations as a matter of State law. In addition, in

implementing the Federal program, EPA will work with the States under

cooperative agreements to minimize duplication of efforts; in many

cases, EPA will be able to defer to the States in their efforts to

implement their programs, rather than take separate actions under

Federal authority.

States that submit their official applications for final

authorization less than 12 months after the effective date of EPA's

regulations are not required to include regulations equivalent to the

EPA regulations in their application. However, States must modify their

programs by the deadlines set forth in 40 CFR 271.21(e). States that

submit official applications for final authorization 12 months after

the effective date of these standards must include standards equivalent

to these standards in their application. The requirements States must

meet when submitting final authorization applications are set forth in

40 CFR 271.3.

VII. CERCLA Designation and RQ Adjustment

All hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33, as

well as any solid waste that meets one or more of the characteristics

of a RCRA hazardous waste (as defined at 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24),

are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA),

pursuant to CERCLA Section 101(14) 42 U.S.C. 9601 (14)(c). CERCLA

hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along

with their reportable quantities (RQs). Therefore, in addition to the

K140 listing being proposed today for 40 CFR 261.32 and the U408

listing being proposed for 40 CFR 261.33, entries for K140 and U408

also are being proposed for Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4.

Reporting Requirements. Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the person in

charge of a vessel or facility from which a hazardous substance has

been released in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must

immediately notify the National Response Center of the release (see 40

CFR part 302).1 In addition to this reporting requirement under

CERCLA, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-

Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11004, requires owners or operators

of certain facilities to report the release of a CERCLA hazardous

substance to State and local authorities. EPCRA Section 304

notification must be given immediately after the release of an RQ or

more to the community emergency coordinator of the local emergency

planning committee for each area likely to be affected by the release,

and to the State emergency planning commission of any State likely to

be affected by the release.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\The toll free telephone number of the National Response

Center is 800-424-8802; in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, the

number is 202-267-2675.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adjustment of RQs. Under Section 102(b) of CERCLA, all hazardous

wastes newly designated under CERCLA will have a statutory RQ of one

pound unless and until adjusted by regulation. The Agency's methodology

for adjusting RQs of individual hazardous substances begins with an

evaluation of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological

properties of each hazardous substance.2 The intrinsic properties

examined--called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic toxicity, mammalian

toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity,

chronic toxicity, and potential carcinogenicity. Generally, for each

intrinsic property, the Agency ranks hazardous substances on a scale,

associating a specific range of values on each scale with an RQ of 1,

10, 100, 1000, or 5000 pounds. The data for each hazardous substance

are evaluated using various primary criteria; each hazardous substance

may receive several tentative RQ values based on its particular

intrinsic properties. The lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the

``primary criteria RQ'' for that substance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\For more detailed information on this methodology, see the

preamble to an RQ adjustment final rule published on August 14, 1989

(54 FR 33426). A different methodology is used to assign adjusted

RQs to radionuclides (see 54 FR 22524, May 24, 1989).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are further

evaluated for their susceptibility to certain degradative processes,

which are used as secondary adjustment criteria. These natural

degradative processes are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis

(BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment,

degrades relatively rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of

the BHP processes, its RQ (as determined by the primary RQ adjustment

criteria) is generally raised one level.3 This adjustment is made

because the relative potential for harm to public health or welfare or

the environment posed by the release of such a substance is reduced by

these degradative processes. Conversely, if a hazardous substance

degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, the original

substance is assigned an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous

substance, which may be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the

original substance. The downward adjustment is appropriate because the

hazard posed by the release of the original substance is increased as a

result of BHP.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\No RQ level increase based on BHP occurs if the primary

criteria RQ is already at its highest possible level (100 pounds for

potential carcinogens and 5000 pounds for all other types of

hazardous substances except radionuclides). BHP is not applied to

radionuclides.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The methodology summarized above is applied to adjust the RQs of

individual hazardous substances. An additional process applies to RCRA

listed wastes, which contain individual hazardous substances as

constituents. As the Agency has stated (54 FR 33440, August 14, 1989),

to assign an RQ to a RCRA waste, the Agency determines the RQ for each

constituent of the waste and then assigns the lowest of these

constituent RQs to the waste itself.

Proposed Adjusted RQs for U408 and K140. Waste U408 is 2,4,6-

tribromophenol, an individual hazardous substance. It has been

evaluated for four of the six primary RQ adjustment criteria--aquatic

toxicity, mammalian toxicity, ignitability, and reactivity--and the

secondary adjustment criteria (BHP). Based on this evaluation, the

Agency today is proposing an adjusted RQ of 100 pounds for 2,4,6-

tribromophenol.

The Agency's evaluations of 2,4,6-tribromophenol for the other two

primary RQ adjustment criteria (chronic toxicity and potential

carcinogenicity) are not yet complete. If, when completed, these

evaluations result in an RQ lower than the 100-pound RQ proposed today,

the Agency will repropose the RQ for 2,4,6-tribromophenol at the lower

level.

The other waste, K140, is a waste stream with only one hazardous

constituent--2,4,6-tribromophenol. Therefore, in accordance with the RQ

adjustment methodology described above, an adjusted RQ of 100 pounds is

being proposed today for K140. Because the RQ for K140 is based on the

RQ for 2,4,6-tribromophenol, any reproposal of the 2,4,6-tribromophenol

RQ required by further evaluation will be accompanied by a

corresponding reproposal of the RQ for K140.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612),

whenever an Agency is required to publish a general notice of

rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA)

that describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small

businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions).

No RFA is required, however, if the head of the Agency certifies that

the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

Since EPA has determined the hazardous wastes proposed for listing

here are not generated by small entities (as defined by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act), and the Agency believes that small entities will not

generate them in significant quantities, this regulation, therefore,

does not require a RFA. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this

regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

IX. Compliance and Implementation

A. Section 3010 Notification

Generally, when new hazardous wastes are listed, all persons who

generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose the newly listed

wastes(s) are required to notify either EPA, or a State authorized by

EPA to operate the hazardous waste program, of their activities

pursuant to Section 3010 of RCRA. However, under the Solid Waste

Disposal Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-482), EPA was given the option

of waiving the notification requirement for persons who handle wastes

that are covered by today's proposed listing and already have notified

EPA that they manage other hazardous wastes and have received an EPA

identification number. This waiver is being proposed because of the

likelihood that persons managing today's proposed wastes already are

managing one or more hazardous wastes that generally are associated

with the generation of proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K140 and U408

and, therefore, have previously notified EPA and received an EPA

identification number. In the event that any person who generates,

transports, treats, stores, or disposes these wastes and has not

previously notified and received an identification number, that person

must obtain an identification number pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12 before

that person can generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of these

wastes.

B. Compliance Dates for Facilities

Today's proposed listings will be promulgated pursuant to HSWA.

HSWA requirements are applicable in authorized States at the same time

as in unauthorized States. Therefore, EPA will regulate the wastes

being proposed today until States are authorized to regulate these

wastes. Once these regulations are promulgated in a final rule by EPA,

the Agency will apply these Federal regulations to these wastes and to

their management in both authorized and unauthorized States.

Newly-regulated facilities (i.e., facilities at which the only

hazardous wastes that are managed are today's proposed wastes in units

subject to permit requirements when these listings are finalized) must

qualify for interim status within six months of publication of the rule

in order to continue managing these wastes in such units. To retain

interim status, a newly-regulated land disposal facility must submit a

part B permit application within eighteen months after publication of

the rule and certify that the facility is in compliance with all

applicable ground-water monitoring and financial responsibility

requirements (see RCRA Section 3005(e)(3)).

Interim status facilities that manage today's proposed wastes after

these listings are promulgated, must file an amended Part A permit

application within six months of publication of the final rule if they

are to continue managing these wastes in units that require a permit.

The facilities must file the necessary amendments by the effective date

of the rule, or they will not retain interim status with respect to

today's proposed wastes.

Currently permitted facilities that manage today's proposed wastes

after their listings are finalized by EPA must request permit

modifications if they are to continue management of these wastes in

units that require a permit. Since EPA initially will be responsible

for processing these permit modifications, the new Federal procedures

for permit modifications will be followed (see 53 FR 37934, September

28, 1988). These new procedures contain a specific provision for newly

listed or identified wastes (see 40 CFR 270.42(g)). This provision

generally requires that a permitted facility that is ``in existence''

for the newly listed or identified waste on the effective date of the

waste listing must submit a Class 1 modification by that date.

Essentially, this modification notifies the Agency and the public that

the facility is handling the waste and identifies the units involved.

By submitting this notice, the facility temporarily is allowed to

continue management of the newly-listed wastes until the Agency can

make a final change to the permit. Next, within 180 days of the

effective date the permittee must submit a more detailed permit

modification request (i.e., a Class 2 or 3 modification). This

information will be used by the Agency to develop a final permit

change. For more information on permit modifications see the September

28, 1988 preamble discussion referenced above.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous wastes, Recycling, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

40 CFR Part 302

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Emergency Planning and Community

Right-To-Know Act, Extremely hazardous substances, Hazardous chemicals,

Hazardous materials, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous wastes, Intergovernmental relations, Natural

resources, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

Dated: April 29, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

Part 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

2. In Sec. 261.32 the table is amended by adding in numerical order

the waste stream entry ``K140'' under the subgroup heading ``Organic

chemicals:'' to read as follows:

Sec. 261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific sources.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry and EPA hazardous Hazard

waste No. Hazardous waste code

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****

K140......................... Waste solids and filter (T)

cartridges from the

production of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol.

*****

------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. In Sec. 261.33(f) the table is amended by adding in numerical

order the entry ``U408'' to read as follows:

Sec. 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification

species, container residues, and spill residues thereof.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemical

Hazardous waste No. abstracts Substance

No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****

U408.............................. 118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.

*****

------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Appendix VII to part 261 is amended by adding the following

waste stream in alphanumeric order to read as follows:

Appendix VII.--Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hazardous constituents for

EPA hazardous waste No. which listed

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****

K140.................................... 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.

*****

------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Appendix VIII to part 261 is amended by adding the following

hazardous constituent in alphabetical order:

Appendix VIII to Part 261.--Hazardous Constituents

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemical

Common name Chemical abstracts abstracts Hazardous

name No. waste No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

** * * * * *

2,4,6-Tribromophenol. Tribromophenol, 2,4,6 118-79-6 U408

** * * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE

PROGRAMS

6. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

7. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to

table 1 in chronological order by date of publication to read as

follows.

Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *

[Insert date of publication Listing of Organobromine [Insert Federal Register [Insert date 180 days

of final rule in Federal Production Wastes. reference to final rule]. after date of publication

Register]. of final rule in the

Federal Register.]

* * * * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

6. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and

1361.

7. Section 302.4 is proposed to be amended by adding entries for

``K140'' and ``U408'' to table 302.4 to read as follows. The

appropriate footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished without change.

Sec. 302.4 Designation of hazardous substances.

* * * * *

Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities

[Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Final RQ

Regulatory ------------------------------------------------------------------

Hazardous substance CASRN synonyms RCRA waste

RQ Code No. Category Pounds (Kg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *

K140Waste solids and filter cartridges from the production ........... 1* 4 K140 B 100 (45.4)

of 2, 4, 6-tribromophenol.

* * * * * * *

U4082, 4, 6,-Tribromophenol................................ 118796 ........... 1* 4 U408 B 100 (45.4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.

*****

4--Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA section 3001.

1*--Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.

# #--The Agency may adjust the statutory RQ for this hazardous substance in a future rulemaking; until then the statutory RQ applies.

8. Appendix A to Sec. 302.4 is amended by adding an entry in

numerical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Sec. 302.4.--Sequential CAS Registry Number List of CERCLA

Hazardous Substances

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CASRN Hazardous substance

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****

118796.................................. 2,4,6-Tribromophenol.

*****

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-11189 Filed 5-10-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P