Hazardous Waste Management System; Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; and CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities
Federal RegisterFeb 9, 1995
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the
regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to reduce hazards to human health
and the environment from the ongoing manufacture of carbamate
chemicals, which are formulated for use as pesticides and in the
production of synthetic rubber. EPA is listing as hazardous six wastes
generated during the production of carbamate chemicals. EPA is
providing an exemption from the definition of hazardous waste for
certain wastes, if the generator demonstrates that hazardous air
pollutants are not being discharged or volatilized during waste
treatment. EPA is also exempting from the definition of hazardous
wastes biological treatment sludges generated from the treatment of
certain wastes provided the sludges do not display any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity). The Agency is also adding 58 specific
chemicals to the list of commercial chemical products that are
hazardous wastes when discarded and to the list of hazardous
constituents upon which listing determinations are based. EPA is
deferring action on 12 specific chemicals and 4 generic categories.
This action is taken under the authority of sections 3001(e)(2) and
3001(b)(1) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
which direct EPA to make a hazardous waste listing determination for
carbamate wastes. The effect of listing these wastes will be to subject
them to regulation as hazardous wastes under subtitle C of RCRA; and
the notification requirements of section 103 under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA
is not taking action at this time to adjust the one-pound statutory
reportable quantities (RQs) for these substances.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective August 9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The official record of this rulemaking is identified by
Docket Number F-95-CPLF-FFFFF and is located at the following address.
EPA RCRA Docket Clerk Room 2616 (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, toll-free,
at (800) 424-9346 or at (703) 920-9810. The TDD Hotline number is (800)
553-7672 (toll-free) or (703) 486-3323 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area. For technical information on the RCRA hazardous
waste listings, contact John Austin, Office of Solid Waste (5304), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC,
20460, (202) 260-4789.
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 the preamble to this final
rule are listed in the following outline:
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Proposal
A. Proposed New Hazardous Wastes
B. Determinations Not To List Certain Carbamate Wastes as
Hazardous Waste
C. Exemptions
IV. Changes to the Proposed Rule
A. Exemptions
B. Appendix VII and Appendix VIII
C. Listing of Commercial Chemical Products
V. Response to Comments
A. Scope of Listing
1. Definition of Carbamates
2. Listing Obligations
3. Specific Substances
4. Definition of Production
5. Requests for Additions to the Listings
B. Listing Exemptions
1. K157 Exemption
2. K156 Exemption
3. Wastewater Treatment Sludge Exemption
C. Basis for Listing/No List
D. Conflict with Other Regulatory Initiatives
E. Constituents of Concern for Appendix VII
F. Constituents of Concern for Appendix VIII
G. P Listings
H. U Listings
I. Toxicity Information
J. Risk Assessment
1. Comments Asserting that the Risk Assessment Understates Risk
2. Comments Asserting that the Risk Assessment Overstates Risk
K. CERCLA RQs
L. Regulatory Impact Analysis
M. Impact on Recycling and Reuse
N. Executive Orders
O. Paperwork Reduction Act
P. Compliance Schedule
VI. Compliance and Implementation
A. State Authority
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
2. Effect on State Authorizations
B. Effective Date
C. Section 3010 Notification
D. Generators and Transporters
E. Facilities Subject to Permitting
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit
2. Interim Status Facilities
3. Permitted facilities
4. Units
5. Closure
VII. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
VIII. Executive Order 12866
IX. Economic Analysis
A. Compliance Costs for Listings
1. Universe of Carbamate Production Facilities and Waste Volumes
2. Method for Determining Cost and Economic Impacts
3. P and U List Wastes
4. Potential Remedial Action Costs
5. Summary of Results
B. Impacts
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of
Sections 2002(a) and 3001 (b) and (e)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), and 6921 (b) and (e)(1) (commonly
referred to as RCRA), and section 102(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a).
II. Background
A. Introduction
As part of its regulations implementing Section 3001(e) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA), EPA
published a list of hazardous wastes that includes hazardous wastes
generated from specific sources. This list has been amended several
times, and is published in 40 CFR 261.32. In this action, EPA is
amending this section to [[Page 7825]] add six wastes generated during
the production of carbamate chemicals. In addition, under the authority
of section 3001 of RCRA, EPA maintains at 40 CFR 261.33 a list of
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates
that are hazardous wastes if they are discarded or intended to be
discarded. In this action, the Agency is amending 40 CFR 261.33 to add
58 specific materials to this list.
All hazardous wastes listed under RCRA and codified in 40 CFR
Secs. 261.31 through 261.33, as well as any solid waste that exhibits
one or more of the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous waste (as
defined in 40 CFR Sections 261.21 through 261.24), are also hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. See
CERCLA Section 101(14)(C). CERCLA hazardous substances are listed in
Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along with their reportable quantities
(RQs). Accordingly, the Agency is adding the newly identified wastes in
its action as CERCLA hazardous substances in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR
302.4. EPA is not taking action at this time to adjust the one-pound
statutory RQs for these substances.
III. Summary of Proposal
A. Proposed New Hazardous Wastes
In the March 1, 1994 proposed rule (59 FR 9808) the Agency proposed
to list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of
carbamates:
K156--Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms, light ends,
spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from the production of
carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
K157--Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters,
washwaters, and separation waters) from the production of carbamates
and carbamoyl oximes.
K158--Bag house dust, and filter/separation solids from the production
of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
K159--Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.
K160--Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and spent
catalysts) from the production of thiocarbamates and solids from the
treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.
K161--Purification solids (including filtration, evaporation, and
centrifugation solids), bag house dust, and floor sweepings from the
production of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts. (This listing does
not include K125 or K126.)
The Agency proposed adding K156, K157, K158, K159, K160, and K161 to 40
CFR 261.32 because the wastes satisfy the criteria in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(1-3) for listing hazardous wastes.
The Agency also proposed to add 70 substances and 4 generic classes
of chemicals to 40 CFR 261.33. EPA maintains at 40 CFR 261.33 a list of
discarded commercial chemical products, off specification species,
container residues, and spill residues thereof, which are regulated as
hazardous wastes. The Agency proposed to list 22 of the 70 substances
as acutely hazardous under 40 CFR 261.33(e), because toxicological
studies have found the substances to be fatal to humans in low doses or
in the absence of data on human toxicity, it has been shown in animal
studies to have an oral (rat) LD50 of less than 50 milligrams per
kilogram, a dermal (rabbit) LD50 of less than 200 milligrams per
kilogram, an inhalation (rat) LC50 of less than 2 mg/L, or is otherwise
capable of causing or significantly contributing to serious illness
(see 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)). The remaining 48 substances and 4 generic
classes of carbamate chemicals (i.e., carbamates, carbamoyl oximes,
thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates) were proposed to be listed under
40 CFR 261.33(f) as toxic hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3). These substances were listed in Tables 5 and 6 of the
proposed rule (59 FR 9812).
B. Determinations Not To List Certain Carbamate Wastes as Hazardous
Waste
As a result of the Agency's studies, a number of generic groups of
wastes produced from the manufacture of carbamates, carbamoyl oximes,
thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates were not found by the Agency to
require additional regulation as a listed hazardous waste under RCRA.
The Agency proposed to not list as hazardous the following categories
of wastes:
--Spent carbon and waste water treatment sludges from the production of
carbamates and carbamoyl oximes
--Wastewaters from the production of thiocarbamates and treatment of
wastes from thiocarbamate production
--Process Wastewater (including supernates, filtrates, and washwaters)
from the production of dithiocarbamates
--Reactor vent scrubber water from the production of dithiocarbamates
--Organic wastes (including spent solvents, solvent rinses, process
decantates, and still bottoms) from the production of dithiocarbamates)
C. Exemptions
For wastewaters from the production of carbamate and carbamoyl
oxime chemicals (Hazardous waste code K157), the Agency proposed to
exempt from the definition of hazardous waste those wastewaters that do
not exceed a total concentration of 5 parts per million by weight
(ppmwt) of formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, and
triethylamine. Under Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv), the new exemptions to the
definition of hazardous wastes, the exemption was proposed to read as
follows:
Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *; or
(F) One or more of the following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--
wastewaters from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K157)--Provided, that the maximum weekly
usage of formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, and
triethylamine (including all amounts that can not be demonstrated to
be reacted in the process or is recovered, i.e., what is discharged
or volatilized) divided by the average weekly flow of process
wastewater prior to any dilutions into the headworks of the
facility's wastewater treatment system does not exceed a total of 5
parts per million by weight.
The Agency also proposed to specifically exempt biological
treatment sludges from the treatment of wastewaters from the production
of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes from the definition of hazardous
waste. Under Sec. 263.3(c)(2)(ii), a new exemption to the definition of
hazardous wastes is created for sludges from the biological treatment
of these wastewaters. This new exemption was proposed to read as
follows:
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii) * * *
(D) Biological treatment sludge from the treatment of one of the
following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--wastewaters from the
production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K157).
IV. Changes to the Proposed Rule
A. Exemptions
The Agency is finalizing a regulatory strategy which allows for a
concentration-based exemption from the K156 and K157 listings. In the
March 1, 1994 proposed rule, a concentration-based exemption was
specifically proposed only for K157. Using models to calculate the
atmospheric concentrations of chemicals of concern resulting from the
management of K157 and wastewaters derived from K156, the Agency found
that for these wastewaters a total concentration of 5 parts per million
by weight (ppmwt) would be protective for wastewaters containing
formaldehyde, methyl chloride, [[Page 7826]] methylene chloride, and
triethylamine. Assuming further wastewater treatment as necessary
before discharge, under the plausible mismanagement scenario of
treatment in open tanks for K157 or wastewater derived from the
treatment of K156, the Agency views this level as protective of human
health and the environment. In addition, EPA notes that the 40 CFR Part
268 land disposal restrictions would not apply to wastes managed in
tanks except to the extent the wastes were also managed in land-based
units such as surface impoundments. Because the wastewaters from the
treatment of K156 are similar to K157 wastes in composition and
management, the Agency foresees no significant risks from the exemption
of K156 wastes derived from K156 in the same manner as K157 and is
finalizing a concentration-based exemption to the listing description
of both K157 wastewaters, and wastewaters derived from the treatment of
K156 organic wastes.
In response to comment, the Agency is modifying the exemption
proposed to allow that portion of the chemicals of concern which is
``destroyed through treatment'' to be considered in the mass balance
determination of exemption status. Under Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv), new
exemptions to the definition of hazardous wastes are created for these
wastewaters. These new exemptions read (changes to proposal in bold):
Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *; or
(F) One or more of the following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--
wastewaters from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K157)--Provided that the maximum weekly
usage of formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, and
triethylamine (including all amounts that can not be demonstrated to
be reacted in the process, destroyed through treatment, or is
recovered, i.e., what is discharged or volatilized) divided by the
average weekly flow of process wastewater prior to any dilutions
into the headworks of the facility's wastewater treatment system
does not exceed a total of 5 parts per million by weight; or
(G) Wastewaters derived from the treatment of one or more of the
following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--organic waste (including
heavy ends still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and
decantates) from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K156).--Provided, that the maximum
concentration of formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride,
and triethylamine prior to any dilutions into the headworks of the
facility's wastewater treatment system does not exceed a total of 5
milligrams per liter.
Under these exemptions, wastes which are calculated to contain less
than a total concentration of 5 ppmwt for the sum of the four
constituents of concern would not be hazardous wastes, and any sludges
generated from further biological treatment would not be derived from
hazardous wastes, assuming wastewaters are 1 (49 FR 49784, December 21,
1984).
\1\In response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the State
of Michigan, the EPA proposed to add 109 chemicals to the list of
commercial chemical products that are hazardous when discarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments received by the Agency are addressed in the Response
to Comments Background Document that is available in the docket
associated with this rulemaking.
A. Scope of Listing
1. Definition of Carbamates
Many commenters were confused by the scope of the listings and
found it difficult to determine whether their production processes and
discarded products were in the scope of wastes included in the
listings. Many commenters believed that the definition of a carbamates
was too vague and that any number of compounds could be considered
carbamates. Commenters requested that EPA specifically define each of
the four generic classes of carbamate compounds (carbamates, carbamoyl
oximes, thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates) along with the scientific
rationale for each definition and to footnote the regulation with those
definitions.
In the March 1, 1994, proposal (59 FR 9808), the Agency included
the definition of carbamate in the engineering background document (F-
94-CPLF-S0001). In response to comments that the categories are not
sufficiently defined, EPA is providing additional clarification of the
chemical characteristics of each of the specific groups listed above. A
discussion of the term carbamate follows.
Chemical Definitions
Carbamates are salts or esters of carbamic acid. Today's
regulations impact the production of chemicals of four distinct
functionalities: carbamates, carbamoyl oximes, thiocarbamates, and
dithiocarbamates. The production of chemicals in these four groups,
comprise the ``carbamate industry'' studied by EPA in this rulemaking
proceeding.
Carbamates
A carbamic acid ester is a compound that has the following
structure:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.000
Where R1 and R2 can be identified as a hydrogen atom or any
organic group beginning with a carbon sequence, and R3 must be an
organic group beginning with a carbon atom. The substitution of a metal
cation at the R3 position will result in a carbamate salt.
Polyurethanes (i.e., polymers consisting of linked carbamate esters)
are not within the scope of this rulemaking. Polyurethanes are large
molecular structures which are unlikely to be bioavailable and which do
not exhibit the toxicological [[Page 7829]] properties of unlinked
carbamate esters. For the purpose of this rulemaking, all salts or
esters of carbamic acids with molecular weight less than 1000 daltons
and/or Log octanol/water partition coefficient values of less than 8
are included.
Carbamoyl Oximes
A carbamoyl oxime has the following chemical structure:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.001
Carbamoyl oximes are a combination of the carbamate functionality and
the oxime functionality. Oximes are characterized by the structure RO-
N=C-R1,R2 where R1 and R2 can be a hydrogen or any
organic group beginning with a carbon atom. The oxygen atom of the
carbamate structure is used as a bonding point between the carbamate
and oxime groups as shown in the following diagram:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
For the purpose of this rulemaking, all salts or esters of carbamoyl
oximes with molecular weight less than 1000 daltons and/or Log octanol/
water partition coefficient values of less than 8 are included.
Thiocarbamates
Thiocarbamates may be produced from the reaction of a carbamoyl
chloride with a mercaptan and differ from carbamates by the
substitution of either oxygen atom with a sulfur atom as shown in the
following diagram:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.003
For the purpose of this rulemaking, all salts or esters of thiocarbamic
acids with molecular weight less than 1000 daltons and/or Log octanol/
water partition coefficient values of less than 8 are included.
Dithiocarbamates
The dithiocarbamate differ from carbamates in that each oxygen atom
of the C(=O))O moiety is replaced with sulfur atoms. Dithiocarbamate
esters have the following generic structure:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.004
Dithiocarbamic acid is commercially important but is very unstable.
As a result, it is often isolated as a metal salt. Usually, one or more
hydrogen atoms on the amine function are replaced by an organic group.
The following figure shows a typical reaction to produce a
dithiocarbamic acid salt:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.005
For the purpose of this rulemaking, all salts or esters of
dithiocarbamic acids with molecular weight less than 1000 daltons and/
or Log octanol/water partition coefficient values of less than 8 are
included. Thiocarbamoylsulfenamides which are derivatives of
dithiocarbamic acids are not subject to this rulemaking.
Both alkyl and ethylene dithiocarbamates can form salts with metal
ions and both can be oxidized to the corresponding thiuram sulfides
(bis(aminothiocarbonyl)sulfides). Mono, di, tri and tetra sulfides are
known and are included in this rulemaking. Thiuram sulfides have the
following generic structure:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR09FE95.006
These sulfides are the linkage of two dithiocarbamic acids and are
classed as dialkyldithiocarbamates in this rule, because thiuram
sulfides are known to [[Page 7830]] decompose to carbon disulfide,
dialkylamine, and dialkyldithiocarbamate.
2. Listing Obligations
Commenters also took issue with the inclusion of all the four
chemical types of carbamates under the scope of the statutory
obligation of HSWA and that of the proposed consent decree in EDF v.
Browner (Civ.No. 89-0598, District of Columbia Circuit).2
Specifically commenters believed that thiocarbamates and
dithiocarbamates should not be included with carbamates and that the
listing determination should have been limited to the specific
compounds identified in the proposed consent decree. Several commenters
believe EPA is obligated only to make hazardous waste listing
determinations for production wastes from those specific
dithiocarbamates, thiram, ziram and ferbam, listed in the proposed
consent decree. Other commenters believe that the scope of the listings
should be limited to pesticide products.
\2\The Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) sued the Agency for
inter alic, failing to meet the statutory deadlines of section
3001(e)(2) for making a hazardous waste listing determination for
carbamates. The resulting consent decree (entered December 9, 1994)
establishes a number of deadlines, including a January 31, 1995,
deadline for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 3001(e) and 3001(b) give the Agency the authority to list
any waste as hazardous provided it satisfies 40 CFR 261.11.
Furthermore, Section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA as amended mandates that the
Agency make a determination whether or not to list as hazardous wastes
from the manufacture of carbamates. Since the statute gives no further
definition of carbamates, it is left to the Agency to determine the
scope of the wastes subject to the mandate. The Agency believes that
the mandate was to make hazardous waste listing determinations for
wastes generated from the manufacture of carbamates. Neither the
congressional mandate nor the EDF consent decree limited the Agency's
authority to consider the range of wastes subject to this rulemaking.
One commenter suggested that EPA limit the scope of the listings to
wastes from the manufacture of pesticide products. The Agency disagrees
with the commenter. The Agency's industry study focused on the four
distinct groups of chemicals. This study was designed to evaluate the
wastes from the production of these chemicals and the potential of the
products to pose a hazard to human health or the environment when
discarded. Thus, the end use of the product was not considered to be
relevant, only the wastes. For dithiocarbamates which are used as both
pesticides and rubber processing chemicals, the Agency found that the
processes used, the wastes generated, the management practices, and the
mismanagement scenarios were similar regardless of the end use. The
Agency thus feels that regulating wastes from the production of
dithiocarbamates without regard to end use is appropriate. For P and U
listings, the Agency considered the toxicity of the material. The
Agency feels that the end use is not an appropriate consideration
because these listings regulate the disposal of the chemical as a
waste.
3. Specific Substances
Commenters requested specific guidance in determining whether a
given product fell within the scope of the listing. Commenters noted
that the chemical definition of carbamate includes all salts and esters
of carbamic acid. As such, commenters stated that carbamates could be
viewed to include such substances as ammonium carbamate (a carbamic
acid salt) and polyurethanes (polymers of linked carbamate ester
structures). In order to narrow the scope of the proposed listing to
the particular carbamate structures studied, it was suggested the
Agency either list specific products to which the listing would apply,
or restrict the listing applicable to pesticide products.
In response, the Agency believes the toxicity of carbamates,
carbamoyl oximes, thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates to be a function
of the bioavailability and reactivity of the chemicals as a waste, and
therefore product use should not be a limiting factor, as bioavailable
and reactive carbamates used for industrial purposes other than
pesticides are assumed to have the potential to exhibit toxicity. With
regard to the specific chemicals mentioned above, polyurethanes are
large biologically unavailable molecules not within the scope of this
rulemaking. Isotoic anhydride contains a -N-(C=O)-O- sequence, but
chemically the substance is an acid anhydride and is not within the
scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore, carbamates that are not isolated
during production (i.e., transient intermediates and not removed from a
process) are not included in the scope of the listing. Processes which
include the brief formation of a carbamate intermediate which is not
separated from the process or transported to another facility or
process train and is converted to a non-carbamate is not included in
the scope of the listing.
In the case of ammonium carbamate, the material is sold or
transferred as a product for use in the production of urea. The Agency
believes that wastewaters from the production of ammonium carbamate
fall under the K157 listing unless they meet the specified exemption.
The Agency also notes that ammonium carbamate is currently regulated as
a CERCLA hazardous substance with a final reportable quantity (RQ) of
5000 pounds.
4. Definition of Production
Several commenters stated that the definition of production should
be clarified to limit the rule to the chemical synthesis of a
carbamate, carbamoyl oxime, thiocarbamate or dithiocarbamate as an
isolated product and propose a definition that does not include
operations which isolate non-carbamate product for which there is
otherwise a commercial market. Several commenters also wanted
clarification on whether wastes from use or formulation were included
in the scope of the proposed listings.
In studying the carbamate manufacturing industry, the Agency
analyzed current carbamate manufacturing processes. In order to focus
the study, the Agency determined the raw materials, processes and
reactions that were unique to the carbamate manufacturing industry. The
Agency concludes that carbamate production begins with the synthesis of
non-carbamate intermediates, chemicals which have no other use except
for the production of a carbamate product or carbamate intermediate,
and includes all subsequent processes involved with the production of
the respective carbamate. Therefore, wastes from chemical processes
which produce non-carbamate basic or specialty chemicals, which have
multiple uses, are not subject to the K156-K161 hazardous waste
listings. For example, wastes from the production of phosgene or methyl
isocyanate which are used in numerous chemical production activities
would not be included in the scope of the listing. In the case of non-
carbamate intermediates, which have no other use but the production of
carbamate intermediates or final products, wastes from the production
of such intermediates would be subject to the listing. Such wastes are
properly classified as carbamate production wastes and within the scope
of RCRA Sec. 3001(e)(3), regardless of whether or not the production
occurred at the ultimate site of manufacture of the carbamate chemical.
Thus, wastes from the production of bendiocarb phenol, A-2213
(intermediate in oxamyl production), and carbofuran phenol, all
[[Page 7831]] of which are solely used for the production of
carbamates, are within the scope of the listing.
Wastes from the use of carbamate products are not generated from
the production of carbamates and, therefore, are not within the scope
of the proposed listings. Also, wastewaters from the formulation of
carbamate products into consumer products (i.e., the production of end
use pesticide products) are not subject of the K156-K161 listings. The
K listings regulate only wastes from the manufacture of the chemical
ingredients.
5. Requests for Additions to the Listings
One commenter believed that the following wastes which EPA proposed
not be listed should in fact be listed as hazardous:
Wastewater treatment sludges. The commenter believed that the
wastewater treatment sludges from the production of carbamate and
carbamoyl oximes contain high contaminant concentrations that warrant
regulation. Specifically the commenter believed that concentrations of
methylamine, trimethylamine and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
naphthalene, and 4-methylphenol were sufficiently high to warrant
regulation of the sludges. The commenter believed that the risk
modeling was flawed in that its exposure pathway assumptions
understated the risks in the groundwater pathway and in the modeling
techniques used.
Spent carbon. The commenter believes that chloroform is not the
only constituent of concern in the spent carbons from the production of
carbamates and states that the one sample taken by the Agency contained
significant concentrations of methylene chloride, ethyl benzene and
carbofuran. The commenter also believes that they should be listed
because the listing criteria require EPA to list a waste as hazardous
if it routinely exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic.
Wastewaters. The commenter believes that the Agency only considered
mismanagement in tanks to result in only an air emission exposure
pathway. The commenter believed that the Agency ignored spills or
releases from tanks to surface waters or groundwater, and did not
consider impacts to birds and other wildlife on direct contact with the
wastewater, did not establish margins of safety to take into account
lack of inhalation health-based standards, or take into account
multiple sources of contaminants at carbamate facilities. They also
believe that the surface impoundment should be considered a plausible
management scenario because they are used at some carbamate facilities,
and may be used in the future at new facilities. As well they believe
that wastewaters from the production of thiocarbamates contain EPTC
(Eptam) at greater than 100 times the health based level. They also
state that process wastewaters from the production of dithiocarbamates
contain levels of carbon disulfide that exceed applicable health
standards and that scrubber waters prom the production of
dithiocarbamates contain piperidine at significant concentrations.
Organic Wastes from Dithiocarbamate Production. The commenter
disputes that fact that all of the organic wastes from Dithiocarbamate
production are adequately managed as hazardous, because the F003
listing is not based on toxicity. The commenter maintains that these
wastes should be listed as hazardous.
The Agency disagrees with the commenter on each the points raised.
For wastewater treatment sludges, spent carbons, thiocarbamate and
dithiocarbamate wastewaters, and dithiocarbamate organic wastes the
Agency did not project significant human health or environmental risks
as currently managed. EPA notes that the commenter did not provide
accompanying exposure assessment and risk levels in their comment
package. They merely state that high concentrations warrant regulation.
For wastewater treatment sludges, the Agency considered as
plausible mismanagement the current management practices of management
in tanks and subsequent disposal in landfills. No significant risks
were attributable to these management scenarios. In the assessment of
landfill management, model leachate concentrations were matched to
analytical TCLP leachate concentrations. It is reasonable to calibrate
model outputs to experimental measurements of actual leaching potential
obtained using the Agency's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP, 40 CFR 262, Appendix II), because these experimental
measurements may more accurately predict the waste's leaching
potential. This procedure was designed to approximate the leaching of
wastes co-disposed with municipal wastes, therefore the Agency has
utilized these experimental measurements in lieu of model projections
of the leachate composition.
Based on the Agency's assessment, spent carbons from carbamate
production where found to be characteristically hazardous as D022
(chloroform) and the risk assessment was dominated by risks attributed
to chloroform. Absent the presence of chloroform, this waste would not
satisfy the criteria for listing. While the commenter believes that all
wastes which exhibit a characteristic should be listed, to implement
hazardous waste management the Agency has put into place a two tiered
system of characteristic and listed wastes. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit recently found in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063 (District of Columbia
Circuit 1994), that EPA is not compelled by its regulations to list a
waste as hazardous because it exhibits a characteristic. The court
found that EPA has the discretion to make a reasoned judgment as to
under which system a waste should be managed. In this case, EPA has no
information indicating that the current hazardous waste regulation of
these spent carbons are inadequate. The Agency finds no need for
redundant regulation, because risks are directly controlled by existing
regulation.
In the case of wastewaters from thiocarbamate and dithiocarbamate
production, the Agency determined that ``plausible mismanagement''
would be continued management in existing treatment systems comprised
of tanks. The Agency does not view abandonment of existing treatment
systems for unlined surface impoundments as ``plausible.'' The Agency
believes that since the carbamate manufactures have already made a
considerable investment in wastewater treatment systems using tanks,
they will continue to use them. Furthermore, the Agency also believes
permitting authorities are strongly biased against the permitting of
new surface impoundments, due to the potential for such units to
contaminate groundwater resources. This bias considerably lessens the
likelihood of future surface impoundments.
In the current management scenario of tanks, the Agency does not
project significant risks, and does not view the replacement of these
tanks with other treatment units as plausible. The Agency was able to
survey all U.S. producers of carbamates and could only identify the use
of surface impoundments as polishing ponds after aggressive biological
treatment in tanks. EPA's analysis indicated that the carbamate
industry is unlikely to experience rapid and significant expansion and
thus the development of significant new manufacturing sites and
increased waste disposal is low. The EPA has, therefore, not listed
these wastes as hazardous. [[Page 7832]]
In response to the commenters claims that the Agency ignored spills
or leaks from tanks, failed to consider wildlife impacts, establish
safety margins to account for the lack of inhalation health-based
standards or consider the multiple sources of contaminants, the Agency
disagrees with each of the commenter's assertions. When assessing
management of waste in surface impoundments, EPA included spills and
overflows in the calculations. These were not accidental or
catastrophic releases, but rather based on probabilities of overflows
and spills. In the case of tanks, accidental release scenarios or
catastrophic release scenarios were not considered as a potential basis
for listing. Wastewater treatment tanks are excluded from RCRA
permitting provisions (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) and 265.1(c)(10)), and the
product storage tank are excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(c). Therefore,
RCRA currently does not impose containment standards. However, the EPA
Administrator has authority under RCRA section 7003 to bring suit on
behalf of the United States as may be necessary to stop any imminent
and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.
EPA performed a screening analysis of the potential impacts on
terrestrial species. However, the Agency is still developing
methodologies for characterizing risk to terrestrial wildlife and
endangered species, and believes that the analysis presented in the
risk background document (F-94-CPLP-S0003) needs to be further refined.
The Agency calculated risks for each exposure pathway of
significance and considered the potential cumulative risks of multiple
exposures to the same toxic contaminates via multiple pathways. The
Agency acknowledges that there may be other exposures resulting from
such pathways as facility air emissions or consumer product use, and
has attempted to quantify only those risks associated with solid waste
management.
The organic wastes from the production of dithiocarbamates were
found by the Agency to be composed largely of solvents regulated by the
F003 and F005 hazardous waste listings. While F003 is only listed
because of the characteristic of flammability, the Agency acknowledges
that additional toxicity concerns have since been reported in a number
of scientific studies. However, these solvents were not found to
present significant risks when managed in tanks or from residual
incinerator emissions. The Agency concludes that the existing
regulation of F003 wastes within the context of the carbamate industry
are protective of human health and the environment and that a separate
listing designation would be redundant.
B. Listing Exemptions
1. K157 Exemption
Many commenters supported the K157 exemption as proposed because
they felt it provided operational flexibility, incentives for waste
minimization and an opportunity to overcome some of the difficulties
created by managing listed wastes under the current rules. Some
commenters also wanted clarification on the point of application of the
exemption (i.e., where in the treatment process the determination is
made as to whether or not the exemption level is achieved). Several
felt that the compliance point should be downstream of strippers and
other treatment systems. Several commenters also requested that
compliance with the exemption be demonstrated using analytical testing.
The Agency feels that the appropriate compliance point for
application of the K157 exemption is the point of generation prior to
aggregation with other carbamate and non-carbamate waste streams. The
Agency feels that if the point of exemption were after aggregation of
the listed wastes with other wastes it would provide some incentive to
selectively mix wastewater streams to meet the exemption criteria. By
applying the concentration limit at the point of generation, it is
likely that only the wastewaters that meet the criteria will be
exempted. In addition, if the compliance point is moved to the exit of
steam strippers and incinerators, storage tank and other treatment unit
emissions would no longer be considered in the exemption determination.
With regard to testing, the Agency does not preclude the direct
measurement of the maximum concentration of formaldehyde, methyl
chloride, methylene chloride, and triethylamine using quantitative
analytical methods to demonstrate the exemption requirements are met.
However, the Agency concludes that end-of-pipe analytical
demonstrations alone do not prove compliance with the exemption
criteria. All waste treatment emissions must be considered. For
example, an end-of-pipe test prior to mixing with other sources
provides a rapid determination of the concentration of constituents in
the wastewater being disposed. However, this single point-of-compliance
does not demonstrate that constituents were not evaporated to the
environment. A mass balance demonstration requires the facility to
account for all of the materials introduced to the process showing
amounts reacted, treated, recycled, and disposed. The accuracy of the
mass balance approach is largely dependent on the process material
records and accurate flow measurements during the production week. It
is incumbent upon those claiming the exemption to provide documentation
supporting the claim.
One commenter, however, believes that K157 waste should not be
allowed an exemption because they believe the wastes exhibited one or
more hazardous waste characteristics requiring listing, that air
emission risk was well documented, and that because carbamate
facilities are largely all RCRA permitted facilities, Agency resources
would not be taxed by a change in the current exemption of wastewater
treatment tanks from RCRA permitting and hence RCRA air emission
controls.
The Agency disagrees. To implement hazardous waste management the
Agency has put into place a two tiered system of characteristic and
listed wastes. As discussed above, the D.C. Circuit Court recently
found that EPA has the discretion to make a reasoned judgement as to
under which system a waste should be managed. In the case of K157, the
Agency believes that the same models used to calculate air emissions
risks can also be used to determine a concentration at which this risk
pathway has been abated such that unrestricted wastewater treatment
could proceed. Thus, the Agency believes that the K157 exemption is
warranted for those wastes that do not exceed the exemption limits. The
Agency views any change to the current wastewater treatment unit
exemption to be beyond the narrow scope of this hazardous waste listing
determination. The Agency will further evaluate the regulatory status
of wastewater treatment tanks in development of the Phase Four Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule.
One commenter believes that EPA's method for determining the
concentration of the constituents of concern may have ignored the
benefit offered from various control devices for the volatile
constituents. The commenter agrees that uncontrolled volatilized
constituents should be included in the calculations; however, the
commenter believes that the use of appropriate control devices for
volatile constituents to capture or destroy the constituent should be
part of the mass balance determination of regulatory status (i.e.,
whether or not the waste is exempt or not). As a result the commenter
believes that the exemption should be amended to state that only
[[Page 7833]] those hazardous constituents that cannot be demonstrated
to be reacted in the process, recovered, or otherwise controlled should
be included in the exemption calculation. The commenter also suggests
that EPA consider credits or an exemption allowance for leak detection
and repair programs which are currently in place and are part of the
control process for carbamate production and K157 wastewaters.
The Agency agrees control devices for volatile constituents should
be considered in the K157 wastewater exemption mass balance because
there are valid control measures that prevent the release of the
constituents to the environment, through recycling, or treatment. As a
result the Agency is modifying the exemption to include the mass
destroyed through treatment in the mass balance. The Agency believes
that, while leak detection systems and repair programs are necessary to
the safe and efficient management of wastes, these should be standard
operating practices. Thus, the Agency believes that a credit or
allowance for these management practices is not warranted.
One commenter believes that wastes are differentiated by
treatability groups (wastewater or non-wastewater) while exemptions are
by listing code. The commenter notes that wastes can change
treatability group as a result of treatment, and requests clarification
of EPA's intentions concerning K157 non-wastewaters generated through
permissible switching of treatability groups when steam stripping
generates wastewater bottoms (1% TOC). The commenter
wishes to determine if K157 nonwastewaters derived as a result of steam
stripping and then incinerated generating a K157 derived from
wastewaters (scrubber waters) still meets the exemption.
Waste meeting the hazardous wastes listing descriptions of K156 and
K157 are differentiated by their treatability group at the point of
generation. Carbamate process wastes less than 1% total organic carbon
(TOC) and less than 1% total suspended solids (TSS) are aqueous wastes
designated as Hazardous Waste No. K157. Process wastes greater than 1%
are designated as Hazardous Waste No. K156. Subsequent treatment does
not change a waste's hazardous waste number. The commenter has
described a case where K157 wastewaters are treated to separate an
organic laden stream which is incinerated, and incinerator condensate
returned for wastewater treatment. The Agency defines a hazardous
wastes listing at the point of generation. In the case where
wastewaters are removed from the process and subsequently treated, all
the streams are derived from K157, and therefore all the streams are
potentially exempt if a mass balance shows that the maximum weekly
usage of formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, and
triethylamine (including all amounts that can not be demonstrated to be
reacted in the process, destroyed through treatment, or is recovered,
i.e., what is discharged or volatilized) divided by the average weekly
flow of process wastewater prior to any dilutions does not exceed a
total of 5 parts per million by weight. If the facility can demonstrate
that the amount of these constituents discharged or volatilized is less
than 5 ppm then the K157 waste is exempt.
2. K156 Exemption
Several commenters believe that the exemption outlined in the K157
exemption should be expanded to include organic wastes from the
production of carbamates and carbamyl oximes (i.e. K156 wastes). As an
option some commenters believe the same approach should be extended to
other carbamate K-listed wastes (e.g., incinerator scrubber blowdown).
Specifically, one commenter noted that K156 scrubber water and steam
stripping bottoms generally no longer contain VOCs and the carbamate
component has been treated. They therefore believe that the proposed
exemption should be modified to include K156 wastes which contain 1% TOC) that is identified as K156. This
material then undergoes incineration or steam stripping generating a
wastewater stream (e.g., scrubber blowdown) with 50 of 0.049 to 2.9 mg/L).
As a chemical class dithiocarbamates exhibit reactive properties (i.e.,
react in water under ambient environmental pH conditions to form
sufficient toxic gas, fumes, or vapors to either create a toxic or
irritating atmosphere or to impart toxicity to the aqueous media are
reactive wastes subject to existing hazardous waste regulation as
Hazardous Waste No. D003 (40 CFR 261.23(a)(4))). Dithiocarbamates react
under acidic conditions to form carbon disulfide, which has potent
reproductive effects. One commenter supplied confidential studies
showing that under pH 2 conditions over eight hours less than one
percent of the dithiocarbamate products tested decomposed. The Agency
calculates [[Page 7836]] from this data that the concentration of
carbon disulfide formed in a hypothetical leaching test would be toxic
even when assuming a 100 fold dilution/attenuation factor. Record
sampling during the industry study has also found decomposition
products such as methylisothiocyanate and n-nitrosodimethylamine in the
wastes sampled. Methylisothiocyanate is reactive and toxic, and n-
nitrosodimethylamine is a known carcinogen. In addition, once released
into the environment dithiocarbamate metal salts degrade or exchange
metal ions, producing free metals ions. Finally, the ability to form
other toxic substituents was documented during a spill of metam sodium
(a dithiocarbamate) that had catastrophic environmental impacts on the
surrounding environment along a 45-mile stretch of the Sacramento River
and portions of Lake Shasta. As a result, EPA believes that regulation
of dithiocarbamate wastes as hazardous wastes is necessary because of
the reactivity and aquatic toxicity of this class of chemicals.
D. Conflict With Other Regulatory Programs or Initiatives
Several commenters believe that EPA should not proceed with the
listing because these wastes are, or will be regulated under Clean
Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA) and other provisions of RCRA.
Furthermore, the commenters believe EPA should not add additional
wastes to the listings until the issues regarding the definition of
solid wastes resulting from the courts decision invalidating the
mixture and derived-from rules in Shell Oil decision (Shell Oil v. EPA,
950 F.2d 751, D.C. Cir. 1991) have been resolved. Specifically, the
commenter believes that the listings should be deferred until the rule
resulting from the work of the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force and
the Hazardous Waste Identification Committee are finalized because
these may profoundly impact the regulatory classification of wastes.
Another commenter believes residues from the treatment of listed wastes
should be provided a de minimis exit from RCRA Subtitle C.
The Agency noted in the proposal that significant regulatory gaps
currently exist between RCRA regulation of air emissions from hazardous
waste management and the CAA regulation. Although future regulations
are planned in these areas, the coverage and scope of future
regulations is uncertain and does not act to mitigate existing risks.
The Agency has determined that risks posed by carbamate waste
management should be controlled through regulation under RCRA.
Potential future regulation will be developed with consideration given
to the then-existing regulatory scheme as well as the need to close any
remaining regulatory gaps that are beyond the narrow scope of the
carbamate listing determinations in this rulemaking. The Agency would
also like to note that the HWIR rule is not designed to limit entry to
the hazardous waste regulatory system but is a system where listed
wastes may be able to be easily removed from the hazardous waste
management system.
E. Constituents of Concern for Appendix VII
Some commenters believe that several constituents were included on
appendix VII (i.e., the appendix that identifies the constituents of
concern that are the basis for listing a waste) even though they were
measured in the wastes at concentrations below health based levels in
multipathway risk assessment. Commenters also believe that the format
of listings is inconsistent with previous appendix VII listings.
Specifically, the commenters believe that EPA has in the past listed
only the metal or organic compounds directly related to the waste and
none of the solvents which may be present. The commenters believe that
appendix VII should only include the hazardous constituents that are
specific carbamates, carbamoyl oximes, thiocarbamates and
dithiocarbamates.
Wastes may be listed as hazardous if they contain toxic
constituents identified in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 and the
Agency concludes, after considering eleven factors enumerated in
section 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.
To determine whether a waste is hazardous for toxicity under 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3), EPA determines the presence of an appendix VIII
constituent, regardless of concentration. EPA then examines all the
health effects data on that constituent, along with other factors
(generally related to exposure) required to be considered under 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3). Concentration of the hazardous constituent is among those
factors (40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)(ii)). Other 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). These factors
are evaluated to decide whether to list the waste as a hazardous waste.
After determining that a waste should be listed as hazardous, EPA
would then list in appendix VII the constituents that led to that
listing. The Agency has reassessed each of the constituents listed as a
basis of listing and has limited the hazardous constituents for the
basis of listing to those constituents which were found to present
health based or environmental risks in the multipathway analysis, and
to toxic products present at percent levels which are potentially
hazardous to human health and the environment. Therefore, the Agency
has removed acetone, hexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, and
xylene from the appendix VII basis of listing, because these substances
were not significant in the risk analysis. The Agency has also
corrected the basis of listing for K156 to include formaldehyde and the
basis of listing K161 to include antimony and arsenic, because these
constituents where significant in the risk assessment.
The commenters also believe that the terms thiocarbamates, Not
Otherwise Specified (N.O.S.) and dithiocarbamates, N.O.S. are overly
broad, include a variety of compounds for which EPA has not established
health or environmental hazards, are not hazardous constituents on
appendix VIII and are not proposed for inclusion on appendix VIII.
Therefore, the commenter concludes that generic categories are
inappropriate for inclusion in appendix VII listings. The Agency has
deferred action on these generic categories, and may further address
the addition of the generic categories to appendix VIII in a future
proposal.
F. Constituents of Concern for Appendix VIII
Several commenters believe that many of the additions to appendix
VIII (i.e., the appendix that contains a list of hazardous constituents
to be evaluated for listing determinations (see 40 CFR 261.11)) were
inappropriate. One commenter believes that the rule adds constituents
to appendix VIII based on presence of a constituent rather than its
concentration. Many commenters believe that constituents of concern
should be limited to constituents that are present at concentrations
that threaten human health and the environment. A commenter believes
that constituents can only be added to appendix VIII if they are toxic,
carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to humans and other life forms
and that the Agency has added constituents with [[Page 7837]] no
toxicological data or incomplete toxicological data.
Waste constituent concentrations are not a factor in the addition
of toxic substances to appendix VIII. The criteria for additions to
appendix VIII (40 CFR 261.11(a)(xi)) direct the Agency to add
substances ``shown in scientific studies to have toxic, carcinogenic,
mutagenic or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms.'' While
the Agency has readily acknowledged some gaps in the available toxicity
studies, the Agency need have but one scientific study meeting the
Sec. 261.11 criteria and in some cases developed empirical structural
activity relationships (SAR) where direct toxicological testing was not
available. Furthermore, the Agency views its SAR analysis as scientific
studies for the purpose of adding substances to appendix VIII.
Nevertheless, the Agency has reviewed the available toxicity data for
each of the additions to appendix VIII and concludes that for 12
substances the toxicity data in the record is inadequate for final
action. Final action on these 12 substances is being deferred to allow
notice and comment on additional quantitative structure activity
relationships (QSAR), developed for these chemicals. EPA plans to
repropose these substances at a future date. The results of these new
studies are presented in section IV.C.
Several commenters stated that EPA should not propose constituents
for addition to appendix VIII at the same time that it is listing them
as the constituents of concern for a hazardous waste listing. EPA
believes it is proper to consider the expansion of appendix VIII and
additional hazardous waste listings together. Constituents are added to
appendix VIII if they have been shown in scientific studies to have
toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on human or
other life forms. The Agency feels that each of the constituents being
added to appendix VIII meets at least one of these criteria. The Agency
solicited and received comments on the proposed additions to appendix
VIII, and after considering these comments has concluded that the
additions being finalized are appropriate. There is no regulation or
statute that prohibits the simultaneous hazardous waste listing and
appendix VIII addition. The Agency believes that listing the wastes and
making the additions to appendix VIII simultaneously is efficient
system for implementing the hazardous waste program that allows for
meaningful public participation. Simultaneous listing and addition to
appendix VIII is a long-standing practice of the Agency.
Several commenters believed the Agency proposed various additions
to appendix VIII (including acetone, hexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl
ketone, and xylene) without considering the far reaching impact on
numerous exempt waste streams. Commenters felt that inclusion of these
solvents on appendix VIII may affect the regulatory status of wastes at
facilities not involved in production of carbamates because these
solvents are so widely used throughout the chemical manufacturing
industry and believe that the Agency has not considered the wide
ranging impact of this action. Commenters also felt that the addition
of these solvents to appendix VIII based on their toxicity contradicts
the original classification of these solvents as hazardous due solely
to ignitability in the F003 listing. Commenters believe that adding the
toxic label to these solvents causing them to be considered toxic in
addition to ignitable will expand corrective action implementation and
may expand state restrictions based on blanket application of appendix
VIII.
With regard to the solvents acetone, hexane, methanol, methyl
isobutyl ketone, and xylene, commenters specifically requested
clarification of whether or not these solvents, when discarded as F003
spent solvents, which were originally listed only basis of their
ignitability, would now be considered toxic and hence no longer able to
be exempt under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii). This section of the CFR
specifies that a waste is not a hazardous waste if it is a mixture of a
solid waste and hazardous waste that is listed solely for one or more
of the characteristics and the resultant mixture no longer exhibits the
any of a hazardous wastes characteristics. Commenters believed the F003
wastes would now be both toxic and ignitable should the above solvents
be listed in appendix VIII.
The Agency believes the addition of these solvents to appendix VIII
would not have directly changed the regulatory management of F003
wastes. One commenter, however, correctly noted that the addition of
these solvents to appendix VIII would eliminate the 264.340(b)
exemption of incinerators, which burn only characteristically hazardous
wastes, from trial burn requirements. This exemption allows
incinerators that burn only characteristically hazardous wastes such as
ignitable wastes do not need to analyze for these constituents as
required in 40 CFR 264.31 or meet the closure requirements of 264.351.
As noted in the previous section, the Agency has finalized only those
substances which presented a hazard in the multipathway analysis. As a
result, the Agency has not finalized the addition of the solvents
acetone, hexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, and xylene. The
Agency believes that the additions to appendix VIII as amended do not
have this impact. The Agency also believes that changes to the current
regulatory structure for F003 solvents and characteristic waste
incineration are beyond the narrow scope of the carbamate listing
determinations.
With regard to the expansion of state restrictions based on blanket
application of appendix VIII and other changes in state requirements
resulting from this rule, states are free to impose more stringent
regulations at any time. The potential for state action beyond the
minimum federal RCRA requirements are not controlled by the Agency.
G. P Listings
Several commenters challenged the basis for including several
wastes as acutely hazardous wastes and presented additional toxicity
data to support their position. As well, some commenters believe that
the proposed P and U listings were not adequately supported by the
administrative record.
After evaluation of comments received, four wastes (bendiocarb,
thiophanate-methyl, thiodicarb, and propoxur), proposed for addition to
40 CFR 261.33(e) as acutely hazardous wastes, are instead being added
to 40 CFR 261.33(f) as toxic wastes. In each case, the Agency found
that these four wastes did not meet the Sec. 261.11(a)(2) criteria for
listing in Sec. 261.33(e). The Agency disagrees with the commenter's
assertion regarding the administrative record. The Agency criteria for
including a waste on 40 CFR 261.33(e) are based on toxicity benchmarks
that are clearly presented in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). The applicable
toxicity data for the proposed wastes was presented in the proposed
rule (59 FR 9808). As a result, the Agency contends that all the
information used to make the listing decisions regarding P wastes was
presented in the public record.
Only one comment was received relative to the carbamate wastes
proposed in response to the 1984 Michigan Petition. Eight carbamate
waste listings were proposed in response to a petition by the State of
Michigan to include 109 chemicals to the lists in 40 CFR Sec. 261.33
(49 FR 49784, December 21, 1984). This rule was never finalized. The
petitioner argued that bendiocarb should be listed as a P-waste based
on an oral mammalian toxicity of 34-64 mg/kg. The Agency agrees that
bendiocarb's [[Page 7838]] toxicity is of concern. The Agency's
benchmark for inclusion of a waste on 40 CFR Sec. 261.33(e) is the oral
LD50 for a rat of 50 mg/kg (see 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)). The Agency has
data that shows oral LD50 values of 64-119 mg/kg for female rat
and 72-156 mg/kg for male rat. Based on these criteria the Agency is
finalizing the listing of bendiocarb as U278.
H. U Listings
The criteria for designation of Acutely Hazardous Wastes found at
40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). While the listing criteria for these acutely
hazardous wastes is clearly defined, commenters noted and requested a
clear delineation of toxicological criteria for listing wastes as toxic
under Sec. 261.33(f).
While acute toxicity may be expressed in terms of numeric
toxicological end points, such as oral LD50, inhalation LC50, and
dermal LC50, the Agency does not have numeric criteria for listing
commercial chemical products as toxic. However, the factors the Agency
looks to in listing these materials are described in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3). The Agency considered these factors including the
toxicity of the various chemicals, in analyzing the potential to harm
human and the environment. Based on this analysis, the Agency believes
these discarded commercial chemical products meet the criteria
expressed in Sec. 261.11(a)(3) for listing a material as a hazardous
waste. For further explanation, interested parties should refer to the
background documents in the docket for this rulemaking. (See ADDRESSES
section.)
In the case of carbamate, carbamoyl oxime, thiocarbamate, and
dithiocarbamate chemicals, each class of compounds exhibits significant
aquatic toxicity. Largely, the Agency's decision to list additional
carbamate products was driven by available aquatic toxicity studies
indicating LC50 values less than 50 mg/L. Because of the solubility,
persistence, mobility, and toxicity of these classes of chemicals, the
Agency concludes that they present a significant risk to the
environment if mismanaged.
Several commenters believe that the generic listings for
carbamates, carbamoyl oximes, thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates are
vague, overly broad, and ambiguous. They believe the generic listings
capture substances that are not hazardous and cause unnecessary burdens
on manufacturers, distributors, and end users. The commenters also
believe that the generic categories are inconsistent with current
Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous materials listings and
should be modified to be consistent with these regulations. They felt
that these listings would include a variety of compounds for which EPA
has not established health or environmental hazards, are not hazardous
constituents on Appendix VIII and are not proposed for inclusion on
Appendix VIII. The commenters also believe that EPA is obligated to
evaluate each chemical and waste stream individually to determine
whether they meet the listing criteria and thus should not list generic
wastes.
The Agency believes that the definition of each chemical group as
amended is very clear and consistent with chemical nomenclature, such
that generators of these wastes will be able to determine easily
whether they manufacture a specific carbamate. Thus, the Agency does
not believe that the definitions are ambiguous. The Agency understands
that the generic categories designated as N.O.S are not identical to
the categories in DOT regulations. The DOT regulations refer only to
carbamate pesticides and thiocarbamate pesticides. The Agency does not
feel that DOT regulation preclude a broader definition for the purposes
of hazardous waste listing. However as previously stated, the Agency
believes that generic N.O.S. categories as proposed may be overly broad
and will defer finalizing the generic listing descriptions until
alternative listing descriptions have been proposed and commented on.
I. Toxicity Information
Several commenters believe that EPA did not have adequate toxicity
information to perform its risk assessment and believe that EPA's use
of surrogates in determining toxicity of compounds is inappropriate.
The commenter also believes EPA had insufficient risk data to
promulgate the U listings. As well, commenters discovered differences
between published toxicity information and that presented by the Agency
in the proposed notice.
The Agency has reevaluated the toxicity data for each waste
proposed for addition to 40 CFR Sec. 261.33(f). As noted by commenters,
several compounds had limited toxicological data. After review of the
available toxicological data, 12 compounds are not considered to have
adequate toxicological or predicted values in the record to finalize
these 12 listings at this time. See section IV.C. The Agency is
deferring final action on the 12 compounds, and may repose these
substances at a later date.
J. Risk Assessment
The Agency received numerous comments on the risk assessment. Some
commenters believe that the risk assessment was extremely conservative,
while other commenters believe that the risks from carbamate wastes
were understated. The Agency has chosen to address the general concerns
on both of these positions with regard to the risk assessment in this
preamble. Detailed responses to specific comments on the
appropriateness of model parameters, modeling assumptions, and exposure
scenarios are provided in the Response to Comments Background Document
that is available in the docket associated with this rulemaking.
1. Comments Asserting That the Risk Assessment Understates Risk
Several commenters felt that the Agency's risk assessment
substantially understated the risk posed by improper management of
carbamate wastes because (1) some of the modeling parameters and data
inputs are highly uncertain and (2) exposures from spills and other
accidental releases were not considered.
The Agency believes that it's modeling approach addresses all of
the most significant exposures to wastes from this industry. As
described in the background document to this rule (F-CPLP-S0003) the
risk assessment procedure for selecting modeling parameters and
assumptions is designed to ensure that the high end of the distribution
of the exposed population is protected.
With respect to spills and other accidental releases, the Agency
did include spills and overflows from surface impoundments based on
probabilities of these occurrences. For wastes managed in tanks and
surface impoundments, the Agency did not evaluate the potential impacts
of a single catastrophic release to nearby soil and surface waters. The
Agency believes that the probability of these types of potential
exposure events occurring are extremely low and are less determinative
in the listing determination than the more likely exposure scenarios
evaluated.
One commenter stated that EPA should not rely as much on
information which is specific to the industry (such as waste disposal
practices and location of facilities) in its risk assessment. Instead,
according to this commenter, the Agency should conduct a more generic
risk assessment which would consider a wider range of potential
disposal practices and site parameters.
The Agency used a combination of generic risk assessment scenarios
and information specific to this industry in characterizing risks for
this listing determination. The Agency believes that the use of
industry specific information [[Page 7839]] is appropriate if that
information is available and reliable. In this case, the carbamate
manufacturing industry is relatively well defined and stable, and
therefore the industry specific inputs are appropriate to use. The use
of this information allows the Agency to more accurately characterize
risks, since it better describes actual existing and potential
conditions.
One commenter stated that the Agency did not adequately address the
potential for impacts on endangered species and other terrestrial
wildlife.
The Agency did conduct a screening assessment of potential impacts
on terrestrial wildlife and concluded that risks were not likely to be
significant. This assessment is presented in the risk assessment
background document (F-CPLP-S0003). The Agency does recognize that risk
assessment methodologies for terrestrial wildlife are still very much
under development and that it cannot definitively conclude that risks
will not exist.
One commenter believes that EPA should not rely on central tendency
or average estimates of risk (as opposed to high end or conservative
estimates) in its listing determination. This commenter states that
this reliance violates both RCRA and Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low Income Populations).
The Agency relies primarily on high end risk estimates in its
listing determinations. The central tendency estimates are used
primarily to project overall population risks in some cases and to
provide an indication of the variability in risk estimates.
2. Comments Asserting That the Risk Assessment Overstates Risk
Several commenters believe that the Agency's risk assessment
overstated the risks presented by the carbamate waste streams. One
commenter believes that EPA's use of a multi-pathway risk assessment
methodology is premature.
The Agency believes that a multipathway approach is well
established and is appropriate for this rulemaking. The Agency has been
using multipathway analyses for a number of years in a number of its
programs including the Superfund program, the sewage sludge
regulations, pesticide risk assessments, risk assessments for hazardous
waste combustion facilities, and previous listing determinations. As a
result the Agency believes that the use of a multipathway approach is
not premature and is appropriate for this rulemaking.
Another comment was that the Agency misapplied the listing criteria
by using inappropriate mismanagement scenarios to evaluate the hazards
posed by the carbamate wastes.
The Agency believes it has correctly selected plausible
mismanagement scenarios to evaluate the hazards posed by the carbamate
waste. Although not all wastes generated by the carbamate manufacturing
industry are handled in the same way, by looking across the industry at
all plausible management practices, the Agency selected both typical
case and plausible mismanagement scenarios to represent possibilities
for the management of carbamate wastes. It is possible that specific
manufacturing facilities within the industry managed their wastes quite
differently than the plausible mismanagement scenarios. However, in
selecting the mismanagement scenarios, the Agency looked across the
industry and identified practices which would present the highest risk
and considered those as the mismanagement scenarios. All mismanagement
scenarios used in this analysis are currently in use in the industry by
at least one facility although not all.
Another comment was that the Agency used exaggerated or implausible
exposure assumptions causing an overly conservative risk estimate which
does not represent reality at any facility. The commenters suggest that
the Agency should consider site specific risk assessments to support
any regulatory action in this area.
The Agency disagrees that the risk assessment is based on
inappropriate assumptions and that exposure scenarios are highly
exaggerated. Specific parameter criticism are addressed in the comment
response document available in the docket for this rule. (See
Addresses.) In general, in identifying the location of receptors, the
Agency collected land use data and well water use data around 8
carbamate manufacturing facilities believed to represent the range of
different types and locations of facilities present in the United
States. These data were then used to develop central tendency and high
end estimates for where individuals may be exposed to releases of
constituents from the waste stream managed. As pointed out in the risk
assessment background document, even the high end risk calculations use
average values for most parameters.
While the risk assessment results may not specifically apply to any
particular facility, the Agency believes they are representative of
potential high end risks. The Agency is unable to conduct full site
specific risk assessments for all facilities because of the time and
resources which would be required to collect and analyze all of the
data which would be needed for each facility.
The Agency believes that the use of a generic risk assessment
methodology combined with industry-specific information for parameter
values is the best approach for determining whether or not a waste
stream should be listed as hazardous. Site-specific assessments may
mean that the Agency would list a waste stream as hazardous for one
manufacturer while not hazardous for another. Such wastes may not be
subject to hazardous waste control. The Agency is generally unable to
predict and does not control how a waste will be managed and thus the
waste may or may not be disposed at the point of generation and as such
the exposure assumption may be very different than those at the
specific site. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is
inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific factors when making
listing decisions. The Agency's delisting program was developed to
provide industry the opportunity to show that, on a waste-specific
basis, its waste do not pose a hazard to human health or the
environment. The Agency believes that delisting is an adequate
mechanism for those who feel that wastes do not meet the hazardous
waste criteria and exclude them from the hazardous waste management
system.
Another comment is that the proposed rule is based on
misclassification/characterization of waste streams because the use of
generic composites resulted in overestimation of risk. The commenter
also believes that the assessment was based on limited data sometimes
using a maximum constituent concentration value to represent both
average and worst case scenarios, and that measured values for
concentrations of constituents in waste streams at specific sites do
not match numbers used in generic risk assessment.
The Agency disagrees with the commenter with regards to the
characterization of waste streams. The Agency did not use a maximum
constituent concentration value to represent both average and worse
case scenarios in its risk assessment. For some constituents, only one
measured value existed and this measured value was used in the risk
assessment. The labeling of tables in the risk assessment background
document (F-CPLP-S0003) shows that this one value was entered in both
columns for average and high end values. The concentrations in the
waste stream as measured by the Agency or reported by the facility were
[[Page 7840]] used in characterizing the waste. When there were several
measured values for a constituent, the Agency averaged those values to
get a central tendency value for characterizing the waste. It should be
noted that the Agency did not characterize the waste streams on a site
specific basis but developed generic characterizations for each waste
stream based on data from several facilities. The Agency developed
generic waste stream characterizations based on data from one or
several facilities. These generic waste stream characterizations may
not match on a one to one basis the constituents in any specific
carbamate manufacturing facility's stream. However, the Agency believes
that these generic characterizations provide a meaningful way of
representing waste streams across an industry in which the waste will
have high variability due to changes in manufacturing processes and
products. The Agency believes that it will be infeasible to collect
data on every waste stream generated by every carbamate manufacturing
facility. Thus, the generic waste stream characterizations were used to
capture the range of constituents that could exist in carbamate
manufacturing wastes. The Agency also notes that the commenter did not
provide any additional waste characterization data.
Another commenter believes that EPA fails to acknowledge the
uncertainties associated with its risk conclusions. The Agency believes
that it has adequately characterized the uncertainty in the risk
analysis. The Agency attempted to characterize uncertainties in its
risk assessment by providing both central tendency and a range of high
end risk estimates for each pathway and exposure route for each waste
group. The parameter uncertainties are presented as a range of values
used for all input parameters.
One commenter believes that EPA did not provide sufficient record
information to allow meaningful comment on the risk assessment
assumptions. The Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
adequate documentation on the risk assessment was not available. All
information on conducting the risk assessment and its assumptions are
either included in the background document itself or in the reference
cited, all of which are included in the docket.
K. CERCLA RQs
Several commenters believe that the Agency should have proposed
adjusted RQs for the substances added to the CERCLA hazardous
substances list instead of applying the statutory 1 lb RQ, and that
adjusted RQs should be put in place at the same time that the final
rule is promulgated. Commenters believe that the 1 lb RQ would cause
unnecessary and expensive reporting requirements and that the Agency
should suspend the effective date of this rule until RQs are adjusted.
One commenter believed that the Agency should not place carbamate
compounds on the U-list as a mechanism to achieve CERCLA listing and to
trigger actions by emergency responders under CERCLA.
The Agency plans to propose adjusted RQs of the substances added to
the CERCLA hazardous substances list. Section 102(b) of CERCLA requires
that a 1 lb RQ be set for these newly identified hazardous substances.
Until an adjustment is promulgated, the statutory 1 lb RQ for newly
identified hazardous wastes will remain in effect. The Agency disagrees
with the commenters assertion that the addition of carbamates to the U-
list was designed to achieve CERCLA listing and trigger actions by
emergency responders under CERCLA. The addition of substances to the U-
list was governed solely by the concentration and toxicity of these
materials and the criteria for listing at 40 CFR 261.11. Section
101(14) of CERCLA establishes that all newly identified RCRA hazardous
wastes are also CERCLA hazardous substances. The Agency does, however
view it as beneficial for emergency first responders to quickly
identify the potential hazards of carbamate, carbamoyl oxime,
thiocarbamate, and dithiocarbamate products and feels that quick
identification of hazards may speed corrective measures to limit
environmental damage or risks to human health.
L. Regulatory Impact Analysis
There were many commenters who felt that the Economic Impact
Analysis (EIA) conducted was inadequate or flawed. In particular,
commenters felt that the addition of the Appendix VIII constituents
would have a much greater cost impact than shown in the EIA. Other
commenters felt that the scope of the EIA underestimated the number of
affected facilities in that it did not take into account suppliers,
distributors and customers using the P, U and Appendix VIII materials.
In addition, commenters felt that it did not account for costs
associated with soil and debris remediation, indirect state and federal
regulatory impacts and reporting requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA,
and costs incurred due to the mixture and derived-from rules.
Commenters also believed that the EIA assumed that wastes currently
recycled would continue to be recycled. Others felt that the rules
would cause competing non-carbamate chemicals to have a competitive
advantage that would cause economic hardship to small carbamate
manufacturers. Other commenters believe that the EIA was flawed because
the Agency should have prepared an RIA.
In conducting its EIA, EPA examined all data submitted to it under
its RCRA section 3007 survey of the carbamate production industry. EPA
used this information to create a baseline scenario, or description of
the current state of waste management in the industry. More important,
EPA maintains that the 24 facilities analyzed for the EIA represents
the entire universe of carbamate production facilities, and thus EPA is
confident that its analysis is comprehensive. EPA then developed a
post-regulatory scenario in which waste generators would comply with
the RCRA regulations newly imposed as a result of this rule. In
creating this post-regulatory scenario, EPA forecast the plausible,
long-term management of the waste, and EPA calculated the waste
management costs associated with this post-regulatory scenario. EPA
maintains that it has correctly estimated the true, long-term costs
associated with the management of carbamate production wastes resulting
from the listing of new RCRA hazardous wastes even though compliance
costs for any individual entity may be higher or lower than our
estimate. The Agency does not consider the rule to have significant
impacts and thus it does not require a full regulatory impact analysis.
EPA points out that the EIA was designed to assess the primary cost
impacts associated with changes in management practices resulting from
the RCRA hazardous listing of carbamate production waste. EPA believes
that the addition of compounds to 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII will
not materially affect the management of such wastes. All carbamate
production facilities are currently permitted under RCRA. In addition,
RCRA grants the Agency broad authority to respond to any imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health and the environment posed by
the past or present management of any solid waste (RCRA Sec. 7003). In
addition, because no other action has been taken by the Agency there
will be no effect on the ``mixture and derived from'' exemption.
EPA acknowledges that there may be indirect effects as a result of
this rulemaking. The EIA accounted for the costs of trial burns,
monitoring equipment, personnel for monitoring, and other compliance
related costs in incineration costs. In support of the
[[Page 7841]] final rule, EPA identified some potential incremental
costs for closure of abandoned surface impoundments. EPA also included
the costs of handling and disposal of P and U wastes in the revised EIA
and is confident that its analysis is comprehensive. EPA believes,
however, that designation of these carbamates as P and U wastes will
not result in significant costs for suppliers and customers because of
the infrequent nature of waste generation.
As for the commenter's concern about POTW operators no longer
accepting such waste, EPA notes that currently RCRA listed wastewater
is routinely accepted for treatment by POTW operators and other CWA
systems. EPA does not expect any significant problems in this area for
generators of carbamate production wastes.
EPA also believes that the long-term economic impacts of changes to
markets and product distribution will be minimal. EPA also rejects the
assertion that farmers and other small business owners will file
unnecessary reports as a result of this listing. The Agency believes
that the agricultural sector is as sophisticated about complying with
environmental requirements as any other sector.
EPA also believes that carbamate wastes presently being recycled
should be able to continue to be recycled under RCRA exemption
following the listing and that any administrative cost impacts
associated with the listing would be small compared to other waste
management costs.
EPA also points out that the scope of its EIA is limited to the
effects of the Federal RCRA program. In its rulemakings, EPA is not
able to account for actions taken by the states, tribes,
municipalities, or other governmental entities. States are free to
impose more stringent regulations at any time. In its rulemakings, EPA
is not able to account for the variances between the federal and state
programs.
M. Impact on Recycling and Reuse
Several commenters believe that the K listings and P and U listings
will have a negative impact on established reuse and recycling program.
Commenters were also concerned that the rule will have an adverse
impact on product stewardship programs, especially return for refill
programs for containers. The commenters believe that the final listings
should exclude all wastewater generated as part of recycling operations
and all residue returned as part of recycling program and all
wastewaters generated in cleaning recycled containers.
The Agency does not foresee any adverse impact of K, P or U
listings on container recycling programs. The scope of the K listings
is limited to wastes from the production of the carbamate chemicals and
does not include product container wash waters. Product container wash
waters are subject to the P or U waste listings if discarded or mixed
with other listed wastes. However, when returned to either a
formulation process or the chemical production process these wash
waters would not be solid wastes, because the material is used in an
industrial process to make a product (Sec. 261.2(e)(i)), or is being
returned to the original process without first being reclaimed
(Sec. 261.2(e)(iii)).
The EPA does not believe regulation of P and U wastes will
adversely impact the recycling. Several carbamates are largely
formulated in aerosol containers which may be recycled for their scrap
metal value. As recyclable scrap metal, empty aerosol containers are
exempted from RCRA regulation (Sec. 261.6(a)(3)(iii)). However, aerosol
containers that are not empty in accordance with Sec. 261.7 and have
contained P or U listed substances would be subject to hazardous waste
regulation when discarded.
The EPA also does not foresee significant adverse impacts to return
for refill programs. Containers that have held P or U regulated
substances are hazardous waste when discarded if the container is not
empty in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 261.7. EPA views
hazardous waste disposal requirements to encourage the return of the
container by the public to such refill programs. Should containers,
other than those which are empty, be disposed full compliance with all
RCRA requirements would be triggered.
N. Executive Orders
Several commenters believed that the Agency did not comply with
Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). EPA believes it has complied with all provisions of
E.O. 12866. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because of policy issues arising out of legal mandates. As such, this
action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record. See
F-94-CPLP-0006.
One commenter believes EPA failed to measure additional sources of
contaminants with potential risk factors, and that these omissions are
inconsistent with Executive Order 12898 Federal Action to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income
Populations, section 3-301(b), which provides that federal agencies
should consider, whenever practicable and appropriate, multiple and
cumulative exposures.
EPA believes it has complied with all provisions of E.O. 12898
(Environmental Justice). The Agency calculated risks for each exposure
pathway of significance and considered the potential cumulative risks
of multiple exposures to the same toxic contaminants via multiple
pathways. The Agency acknowledges that there may be other exposures
resulting from such pathways as facility air emissions or consumer
product use, and has attempted to quantify only those risks associated
with solid waste management.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act
One commenter believes that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
requirements have not been met with respect to the proposed rule in
that it believes the reporting requirements under CERCLA for releases
constitutes information collection and this the rule should be
submitted to OMB for review.
The proposed rule stated in error that this rule has no PRA
requirements. However, this rule does not contain any new information
collection requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Facilities will have to
comply with the existing Subtitle C recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the newly listed wastestreams.
Release reporting required as a result of listing wastes as
hazardous substances under CERCLA and adjusting the reportable
quantities (RQs) has been approved under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has been assigned
OMB control number 2050-0046 (ICR 1049, Notification of Episodic
Release of Oil and Hazardous Substances).
P. Compliance Schedule
Several commenters believed that EPA has not provided the regulated
community with adequate time to comply with the rulemaking and should
allow additional time for compliance which may require capital
projects. This final rule allows for six months for compliance with
this rule consistent and is consistent with RCRA Sec. 3010(b). A period
of six months from the publication date of the listing is generally
adequate time for the industry [[Page 7842]] to make arrangements for
new waste management practices. The Agency realizes that some remedial
activities such as the retrofit of surface impoundments may require a
significantly longer compliance period. However, RCRA
Sec. 3004(j)(6)(A) allows a 4-year compliance period for surface
impoundments to meet the Minimum Technology Requirement (MTR). The
Agency views these as adequate periods for compliance to be
implemented.
VI. Compliance and Implementation
A. State Authority
1. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the state. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under
sections 3007, 3008, 3013,and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized states
have primary enforcement responsibility.
Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
amended RCRA, a state with final authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of the Federal program in that
state. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized
state, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities located in
the state with permitting authorization. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the state was
obligated 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.
By contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA (including the
hazardous waste listings finalized in this notice) take effect in
authorized states at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized states. EPA is directed to implement those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of permits,
until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final
authorization. HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.
Today's rule is promulgated pursuant to section 3001 of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6921). Therefore this rule has been added to Table 1 in 40 CFR
271.1(j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may apply for either interim or
final authorization for the HSWA provisions in 40 CFR 271.1(j) Table 1,
as discussed in the following section.
2. Effect on State Authorizations
Because this rule (with the exception of the actions under CERCLA
authority) is promulgated pursuant to the HSWA, a state submitting a
program modification is able to apply to receive either interim or
final authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's requirements. The procedures and
schedule for State program modifications under 3006(b) are described in
40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA interim authorizations
are currently scheduled to expire on January 1, 2003 (see 57 FR 60129,
February 18, 1992).
Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA's state authorization regulations (40
CFR part 271) requires that states with final authorization modify
their programs to reflect federal program changes and submit the
modifications to EPA for approval. The deadline by which the states
must modify their programs to adopt this regulation is determined by
the date of promulgation of a final rule in accordance with
Sec. 271.21(e)(2). Table 1 at 40 CFR 271.1 is amended accordingly. 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 in this rule. These State regulations have not been
assessed against the Federal regulations being finalized to determine
whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a state would not
be authorized to implement these regulations as RCRA requirements until
state program modifications are submitted to EPA and approved, pursuant
to 40 CFR 271.21. Of course, states with existing regulations that are
more stringent than or broader in scope than current Federal
regulations may continue to administer and enforce their regulations as
a matter of State law.
It should be noted that authorized states are required to modify
their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal standards that are
more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal standards.
Section 3009 of RCRA allows states to impose standards more stringent
than those in the Federal program. For those Federal program changes
that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program,
states are not required to modify their programs. See 40 CFR 271.1(i).
This rule is neither less stringent than or a reduction in the scope of
the current Federal program and, therefore, states would be required to
modify their programs to retain authorization to implement and enforce
these regulations.
B. Effective Date
The effective date of today's rule is August 9, 1995. As discussed
above, since today's rule is issued pursuant to HSWA authority, EPA
will regulate the management of the newly identified hazardous wastes
until states are authorized to regulate these wastes. Thus, EPA will
apply Federal regulations to these wastes and to their management in
both authorized and unauthorized states.
C. Section 3010 Notification
Pursuant to RCRA section 3010, the Administrator may require all
persons who handle hazardous wastes to notify EPA of their hazardous
waste management activities within 90 days after the wastes are
identified or listed as hazardous. This requirement may be applied even
to those generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) that have previously notified EPA with respect to
the management of other hazardous wastes. The Agency has decided to
waive this notification requirement for persons who handle wastes that
are covered by today's listings and have already (1) notified EPA that
they manage other hazardous wastes; and (2) received an EPA
identification number. The Agency has waived the notification
requirement in this case because it believes that most, if not all,
persons who manage these wastes have already notified EPA and received
an EPA identification number. However, any person who generates,
transports, treats, stores, or disposes of these wastes and has not
previously received an EPA identification number must obtain an
identification number pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12 to generate, transport,
treat, store, or dispose of these hazardous wastes by May 10, 1995.
D. Generators and Transporters
Persons that generate newly identified hazardous wastes may be
required to obtain an EPA identification number, if they do not already
have one (as discussed in section VI.C, above). In order to be able to
generate or transport these wastes after the effective date of this
rule, generators of the wastes listed today will be subject to the
generator requirements set forth in 40 CFR 262. [[Page 7843]] These
requirements include standards for hazardous waste determination (40
CFR 262.11), compliance with the manifest (40 CFR 262.20 to 262.23),
pretransport procedures (40 CFR 262.30 to 262.34), generator
accumulation (40 CFR 262.34), recordkeeping and reporting (40 CFR
262.40 to 262.44), and import/export procedures (40 CFR 262.50 to
262.60). It should be noted that the generator accumulation provisions
of 40 CFR 262.34 allow generators to accumulate hazardous wastes
without obtaining interim status or a permit only in units that are
container storage units or tank systems; the regulations also place a
limit on the maximum amount of time that wastes can be accumulated in
these units. If these wastes are managed in surface impoundments or
other units that are not tank systems or containers, these units are
subject to the permitting requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 265, and the
generator is required to obtain interim status and seek a permit (or
modify interim status or a permit, as appropriate). Also, persons who
transport newly identified hazardous wastes will be required to obtain
an EPA identification number as described above and will be subject to
the transporter requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 263.
E. Facilities Subject to Permitting
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit Requirements
Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of wastes that are subject
to RCRA regulation for the first time by this rule (that is, facilities
that have not previously received a permit pursuant to section 3005 of
RCRA and are not currently operating pursuant to interim status, might
be eligible for interim status (see section 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) of RCRA,
as amended). In order to obtain interim status based on treatment,
storage or disposal of such newly identified wastes, eligible
facilities are required to provide notice under section 3010 and to
submit a Part A permit application no later than August 9, 1995. Such
facilities are subject to regulation under 40 CFR Part 265 until a
permit is issued.
In addition, under section 3005(e)(3), not later than August 9,
1995, land disposal facilities newly qualifying for interim status
under section 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) also must submit a Part B permit
application and certify that the facility is in compliance with all
applicable groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements. If the facility fails to submit these certifications and
a permit application, interim status will terminate on August 9, 1995.
2. Existing Interim Status Facilities
Pursuant to 40 CFR 270.72(a)(1), all existing hazardous waste
management facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 270.2) that treat, store,
or dispose of the newly identified hazardous wastes and are currently
operating pursuant to interim status under section 3005(e) of RCRA must
file an amended Part A permit application with EPA no later than August
9, 1995. By doing this, the facility may continue managing the newly
listed wastes. If the facility fails to file an amended Part A
application by August 9, 1995, the facility will not receive interim
status for management of the newly listed wastes, and may not manage
newly identified hazardous wastes until the facility receives either a
permit or a change in interim status allowing such activity (40 CFR
270.10(g)).
3. Permitted Facilities
Under regulations promulgated by EPA on September 28, 1988, (see 53
FR 37912), a hazardous waste management facility that has received a
permit pursuant to section 3005 of RCRA and is ``in existence'' as a
hazardous waste facility on the date for the newly listed wastes are
first subject to regulation, may be eligible to continue managing the
new wastes under 40 CFR 270.42(g) while steps necessary to obtain a
permit modification to allow the facility to manage the wastes are
taken. To continue to manage the newly listed hazardous wastes,
eligible facilities must be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 265
requirements with respect to management of the newly listed wastes and
submit a Class 1 modification request no later than August 9, 1995.
This modification is essentially a notification to the Agency that the
facility is handling the waste. As part of the procedure, the permittee
must also notify the public within 90 days of submittal to the Agency.
See 40 CFR 270.42(a).
The permittee must then submit a Class 2 or 3 permit modification
to the Agency by 180 days after the effective date of the listing. A
Class 2 modification is required if the newly listed wastes will be
managed in existing permitted units or in newly regulated tank or
container units and will not require additional or different management
practices than those authorized in the permit. A Class 2 modification
requires the facility owner to provide public notice of the
modification request, a 60 day public comment period, and an informal
meeting between the owner and the public within the 60-day period. The
Class 2 process includes a ``default provision,'' which provides that
if the Agency does not reach a decision within 120 days, the
modification is automatically authorized for 180 days. If the Agency
does not reach a decision by the end of that period, the modification
is permanently authorized. See 40 CFR 270.42(b).
A Class 3 modification is required if management of the newly
listed wastes requires additional or different management practices
than those authorized in the permit or if newly regulated land-based
units are involve. The initial public notification and public meeting
requirements are the same as for Class 2 modifications. However, after
the end of the 60-day public comment period, the Agency will develop a
draft permit modification, open a public comment period of 45 days, and
hold a public hearing if requested. There is no default provision for
Class 3 modifications. See 40 CFR 270.42(c).
Under 40 CFR 270.42(g)(1)(v), for newly regulated land disposal
units, permitted facilities must certify that the facility is in
compliance with all applicable 40 CFR Part 265 ground-water monitoring
and financial responsibility requirements no later than August 9, 1995.
If the facility fails to submit these certifications, authority to
manage the newly listed wastes under 40 CFR 270.42(g) will terminate on
that date.
4. Units
Units in which newly identified hazardous wastes are generated or
managed will be subject to all applicable requirements of 40 CFR 264
for permitted facilities or 40 CFR 265 for interim status facilities,
unless the unit is excluded from such permitting by other provisions
such as the wastewater treatment tank exclusions (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6)
and 265.1(c)(10)), and the product storage tank exclusion (40 CFR
261.4(c)). Examples of units to which these exclusions could never
apply include landfills, land treatment units, waste piles,
incinerators, and any other miscellaneous units in which these wastes
may be generated or managed.
5. Closure
All units in which newly identified hazardous wastes are treated,
stored, or disposed after the effective date of this regulation that
are not excluded from the requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 265 are
subject to both the general closure and post-closure requirements of
subpart G of 40 CFR 264 and 265, and [[Page 7844]] the unit-specific
closure requirements set forth in the applicable unit technical
standards subpart of 40 CFR 264 or 265 (e.g., subpart N for landfill
units). Additionally, EPA recently promulgated a final rule that
allows, under limited circumstances, regulated landfills, surface
impoundments, or land treatment units to cease managing hazardous waste
but to delay Subtitle C closure to allow the unit to continue to manage
non-hazardous waste for a period of time prior to closure of the unit
(see 54 FR 33376, August 14, 1989). Units for which closure is delayed
continue to be subject to all applicable 40 CFR 264 and 265
requirements. Dates and procedures for submittal of necessary
demonstrations, permit applications, and revised applications are
detailed in 40 CFR 264.113 (c) through (e) and 265.113 (c) through (e).
VI. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
All hazardous wastes listed under RCRA and codified in 40 CFR
261.31 through 261.33, as well as any solid waste that exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous waste (as defined in
Sections 261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. See CERCLA Section 101(14)(C). CERCLA
hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along
with their reportable quantities (RQs). RQs are the minimum quantity of
a hazardous substance that, if released, must be reported to the
National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA Sec. 103. In this
rule, the Agency is listing the wastes in this action as CERCLA
hazardous substances in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4. The RQ for each
substance will be one pound as provided by statute for all newly
designated hazardous substances until adjustment is made by regulation.
Reporting Requirements
Under section 102(b) of CERCLA, all hazardous substances newly
designated under CERCLA will have a statutory RQ of one pound unless
and until adjusted by EPA regulation. 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 NRC of the release as soon as that person
has knowledge thereof. The toll free number of the NRC is 1-800-424-
8802; in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, the number is (202) 426-
2675. In addition to this reporting requirement under CERCLA, section
304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA) 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 a 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
response commission of any State likely to be affected by the release.
Releases equal to or greater than the one-pound statutory RQ are
subject to the reporting requirements described above, unless and until
the Agency adjusts the RQs for these substances in a future rulemaking.
The Agency is currently working on a proposed rule to adjust the RQ
values for the constituents in this rule. This rulemaking is on an
expedited schedule in order to minimize the time between the effective
date of this listing and the publication of the adjusted RQs. The
Agency anticipates that the adjusted RQs for many of the hazardous
constituents in this rule will be higher than the statutory one-pound
RQ. Once the RQ adjustment rule is proposed the Agency will take the
proposed adjusted RQs into consideration when contemplating an
enforcement action. It is important to note that while the Agency does
not generally focus its enforcement resources on cases that involve
statutory RQs where adjusted RQs are being promulgated, the Agency may
pursue an enforcement action based on the specific facts of a situation
in a case where an RQ for a hazardous constituent has been exceeded. In
deciding upon an enforcement action under CERCLA for failure to report
a release that equals or exceeds an RQ, the Agency generally considers
the following factors: The quantity and relative toxicity of the
released substance, the actual or threatened human health hazard or
environmental damage, the egregious nature of the responsible party,
the impact of the type of violation upon the regulatory program, the
expected deterrent effort of prosecution, and the status of the
proposed RQ adjustment rulemaking.
Table 3.--One-Pound Statutory RQs for K, P, and U Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory
Waste code Constituent of concern RQ
(pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K156.............. benomyl, carbaryl, carbendazim, carbofuran, carbosulfan, formaldehyde, methylene 1
chloride, triethylamine.
K157.............. carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl 1
chloride, methylene chloride, pyridine, triethylamine.
K158.............. benomyl, carbendazim, carbofuran, carbosulfan, methylene chloride............... 1
K159.............. benzene, butylate, eptc, molinate, pebulate, vernolate.......................... 1
K160.............. benzene, butylate, eptc, molinate, pebulate, vernolate.......................... 1
K161.............. arsenic, antimony, cadmium, metam-sodium, ziram................................. 1
P185.............. 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxime 1
(Tirpate).
U278.............. 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate (Bendiocarb).............. 1
P188.............. Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, compd. with (3as-cis)-1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-l,3a,8- 1
trimethylpyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-yl methylcarbamate ester (1:1) (Physostigmine
salicylate).
P189.............. Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7- 1
benzofuranyl ester (Carbosulfan).
P190.............. Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester (Metolcarb)........................ 1
P191.............. Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1-[(dimethylamino)carbonyl]-5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl 1
ester (Dimetilan).
P192.............. Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester 1
(Isolan).
U409.............. Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester 1
(Thiophanate-methyl).
P194.............. Ethanimidothioc acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, 1
methyl ester (Oxamyl).
U410.............. Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N'-[thiobis[(methylimino)carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl 1
ester (Thiodicarb).
P196.............. Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')- (Manganese 1
dimethyldithiocarbamate).
P197.............. Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- 1
(Formparanate).
P198.............. Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, 1
monohydrochloride (Formetanate hydrochloride).
[[Page 7845]]
P201.............. Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (Promecarb)............... 1
P202.............. Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate)........ 1
P203.............. Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime 1
(Aldicarb sulfone).
P204.............. Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, 1
methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)- (Physostigmine).
P205.............. Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-, (T-4)- (Ziram)....................... 1
U364.............. 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl- (Bendiocarb phenol)......................... 1
U365.............. 1H-Azepine-1-carbothioic acid, hexahydro-, S-ethyl ester (Molinate)............. 1
U366.............. 2H-1,3,5-Thiadiazine-2-thione, tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl- (Dazomet)............... 1
U367.............. 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- (Carbofuran phenol)................... 1
U280.............. Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester (Barban)............. 1
U372.............. Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester (Carbendazim)................. 1
U373.............. Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester (Propham)........................... 1
U271.............. Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-, methyl ester 1
(Benomyl).
U375.............. Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester (3-iodo-2-propynyl n- 1
butylcarbamate).
U376.............. Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, tetraanhydrosulfide with orthothioselenious 1
acid (Selenium, tetrakis(dimethyldithiocarbamate)).
U377.............. Carbamodithioic acid, methyl,- monopotassium salt (Potassium n- 1
methyldithiocarbamate).
U378.............. Carbamodithioic acid, (hydroxymethyl)methyl-, monopotassium salt (Potassium n- 1
hydroxymethyl-n-methyldithiocarbamate).
U379.............. Carbamodithioic acid, dibutyl, sodium salt (Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate)...... 1
U381.............. Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, sodium salt (Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate)..... 1
U277.............. Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, 2-chloro-2-propenyl ester (Sulfallate).......... 1
U382.............. Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, sodium salt (Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate)... 1
U383.............. Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl, potassium salt (Potassium dimethyl 1
dithiocarbamate).
U384.............. Carbamodithioic acid, methyl-, monosodium salt (Metam Sodium)................... 1
U385.............. Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-,S-propyl ester (Vernolate)........................ 1
U386.............. Carbamothioic acid, cyclohexylethyl-, S-ethyl ester (Cycloate).................. 1
U387.............. Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester (Prosulfocarb)............ 1
U389.............. Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester 1
(Triallate).
U390.............. Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester (EPTC)............................. 1
U391.............. Carbamothioic acid, butylethyl-, S-propyl ester (Pebulate)...................... 1
U392.............. Carbamothioic acid, bis(2-methylpropyl)-, S-ethyl ester (Butylate).............. 1
U393.............. Copper, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')- (Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate).... 1
U394.............. Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester (A2213). 1
U395.............. Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, dicarbamate (Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate)............. 1
U396.............. Iron, tris(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')-, (Ferbam)............................ 1
U400.............. Piperidine, 1,1'-(tetrathiodicarbonothioyl)-bis- (Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram 1
tetrasulfide).
U401.............. bis(dimethylthiocarbamoyl) sulfide (Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide)............. 1
U402.............. Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetrabutyl (Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide).......... 1
U403.............. Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetraethyl (Disulfiram)........................... 1
U407.............. Zinc, bis(diethylcarbamodithioato-S,S')- (Ethyl Ziram).......................... 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or 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;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because of policy issues arising out of legal mandates. As such, this
action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record.
IX. Economic Impact Analysis
This section of the preamble summarizes the costs and the economic
impact analysis (EIA) for the carbamate hazardous waste listings. Based
upon the EIA, the Agency estimates that the listing of the six
carbamate production wastes discussed above may result in nationwide
annualized costs of at least $900,000. The previous EIA is available in
the regulatory docket entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis of the
Identification and Listing of Carbamate Production Waste,'' January 27,
1994, (F-94-S0002). The EIA revised in response to comment is available
in the regulatory docket and is entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis of
the Identification and Listing of Carbamate Production Wastes,''
October 26, 1994.
A. Compliance Costs for Listings
The remainder of this section briefly describes (1) the universe of
carbamate production facilities and volumes of carbamate production
wastes in the 6 waste groups listed, (2) the methodology for
determining incremental cost and economic impacts to regulated
entities, and (3) the regulatory flexibility analysis.
1. Universe of Carbamate Production Facilities and Waste Volumes
In order to estimate costs for the EIA, it was first necessary to
estimate total annual generation of carbamate production wastes. The
domestic carbamate production industry is composed of 64 chemical
products produced by 20 manufacturers at 24 facilities. Total annual
waste quantities generated by these facilities were derived from a 1990
survey of the carbamate production industry.
2. Method for Determining Cost and Economic Impacts
This section details EPA's approach for estimating the incremental
compliance cost and the economic impacts attributable to the listing of
carbamate production waste. Because the carbamate production industry
is relatively small (only 20 manufacturers at 24 facilities in 1990),
EPA was able to collect facility-specific information and estimate
incremental costs at the waste stream level. The information used in
this analysis was collected in 1990 under the authority of a RCRA
section 3007 survey; the survey included engineering site visits, and
sampling and analysis of waste streams.
Approach to the Cost Analysis
EPA's approach to the cost analysis for this rule was to compare
the cost of current management practices, as reported in the 3007
survey of carbamate production facilities, with the projected cost of
management to comply with the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program.
This difference in cost, when annualized,\3\ represents the incremental
annual compliance cost attributable to the rule. [[Page 7846]]
\3\Costs are discounted at a rate of 7 percent over a 20 year
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline or Current Management Scenario
Relying on survey responses and engineering site visits, EPA was
able to determine the current (i.e., 1990) management practices for the
handling and disposal of carbamate production wastes. Current
management practices varied among facilities and waste streams, and
included such practices as off-site incineration, deep-well disposal,
on-site destruction in boilers, and off-site landfilling. These current
management practices at each facility represent the baseline scenario
of the analysis.
As part of the 3007 survey, EPA asked each facility to identify
current costs for the management of carbamate production wastes. For
this analysis, EPA has relied on and has not changed the industry's own
waste-specific estimates concerning the cost of current management. EPA
realizes that future events such as waste minimization efforts or
increased demand for carbamate products may change waste generation
volumes and, thus, future waste management costs.
Post-Regulatory Management Scenarios
In predicting how industry would comply with the listing of
carbamate production waste as RCRA hazardous waste, EPA developed nine
post-regulatory management scenarios, described below, that represent
reasonable management reactions on the part of industry. EPA developed
these post-regulatory management categories based on its knowledge of
current waste management and the physical and chemical properties of
the waste.
Unit costs for Subtitle C treatment (i.e., incineration) or land
disposal, waste transportation between facilities, permit
modifications, maintenance of contingency plans, manifesting and
biannual reporting system (BRS) reporting are contained in Table 4
below. The total volume of waste affected by each waste management
category described above are presented below in Table 5.
Table 4.--Post-Regulatory Waste Management Unit Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (1992 $) Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial hazardous waste $1,600 per metric ton SAIC/ICF analysis.
incineration.
Commercial hazardous waste $200 per metric ton.. SAIC/ICF analysis.
landfill.
Hazardous waste $0.27 per metric ton SAIC analysis.
transportation. per mile if under
200 miles.
$0.24 per metric ton
per mile if over 200
miles.
Class II on-site hazardous $80,102.............. ICF analysis.
waste landfill permit
modification\4\.
Class II on-site hazardous $40,585.............. ICF analysis.
waste incinerator permit
modification\5\.
Other class II on-site $7,476............... ICF analysis.
hazardous waste treatment
permit modification.
Segregation of industrial $10 per metric ton... EPA estimate.
Subtitle D waste.
Maintenance of contingency $200 per facility per Source a.
plan. year.
Manifesting\5\............ $36 per shipment..... Sources b, c.
BRS reporting............. $428 per facility per Sources c, d.
year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Permit modification costs were assumed to be incurred no more than
once for each type of treatment at each facility. These costs were
annualized over 20 years using a discount rate of 7 percent.
\5\Manifest completion costs were assumed to be incurred once a year for
each waste shipped off site. One shipment was assumed to equal one
truckload of 20 tons.
Sources: a. ``Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Non-
compliance,'' Draft Report prepared by DPRA for Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1993.
b. ICF No. 801 ``Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste
Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest
System,'' June 15, 1992.
c. Employment and Earnings, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1993.
d. ``1991 Hazardous Waste Report,'' U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
[[Page 7847]]
Table 5.--Total Carbamate Production Waste Quantities and Total
Incremental Annual Cost Incurred by Each Post-Regulatory Waste
Management Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
quantity
of Total
carbamate annualized
Post-regulatory waste management scenario production incremental
waste cost
affected incurred
(in metric
tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MC 1........................................... 234,000 $25,600
MC 2........................................... 6,400 8,200
MC 3........................................... 1 700
MC 4........................................... 809,900 776,700
MC 5 and 6..................................... 2,700 200
MC 7........................................... 0 20
MC 8 and 9..................................... 240 68,100
MC 10.......................................... 4,100 41,000
-------------
Totala..................................... 840,000 910,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aNumbers may not add due to rounding.
Specific Analysis of K157 Wastewaters
EPA examined two scenarios for the post-regulatory management of
K157 wastewaters that do not meet the concentration-based exemption.
The first scenario assumed that K157 wastewaters would continue to be
sent through NPDES-permitted discharges or to POTWs, but that (1)
sludge would be managed as hazardous waste, and (2) surface
impoundments would be closed and converted to tanks. The second
scenario assumed that wastewaters would be treated by steam stripping
before discharge into centralized wastewater treatment systems.
For the first K157 wastewater scenario, EPA reviewed the
information collected as part of the RCRA section 3007 survey. The
facility-specific information shows that only two facilities employ
operational surface impoundments (as of 1990). EPA calculated the costs
associated with the closure of the surface impoundments and conversion
to tanks. The EIA technical background document contains details of
these cost calculations. EPA estimated that the costs associated with
the first scenario to be approximately $760,000 per year.
For the second K157 wastewater scenario, EPA explored the
possibility of off-site steam stripping as well as constructing on-site
steam stripping units. EPA calculated rough engineering cost estimates
for the on-site systems, both for capital costs and annual operation
and maintenance. For volumes generated by these facilities
(approximately 400 tons), EPA estimated the total annualized cost of
off-site steam stripping6. The total estimated annualized cost for
scenario two is $6.4 million.
\6\Recent vendor quotes of off-site steam-stripping showed a
cost of $0.75 per gallon (approximately $200 per metric ton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the K157 incremental annualized cost of scenario two is
more than eight times that of scenario one, EPA assumed that industry
would minimize its cost by adopting the lower-cost management7.
The costs estimated for scenario one have been used in the total costs
for K157 wastes reported below.
\7\EPA also considered facility specific comparisons between
scenarios one and two. It should be noted that, under scenario one,
given the worst possible case (conversion of three surface
impoundments, one tank cover and sludge disposal) costs were still
favorable to those that would be incurred by the same facility under
scenario two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. P and U List Wastes
EPA has obtained its estimate of the amount of P and U wastes
generated annually by the carbamate producers from the 1990 RCRA
Section 3007 Survey. The $10,000 cost associated with managing the 40
metric tons reported in the survey represents a lower-bound cost
because it does not include wastes generated by pesticide formulators
or distributors.
4. Potential Remedial Action Costs
In addition to carbamate process wastes, the carbamate hazardous
waste listing could affect the management of soils, ground water, and
other remedial materials. The Agency's ``contained in'' policy defines
certain remediation wastes ``containing'' a listed hazardous waste as a
RCRA hazardous waste (See Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 869 F.2d
1526, D.C.C, 1989). Sites, where in newly identified hazardous wastes
have been managed prior to the effective date of the new listings, may
still have contaminant concentrations which exceed ``contained in''
levels. A person who actively manages such material could become a
generator of RCRA hazardous waste. The likelihood of this imposing a
significant additional burden is low since at least 22 of 24 carbamate
production facilities are already permitted TSDFs. Releases from all
solid waste management units at these TSDFs, including those that in
the future would be found to contain a waste meeting the carbamate
listing descriptions, are already covered by facility-wide corrective
action under 40 CFR 264.101. These associated costs e.g., RCRA Facility
Assessment have already been accounted for in the regulatory impact
analysis of the corrective action rule.
One corrective action-related cost that should be accounted for is
the possible clean up cost associated with the out-of-service surface
impoundment that become solid waste management units following their
replacement with tanks. In the worst-case, facilities generating K157
wastewaters will meet the concentration-based exemption and will
abandon their surface impoundments following this listing. To calculate
the corrective action costs, EPA has assumed clean closure in year one,
with costs annualized over 20 years. To the clean closure costs, EPA
has added the value of the abandoned land. Under these assumptions,
annualized corrective action costs associated with this rule making
total $472,000. If, however, the K157 wastewaters and all wastewaters
derived from the treatment of K156 and comanaged with K157 wastes
qualify for the concentration-based exemption, the corrective action
costs are reduced to $12,000 annually.
5. Summary of Results
Table 6 presents a summary of estimated national incremental
annualized compliance costs, by newly identified hazardous waste
number, associated with this rule.
Table 6.--Annualized Incremental Compliance Cost for the Listing of
Carbamate Production Wastes Listed by Corresponding RCRA Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual incremental
RCRA waste code compliance cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K156................................................ $14,000
K157................................................ 10,000-770,000
K158................................................ 37,000
K159................................................ 1,200
K160................................................ 2,100
K161................................................ 61,000
P & U............................................... 10,000
Total........................................... 140,000-900,000a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aFigures may not sum exactly because of rounding. Corrective action may
add $12,000 to the lower bound costs and $472,000 to the upper bound
costs.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires federal
agencies to consider ``small entities'' throughout the regulatory
process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determine whether small entities will be affected by
the regulation. If affected small entities are identified, regulatory
alternatives must be considered which mitigate the potential impacts.
Small entities as described in the Act are only those ``businesses,
organizations and [[Page 7848]] governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.''
If, however, the head of the Agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Table 7 presents the estimated annualized incremental compliance
costs borne by the five small businesses\8\ in the carbamate production
industry. The annual incremental cost of the rule for the five
facilities ranged from $628 to $772. The greatest ratio of compliance
cost to sales is 0.01%, thus, EPA concluded that no small businesses
are significantly affected by this rule.
\8\A small business is defined by the Small Business Size
Regulations (13 CFR part 121) as one with under 500 employees.
Table 7.--Results of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost
Annual of
incremental Annual compliance/
Facility cost of sales annual
rule (millions) sales
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. $772 $17.8 + No. Category (Kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
1H-Azepine-1- 2212671 .................... 1* 4 U365 .......... # #
carbothioic acid,
hexahydro-, S-ethyl
ester (Molinate).
* * * * * *
*
1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 22961826 .................... 1* 4 U364 .......... # #
2,2-dimethyl-,
(Bendiocarb phenol).
1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 22781233 .................... 1* 4 U278 .......... # #
2,2-dimethyl-, methyl
carbamate
(Bendiocarb).
* * * * * *
*
7-Benzofuranol, 2,3- 1563388 .................... 1* 4 U367 .......... # #
dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-
(Carbofuran phenol).
* * * * * *
*
Benzoic acid, 2- 57647 .................... 1* 4 P188 .......... # #
hydroxy-, compd. with
(3aS-cis)-
1,2,3,3a,8,8a-
hexahydro-1,3a,8-
trimethylpyrrolo[2,3-
b]indol-5-yl
methylcarbamate ester
(1:1) (Physostigmine
salicylate).
* * * * * *
*
Bis(dimethylthiocarbam 97745 .................... 1* 4 U401 .......... # #
oyl) sulfide
(Tetramethylthiuram
monosulfide).
* * * * * *
*
Carbamic acid, butyl-, 55406536 .................... 1* 4 U375 .......... # #
3-iodo-2-propynyl
ester (3-iodo-2-
propynyl n-
butylcarbamate).
Carbamic acid, [1- 17804352 .................... 1* 4 U271 .......... # #
[(butylamino)carbonyl
]-1H-benzimidazol-2-
yl, methyl ester
(Benomyl).
Carbamic acid, 1H- 10605217 .................... 1* 4 U372 .......... # #
benzimidazol-2-yl,
methyl ester
(Carbendazim).
Carbamic acid, (3- 101279 .................... 1* 4 U280 .......... # #
chlorophenyl)-, 4-
chloro-2-butynyl
ester (Barban).
Carbamic acid, 55285148 .................... 1* 4 P189 .......... # #
[(dibutylamino)thio]m
ethyl-, 2,3-dihydro-
2,2-dimethyl-7-
benzofuranyl ester
(Carbosulfan).
Carbamic acid, 644644 .................... 1* 4 P191 .......... # #
dimethyl-,1-
[(dimethylamino)carbo
nyl]-5-methyl-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl ester
(Dimetilan).
Carbamic acid, 119380 .................... 1* 4 P192 .......... # #
dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-
(1-methylethyl)-1H-
pyrazol-5-yl ester
(Isolan).
[[Page 7857]]
* * * * * *
*
Carbamic acid, methyl- 1129415 .................... 1* 4 P190 .......... # #
, 3-methylphenyl
ester (Metolcarb).
Carbamic acid, [1,2- 23564058 .................... 1* 4 U409 .......... # #
phenylenebis(iminocar
bonothioyl)]bis-,
dimethyl ester
(Thiophanate-methyl).
Carbamic acid, phenyl- 122429 .................... 1* 4 U373 .......... # #
, 1-methylethyl ester
(Propham).
* * * * * *
*
Carbamodithioic acid, 136301 .................... 1* 4 U379 .......... # #
dibutyl, sodium salt
(Sodium
dibutyldithiocarbamat
e).
Carbamodithioic acid, 95067 .................... 1* 4 U277 .......... # #
diethyl-, 2-chloro-2-
propenyl ester
(Sulfallate).
Carbamodithioic acid, 148185 .................... 1* 4 U381 .......... # #
diethyl-, sodium salt
(Sodium
diethyldithiocarbamat
e).
Carbamodithioic acid, 128030 .................... 1* 4 U383 .......... # #
dimethyl, potassium
salt (Potassium
dimethyldithiocarbama
te).
Carbamodithioic acid, 128041 .................... 1* 4 U382 .......... # #
dimethyl-, sodium
salt (Sodium
dimethyldithiocarbama
te).
Carbamodithioic acid, 144343 .................... 1* 4 U376 .......... # #
dimethyl-,
tetraanhydrosulfide
with
orthothioselenious
acid (Selenium,
tetrakis(dimethyldith
iocarbamate)).
Carbamodithioic acid, 51026289 .................... 1* 4 U378 .......... # #
(hydroxymethyl)methyl-
, monopotassium salt
(Potassium n-
hydroxymethyl-n-
methyldithiocarbamate
).
Carbamodithioic acid, 137417 .................... 1* 4 U377 .......... # #
methyl,-
monopotassium salt
(Potassium n-
methyldithiocarbamate
).
Carbamodithioic acid, 137428 .................... 1* 4 U384 .......... # #
methyl-, monosodium
salt (Metam Sodium).
* * * * * *
*
Carbamothioic acid, 2008415 .................... 1* 4 U392 .......... # #
bis(2-methylpropyl)-,
S-ethyl ester
(Butylate).
* * * * * *
*
Carbamothioic acid, 2303175 .................... 1* 4 U389 .......... # #
bis(1-methylethyl)-,
S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-
propenyl) ester
(Triallate).
Carbamothioic acid, 1114712 .................... 1* 4 U391 .......... # #
butylethyl-, S-propyl
ester (Pebulate).
Carbamothioic acid, 1134232 .................... 1* 4 U386 .......... # #
cyclohexylethyl-, S-
ethyl ester
(Cycloate).
Carbamothioic acid, 759944 .................... 1* 4 U390 .......... # #
dipropyl-, S-ethyl
ester (EPTC).
Carbamothioic acid, 52888809 1* 4 U387 # #
dipropyl-, S-
(phenylmethyl) ester
(Prosulfocarb).
Carbamothioic acid, 1929777 1* 4 U385 # #
dipropyl-, S-propyl
ester (Vernolate).
* * * * * *
*
Copper, 137291 1* 4 U393 # #
bis(dimethylcarbamodi
thioato-S,S')-(Cooper
dimethyldithiocarbama
te).
* * * * * *
*
1,3-Dithiolane-2- 26419738 1* 4 P185 # #
carboxaldehyde, 2,4-
dimethyl-, O-
[(methylamino)carbony
l]oxime (Tirpate).
* * * * * *
*
Ethanimidothioci acid, 30558431 1* 4 U394 # #
2-(dimethylamino-N-
hydroxy-2-oxo-,
methyl ester (A2213).
* * * * * *
*
Ethanimidothoic acid, 23135220 1* 4 P194 # #
2-(dimethylamino)-N-
[[(methylamino)carbon
yl]oxy]-2-oxo-,
methyl ester (Oxamyl).
* * * * * *
*
Ethanimidothioic acid, 59669260 1* 4 U410 # #
N,N'-
[thiobis[(methylimino
)carbonyloxy]]bis-
,dimethyl ester
(Thiodicarb).
[[Page 7858]]
* * * * * *
*
Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, 5952261 1* 4 U395 # #
dicarbamate
(Diethylene glycol,
dicarbamate).
* * * * * *
*
Iron, 14484641 1* 4 U396 # #
tris(dimethylcarbamod
ithioato-S,S')-
(Ferbam).
* * * * * *
*
Manganese, 15339363 1* 4 P196 # #
bis(dimethylcarbamodi
thioato-S,S')-
(Manganese
dimethyldithiocarbama
te).
* * * * * *
*
Methanimidamide, N,N- 23422539 1* 4 P198 # #
dimethyl-N'-[3-
[[(methylamino)carbon
yl]oxylphenyl]-,
monohydrochioride
(Formetanate
hydrochloride).
* * * * * *
*
Methanimidamide, N,N- 17702577 1* 4 P197 # #
dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-
4-
[[(methylamino)carbon
yl]oxy]phenyl]-
(Formparanate).
* * * * * *
*
Phenol, 3-(1- 64006 1* 4 P202 # #
methylethyl)-, methyl
carbamate (m-Cumenyl
methylcarbamate).
* * * * * *
*
Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1- 2631370 1* 4 P201 # #
methylethyl)-, methyl
carbamate (Promecarb).
* * * * * *
*
Piperidine, 1,1'- 120547 1* 4 U400 # #
(tetrathiodicarbonoth
ioyl)-bis-
(Bis(pentamenthylene)
thiuram tetrasulfide).
* * * * * *
*
Propanal, 2-methyl-2- 1646884 1* 4 P203 # #
(methylsulfonyl)-, O-
[(methylamino)carbony
l] oxime (Aldicarb
sulfone).
* * * * * *
*
Pyrrolo[2,3-b] indol-5- 57476 1* 4 P204 # #
ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-
hexahydro-1,3a,8-
trimethyl-,
methylcarbamate
(ester), (3aS-cis)-
(Physostigmine.
* * * * * *
*
2H-1,3,5-Thiadiazine-2- 533744 1* 4 U366 # #
thione, tetrahydro-
3,5-dimethyl-
(Dazomet).
* * * * * *
*
Thioperoxydicarbonic 1634022 1* 4 U402 # #
diamide, tetrabutyl
(Tetrabutylthiuram
disulfide).
Thioperoxydicarbonic 97778 .................... 1* 4 U403 .......... # #
diamide, tetraethyl
(Disulfiram).
* * * * * *
*
Zinc, 137304 1* 4 P205 # #
bis(dimethylcarbomodi
thioato-S,S')-,
(Ziram).
Zinc, 14324551 1* 4 U407 # #
bis(diethylcarbamodit
hioato-S,S')-(Ethyl
Ziram).
* * * * * *
*
K156 Organic waste 1* 4 K156 # #
(including heavy
ends, still bottoms,
light ends, spent
solvents, filtrates,
and decantates) from
the production of
carbamates and
carbamoyl oximes.
K157 Wastewaters 1* 4 K157 # #
(including scrubber
waters, condenser
waters, washwaters,
and separation
waters) from the
production of
carbamates and
carbamoyl oximes
(This listing does
not include sludges
derived from the
treatment of these
wastewaters).
K158 Bag house dusts 1* 4 K158 # #
and filter/separation
solids from the
production of
carbamates and
carbamoyl oximes.
K159 Organics from 1* 4 K159 # #
the treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
[[Page 7859]]
K160 Solids 1* 4 K160 # #
(including filter
wastes, separation
solids, and spent
catalysts) from the
production of
thiocarbamates and
solids from the
treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
K160 Purification 1* 4 K161 # #
solids (including
filtration,
evaporation, and
centrifugation
solids), bag house
dust, and floor
sweepings from the
production of
dithiocarbamate acids
and their salts (This
listing does not
include K125 or
K126.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+--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.
[FR Doc. 95-2983 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.