federal register vol. no. monday, january 14, 1985 rules ......by april 15, 1985 and a part a permit...

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 270, and

775

[SWN-FRL 2701-3]

Hazardous Waste ManagementSystem; Dioxin-Containing Wastes

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is today amending theregulations for hazardous wastemanagement under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA), by listing as hazardous wastescertain wastes containing particularchlorinated dioxins, -dibenzofurans, and-phenols, and by specifying a nagementstandards for these wastes. Thesewastes are being listed as acutehazardous wastes. Because of thisaction, we are removing severalcommercial chemical products from thelist of hazardous wastes contained in 40CFR 261.33, since these listings areduplicative. For the same reason, EPA isrevoking the regulation concerning thedisposal of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)-contaminated wastesunder the Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) when the regulation underRCRA becomes effective. The effect ofthis rule will be to subject these dioxin-containing wastes to the hazardouswaste regulations issued under RCRA.DATES: Effective date: The RCRAhazardous waste regulation becomeseffective on July 15, 1985 while theTSCA rule concerning the disposal ofTCDD-contaminated wastes is revokedon July 15, 1985.

Compliance dates: All persons(including those who have previouslynotified the Agency under Section 3010of RCRA) who generate, transport, treat,store, or dispose of the wastes listedtoday are required to notify EPA or aState authorized by EPA to operate thehazardous waste program of theiractivities under Section 3010 no laterthan April 15, 1985. Notificationinstructions are set forth in 45 FR 12746(February 26, 1980).1

' Under the Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of1980 (Pub. L. 96-452 (October 21,1980)). EPA wasgiven the option of waiving the notificationrequirement under Section 3010 of RCRA, followingrevision of the Section 3001 regulations, at thediscretion of the Administrator. In this instance, webelieve that all persons handling or managing thesewastes need to notify the Agency because of theextreme toxicity of these wastes. Therefore, ollpersons, including those individuals who haveprevioulsy notified EPA that they generate or

All existing hazardous wastemanagement facilities (as defined in 40CFR 270.2) which treat, store, or disposeof wastes listed in these regulations andwhich qualify to manage these wastesunder interim status under Section3005(e) of RCRA must file with EPA or aState authorized by EPA to operate thehazardous waste program a notificationby April 15, 1985 and a Part A permitapplication by July 15, 1985. Facilitieswhich have already qualified for interimstatus will not be allowed to manage thewastes listed in these regulations afterJuly 15, 1985 unless: (1) The regulationallows them to handle such wastesunder interim status, (2) they file anotification with EPA or an authorizedState by April 15, 1985 and (3) theysubmit an amended Part A permitapplication with EPA or an authorizedState by July 15, 1985 (see 40 CFR270.10(g)).ADDRESSES: Public Docket: The publicdocket for 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265,and 270 is located in Room S-212A, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, andis available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding holidays.

The public docket for 40 CFR Part 775is located in Room E-107 at the sameaddress, and is available for viewingduring the same hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-9346or (202) 382-3000. For technicalinformation contact: Dr. Judith S. Bellin,Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B),Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,(202) 382-4787.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundII. Summary of RegulationIII. Wastes Subject to This Regulation

A. Wastes Containing Tetra- andPentachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and-dibenzofurans

B. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ManufacturingWastes1. Standards for Determining if WastesAre Acute Hazardous Wastes2. Whether Wastes From the Productionand Manufacturing Use ofPentachlorophenol (PCP) Should BeClassified as Acute Hazardous Waste3. Toxicity of PCP as a Measure of theWastes' Toxicity4. Changing the Regulatory Status ofDiscarded PCP Formulations5. Alternative Basis for Establishing a 1kg per Month Small Quantity Generator(SQG) Exclusion Limit

handle other hazardous wastes, must notify EPAthat they are generating or handling these dioxin-containing wastes.

6. Regulation of wastes from equipmentpreviously used in production ormanufacturing use of PCP

C. Wastes generated on equipmentpreviously used in the production andmanufacturing use of tri- and tetra-chlorophenols1. Scope of the Listing2. Practicality of the Listing& Economic Burden4. Historical Documentation

D. Hexachlorophene Manufacturing WasteIV. Management Alternatives and

RequirementsA. Land Disposal and Storage of TheseWastes1. Management of Dioxin Wastes atInterim Status Facilities

a. Prohibitions on Managementb. Interim status Facilities Allowed To

Manage these wastes2. Requirement of a Waste ManagementPlan3. Prohibiting Land Disposal of TheseWastes4. Secondary Containment at PermittedTank and Container Storage Facilities

B. Incineration of Dioxin-ContaminatedWastes1. Burning at Interim Status Incinerators2. Burning at Fully Permitted Incinerators

a. Alternative DRE for Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes

b. Requirements for Conducting a TrialBurn for These Wastes

c. Special Notification to the RegionalAdministrator

d. Periodic Compliance Tests3. Amendments to Parts 264 and 265

C. Burning at Interim Status ThermalTreatment Facilities

V. Relation of this Rule to Regulation ofTCDD-Contaminated Wastes Under theToxic Substances Control Act

V1. Comments on Other IssuesA. Development of a Toxicity

Characteristic for Defining Dioxin-Contaminated Wastes as Hazardous

B. Discarded Unused FormulationsC. Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct cleanup activities

D. Other Wastes Containing CDDs andCDFs

E. Wastes Containing Other HalogenatedDioxins and Dibenzofurans

F. Small Quantity Generator CommentsG. Comments on Reuse and Recycling IssueH. Applicability of the Mixture RuleI. Comments on the Analytical Method and

the Background DocumentVII. Relation of this Regulation to Those

Promulgated Under CERCLA section102(b) (Reportable Quantities)

VIII. State AuthorityIX. Economic, Environmental, and Regulatory

ImpactsA. Regulatory Impact AnalysisB. Regulatory Flexibility ActC. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

X. ReferencesX. List of Subjects

1978

HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 1978 1985

This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.


I. Background

On April 4, 1983, EPA proposed toamend the regulations for hazardouswaste management under RCRA bylisting as acute hazardous wastes 2certain wastes containing particularchlorinated dioxins, -dibenzofurans, and-phenols, and by specifying certainmanagement standards for these wastes(see 48 FR 14514-14529). Some of thesematerials already are hazardous wastesunder 40 CFR 261.33(f), a provisionwhich lists discarded commercial grade,technical grade, off-specificationproducts, and discarded formulationswhen the toxicant is present as the soleactive ingredient. Since we proposed tolist these wastes as acute hazardouswastes, we also proposed to deleteseveral commercial chemical products(i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. U212,U230, U231, U232, U233, and U242) fromthe list of hazardous wastes containedin 40 CFR 261.33(f) in order to avoidlisting the same waste under twodifferent (and inconsistent) provisions.Finally, EPA proposed to revoke itsregulation concerning the disposal of2,3,7,8-TCDD contaminated wastesunder TSCA when the RCRA regulationbecomes effective.

EPA requested comments on allaspects of the proposed regulation. Theagency has evaluated these commentsand has accordingly modified theregulations as well as the supportingdocumentation. This notice finalizes theregulation proposed on April 4, 1983,and outlines EPA's response to many ofthe comments received on that proposal.(The Agency's response to the othercomments are set forth in the revisedBackground Document for this listing.)The Agency also notes that theproposed regulation was validated byCongress in the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Inparticular, the bill requires EPA tofinalize the "dioxin-containinghazardous waste numbered F020, F021,F022, and F023 (as referred to in theproposed rule published by theAdministrator in the Federal Register onApril 4, 1983)" within six months of thebills enactment (Section 222(a)). In

The RCRA definition of acute hazardous wasteis set forth at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). Under thatdefinition, a material is not necessarily "acutelytoxic" in the way that term is used by toxicologists.Rather, the term is intended by EPA to identifywastes that are so hazardous that they may, eitherthrough acute or chronic exposure "cause, orsignificantly contribute to an increase in seriousirreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness"regardless of how they are managed. Wastes withparticularly low LD50 or LC50 toxicities, or wastescontaining substantial concentrations of potentcarcinogens, are the most likely candidates forlisting as acute hazardous wastes (see 45 FR 33106-33107, May 19, 1980).

addition, Section 201(e) of the lawrequires EPA to consider prohibiting theland disposal of the proposed listings.(The prohibition on land disposal isrebuttable under certain circumstances.)

II. Summary of the Regulation 3

This regulation designates as RCRAacute hazardous wastes process wastesfrom the manufacturing use of tetra-,penta-, or hexachlorobenzenes underalkalineconditions; wastes from (heproduction and manufacturing use oftri-, tetra-, and pentachloro-phenols andtheir chlorophenoxy derivatives; 4 anddiscarded unused formulationscontaining tri-, tetra-, andpentachlorophenols or formulationscontaining compounds derived fromthese chlorophenols. Also listed arewastes that are generated in the courseof a manufacturing process performedon equipment previously used for suchoperations, except where the equipmentwas used only for the manufacture orformulation of pentachlorphenol (PCP)or its derivatives. The wastes coveredby this rule include reactor residues, stillbottoms, brines, spent filter aids, spentcarbon from product purification, andsludges from wastewater treatment, butdo not include untreated wastewater orspent carbon from hydrogen chloridepurification.

As a consequence, these wastes willall be subject to the 1 kg per monthsmall quantity generator exclusion limit.See 40 CFR 261.5(e) and 261.30(d).Residues in containers that containthese listed wastes are also regulatedunder subtitle C of RCRA, unless thecontainer has been triple-rinsed using asolvent capable of removing the waste,or the container has been otherwisecleaned by a method that thas beenshown to achieve equivalent removal.See § 261.7(b)(3) 5 In addition, soils

3The following acronyms and definitions are usedin this document (and in the Background Documentfor this regulation):

PCDDs=all isomers of all chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins.

PCDFs =all isomers of all chlorinateddibenzofurans.CDDs and CDFs= all isomers of the tera-, penta-,

and hexacholoro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and-dibenzofurans, respectively.'

TCDDs and TCDFs= all isomers of thetetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans,respectively.

TCDD and TCDF= the respective 2,3,7,8,-isomers.The prefixes D, Tr, T, Pe, and Hx denote the di-,

tri-, tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodioxin and.dibenzofuran congeners, respectively,4

The proposed regulation specified thesederivatives as the chlorophenoxy acids, esters, andamine salts, but omitted reference to etherderivatives and other (e.g., alkaline) salts. Thisinadvertent omission is rectified in the finalregulation.

5 If the container is cleaned, the container wouldbe considered empty and no longer subject to

contaminated with these wastes are alsoregulated since soils contaminated byhazardous wastes spills are defined asbeing in the RCRA system.

These wastes also will be subject tospecial standards when land disposed,incinerated, or stored. Since thesewastes will now be subject to regulationunder RCRA, we are also revoking theTSCA dioxin rule.

III. Wastes Subject to This Regulation

EPA proposed to list as acutehazardous wastes process wastes fromthe manufacture of tetra-, penta-, orhexachlorobenzenes under alkalineconditions; wastes from the productionand manufacturing use of tri-, tetra-, orpentachlorophenols and theirchlorophenoxy derivatives; anddiscarded unused formulationscontaining tri-, tetra-, andpentachlorophenols or formulationscontaining compounds derived fromthese chlorophenols. We also proposedto list wastes resulting from theproduction of materials on equipmentpreviously used for such operations.This section of the preamble discussesthe comments received on the listing ofthese wastes as acute hazardouswastes, as well as our response.

A. Wastes Containing Tetra- andPentachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins and-dibenzofurans

In listing these wastes as acutehazardous wastes, EPA reliedprincipally upon the presence, insignificant concentrations, of CDDs andCDFs in the wastes, and to a lesserextent on the presence of certainchlorophenols and chlorobenzenes. TheCDDs and CDFs are, for certain animalspecies, the most potent man-madetoxicants known. These wastes alsohave been associated with some of themost serious hazardous waste damageincidents known, including those atLove Canal (NY), and at Times Beach(MO).

The levels of TCDD in these wastesare of concern in terms of the potentialfor serious harm to human health if theyare released to water or air, either insoluble form or adsorbed to soilparticulates. Based on its carcinogenicpotential, the Water Quality Criterionfor 2,3,7,8-TCDD is 10"-10 "7 ppb (U.S.EPA, 1978b). This value is a very smallfraction (about 10- 19 of theconcentratiorn of TCDDs in the listedwastes.

regulation. However. the rinsate that is generatedwould be an acute hazardous waste, and, thus,subject to regulation. See 45 FR at 78528 (November25,1980). ,

1979




Commenters did not seriouslychallenge that production wastescontaining TCDDs and TCDFs wereproperly listed. We therefore areadopting these listings as final today.Challenges to EPA's decision to listwastes generated on equipmentpreviously used to produce wastescontaining TCDDs and TCDFs arediscussed in Section C. of this sectionthe preamble.

Several respondents, however, didcomment on EPA's use of structure/activity relationships in its decision tolist all CDDs and CDFs as toxicants ofconcern, stating that it is ncitscientifically valid to consider all theCDDs and CDFs as having the sametoxicologic properties, and that there aspecies-specific exceptions to thecorrelations cited between biochemicaendpoints and toxicity. Severalcommenters also suggested that EPA'sreliance on the case of EDF v. EPA (59,F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir., 1978), cited in'partiEsupport for EPA's determination, isincorrect. The commenters stated thatthe court's determination in the case aEDF v. EPA (which involvedpolychlorinated biphenyls) (PCBs)allowed EPA to infer toxicity based onstructure-activity relationships becausthe congeneric composition of the PCBmixture was not known; and becausethe toxic characteristic of all thecongeners was not known.

EPA agrees with the commenters thtthere is considerable variation in theacute and chronic toxicity, as well as ithe biochemical activity of the variousCDD and CDF congeners and isomers.We alluded to these differences in thepreamble to the proposal. See 48 FR14515, April 4, 1983. In addition, thesedifferences were noted both in thebackground document and in the healtand environmental effects profiles.However, we continue to judge that,because most of the isomers of the listCDDs and CDFs are very toxic, albeitdifferent degrees, and because theAgency believes that most of thesewastes contain a certain percentage athe most toxic (TCDD) component, it itappropriate and permissible to rely, inpart, on the known structure/activityrelationships to establish the potentialtoxicity of these wastes.6

It should also be noted that theAgency is not evaluating the toxicity cthe HxCDD and HxCDF congeners-ttchlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofuran

6 We also believe that the identification ofindividual isomers in the waste (i.e., analyze thewaste for the specific dioxin and dibenzofuranisomers) would be quite costly and unnecessarybecause of the toxic nature of the dioxin anddibenzofuran isomers.

most prevalent in wastes.from PCPproduction and manufacturing use-solely by reference to structuralsimilarity with TCDD and TCDF. Rather,we have made an independentassessment of the toxicity of theHxCDDs, and believe that they are alsovery potent carcinogens, albeit lesspotent than TCDID. We are, however,

f relying on structure/activityrelationships in stating that all forms ofHxCDDs and HxCDFs are constitutentsof concern.

B. Pentachlorophenol (PCP)Manufacturing Wastes

1. Standards for Determining if WastesAre Acute Hazardous Wastes

re Before challenging the Agency'ssubstantive determinations, somecommenters argued that EPA does nothave the authority to regulate thedesignated wastes as acute hazardouswastes under 40 CFR 261.31. In

tI particular, these commenters argue thatthe criteria cited in the regulation forlisting acute hazardous waste (see 40CFR 261.11(a)(2)) allows EPA to classifyas acute hazardous wastes only thosewastes which meet all of the criteria setforth, and that the criterion.that such a

e waste be "capable of causing orsignificantly contributing to an increasein serious irreversible, or incapacitatingreversible illness" is impermissiblyvague.

kt We believe that the commenters havemisinterpreted the cited regulation. The

n regulation (40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)) clearlystates that a waste is considered to bean acute hazardous waste if its acutetoxicity meets the criteria for acutelethality as defined in 40 CFR261.11(a)(2), or if it can cause orcontribute to serious irreversible illness.

h The regulations do not state that anacute hazardous waste must meet all ofthe listed criteria; the conjunction "or" is

ad employed. As to the lack ofto definitiveness of the qualitative

criterion, the regulation quotes thestatutory standard verbatim. No one haschallenged the statutory provision( (Section 1004(5)(A)).as impermissiblyvague, nor did we receive any commentson this criteria during the commentperiod following the promulgation of§ 261.11(a)(2) on May 19, 1980.Furthermore, in the preamble to that

if regulation, EPA stated its intent to applyhe this standard to wastes "containings substantial concentrations of potent

carcinogens. .. " (See 45 R 33107).TCDD and several HxCDDs are amongthe most potent carcinogens tested inrodents, and are present in these wastes.in substantial concentrations. Wetherefore believe that neither the statute

nor the regulations are impermissiblyvague, and that we have fullyarticulated the reasons for ourconclusion that these wastes meet thecriterion for listing as acute hazardouswastes.

2. Whether Wastes From the Productionand Manufacturing Use of'Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Should BeClassified as Acute Hazardous Wastes

EPA proposed to list wastes from theproduction and manufacturing use ofPCP, discarded unused formulationscontaining PCP, and wastes fromequipment previously used for theproduction or manufacturing use of PCPas acute hazardous waste. Generators ofthese wastes questioned whether thewastes should be classified as acutehazardous wastes. They argued thatthese wastes do not contain the mosttoxic dioxin or dibezofuran congener(2,3,7,8-TCDD or TCDF), and went on toargue that the dioxin congeners they docontain-HxCDDs--are notcarcinogenic or otherwise toxic enoughto justify the acute hazardous wasteclassification. They also maintained thatthere are no other reasons to justifylisting these wastes as acute hazardouswastes.

As already explained, wastes arelisted as acute hazardous waste underthe criteria for listing contained in 40CFR § 261.11(a)(2). The principal basisfor listing the PCP waste$ as acutehazardous wastes is the presence ofsubstantial concentrations of HxCDDsand HxCDFs, and of PCP, which haspotential chronic systemic effects.

7 8

While TCDDs are very rarely found inPCP. or in wastes resulting from theproduction or manufatturing use of PCP(Buser and Bosshardt (1976) reported0.50-0.25 ppm of an unidentified"TCDD" isomer), HxCDDconcentrations range from 1-39 ppm(USEPA, 1981a; Miles et al.. 1984). Inaddition, an isomer-specific analysisdetermined that the carcinogenic1,2,3,6,7i8-HxCDD constitutes about 20-60% of the HxCDDs present (USEPA.1978; Miles et al., 1984). Moreover, PCPcontains about 0.12 ppm each of TCDFsand PeCDFs, and from 9-99 ppm of

IFetotoxic and teratogenic effects (statisticallysignificant skeletal and soft tissue anomalies, fetalgrowth retardation, and incredsed embryonicresorptions} have been reported in rats exposed tocommercial and purified PCP (USEPA, 1981a).

I These wastes also contain hexachlorobenzene(HCB). a compound identified by the Agency'sCarcinogen Assessment Group as a potential humancarcinogen. Because the Agency has no data on theconcentration of HCB in these manufacturingwastes, HCB is not at this time cited as a toxicant ofconcern (Appendix Vii constituent. If data warrant,these listings may accordingly be amended.

1980




flxCDFs (USEPA, 1978). As discussedbelow (Section III. B. 3.), these levels areof regulatory concern.

Several commenters disputed EPA'sdetermination that the two HxCDDs arecarcinogenic. They submitted anexpert's review of the bioassayconducted by the National CancerInstitute (NCI) of a mixture of twoHxCDDs (Squire, 1983).9 The expertreviewer reported a lower incidence ofneoplastic nodules in female rats thanthat reported by NCI (ard originallyaccepted by EPA). He evaluated severalof the lesions diagnosed as tumors byNCI as non-neoplastic regenerativenodules, but concluded that there is"equivocal" evidence that theseHxCDDs are potential humancarcinogens.

As a result of these comments,scientists from EPA's CarcinogenAssessment Group (CAG) and theNational Toxicology Program (NTP)have reviewed both the reviewingexpert's comments and the underlyingdata (histology slides) gathered in theoriginal NCI study. Their re-evaluationconfirms the original conclusion thatthere is sufficient evidence that themixture of HxCDDs studied by NCI iscarcinogenic as indicated by astatistically significant increasedincidence of liver tumors in female ratsand in mice of both sexes (Habermanand Bayard, 1984; Hildebrandt, 1983,McGaughy, 1984). This review led EPAto estimate that the carcinogenicpotency of the two HxCDD isomersranged from 0.59 (male rat) .to 11 (malemouse) per Lg/kg/day. The CAGrecommended that 6.2 per /g/kg/day,derived from hepatocellular carcinomaand adenoma data in the male mice andfemale rats (the test systems in whichthe response was most strongly evident)be used as the best estimate of the upperlimit potency estimate for HxCDD(McGaughy, 1984).

Even the lowest of these estimates,however, makes HxCDD one of the mostpotent carcinogens identified by theAgency. For example, this mixture ofHxCDDs, although about 1/25 as potentas TCDD, is as potent a carcinogen asAflatoxin B1 (a well recognized potentcay cinogen), and is about a thousandtimes more potent than ethylenedibromide (EDB).

Commenters also submitted anepidemiologic study of the effects ofseveral chemical preservatives,including PCP, on the health ofwoodworkers, as evidence that nodeleterious health effects can be

9This review was submitted well after the close

of the comment period, but the Agency chose toconsider it as part of the rulemaking record.

ascribed to these chemicals (AWPI,1983). 10 EPA reviewed this study, andnotes that it has severe limitations(Erdreich, 1983; Ris, 1983). First, a cross-sectional study design is not a suitablemethod for detecting a cancer effect,because in such a study persons withcancer who are currently employed arenot likely to be identified as having thedisease. In addition, other deficiencieswere pointed out, viz., small samplesize; insufficient follow-up periodfollowing the onset of exposure; andlack of exposure definition. EPA,therefore, concludes that the submittedepidemiological study is not adequatefor assessing the presence or absence ofa cancer risk or other health effects inwood treaters exposed to PCP (Erdreich,1983; Ris, 1983). In addition, reports havebeen accumulating in the open literaturewhich indicate that workers inoccupations associated with PCPexposure are at increased risk of nasaland nasopharyngeal cancer, stomachcancer, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma(Grufferman et al., 1976; Bishop andJones, 1981; Hardell et al., 1982;Gallagher and Threlfall, 1984]. Sincethese are reports of studies ofoccupational exposure, it is of courseunclear whether'the etiologic agent isPCP or its associated CDD or CDFimpurities. However, these reportsreinforce EPA's decision regarding thecapability of these wastes to cause orcontribute to serious irreversible, orincapacitating reversible, illness.

Several commenters also suggestedthat the toxicity of HxCDDs at the levelsfound in PCP are not of regulatoryconcern. The commenters argue that,because the amount of HxCDDs which,they estimate, is contained in themedian rat lethal dose of PCP is lessthan the teratogenic lowest observedeffect level (LOEL) noted for HxCDDs,EPA should be more concerned with theacute toxicity of PCP than with thechronic toxic effects of its HxCDDcontaminants. They further state that noincreased risk of oncogenicity will resultfrom HxCDD exposure resulting fromexposure to PCP at its NOEL forreproductive effects.

EPA disagrees with these statements.When we consider cancer, dailyexposure even at one hundredth of theLD5o of PCP containing 15 ppm ofHxCDDs would result in exposure to 18ng HxCDD/kg/day.1 Lifetime exposure

"6

This review also was submitted well after the

close of the public comment period, but the Agencyagain chose to consider it as part of the rulemakingrecord.

11 1Aoo x Lx50 X 15 ppm HxCDD/PCP x 1/bodyweight = 10-2 X 120 mg PCP/kg/day x (15 X 10-mg t xCDD/mg/PCP X 106 ng/mg = 18 ngHxCDD/kg/d = 0.018 g HxCDD/kg/day.

at this level could entail a potentialexcess cancer risk as high as one in ahundred. With respect to reproductivetoxicity, the Allowable Daily Intake(ADI) is estimated as one hundredth(NAS, 1977) of the reproductive NOEL,or 1 ng HxCDD/kg/day. Someoneexposed to a dose approaching themedian LD~o established in the rat (120mg PCP/kg/day) therefore wouldreceive a dose 1800 12 times larger thanthe ADI anticipated for the reproductiveeffects of HxCDD. Therefore, thereproductive effects of HxCDDpotentially occur at doses three ordersof magnitude lower than those at whichthe lethal effects of PCP are expected.

Additionally, the levels of HxCDDs inPCP wastes are of concern in terms ofthe potential for serious harm if they arereleased to water or air, either in solubleform, or absorbed to soil particulates.Based on its carcinogenic potential, theWater Quality Criterion for 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been set as 10 -8 -10 - 1 ,g/(USEPA, 1984b]. Since a mixture of twoHxCDDs is about 4% as potent acarcinogen as TCDD (McGaughy, 1984),and because the water solubility, soilsorption characteristics, andbioaccumulation potential of HxCDDsand TCDD are very similar (seeBackground Document for this listing),an appropriate estimate for a similarcriterion for HxCDDs is about 25 timesas large as that for TCDD, viz.,10-7-10-6 p'g/1. This value is aminuscule fraction (10- 19 of theconcentration of HxCDDs in the PCPwastes.

We therefore conclude that thepotential toxicity of HxCDDs at thelevels found in PCP are of regulatoryconcern and that these wastes containsignificant concentrations of potentcarcinogens. These wastes thereforemeet the criteria of 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2),justifying the listing of these wastes asacute hazardous wastes.

3. Toxicity of PCP as a Measure of theWastes' Toxicity

One commenter noted that PCP,which is contaminated withcarcinogenic HxCDDs, was notcarcinogenic in several bioassays, andtherefore questioned the Agency's.conclusion that the two HxCDDs arepotential human carcinogens.

We do not believe that the PCPbioassays are adequate to support aconclusion concerning the potentialcarcinogencity of PCP and HxCDD-containing wastes. The carcinogenic risk

'2 Exposure/ADI = (15X10- 6 mg HxCDD/mg PCPX120 mg PCP/kg/d x 106 ng/mg} / 1 ng HxCDD/kg/day = 1800.

1981




of PCP containing ppm concentrations ofHxCDD is not expected to give positiveresults at the dosages used in thesebioassays. At the lowest dose used inthe HxCDD oral bioassay (1.25 ugHxCDD/kg/day), tumor rates of 0 and20% were noted in groups of 50 femaleand male Osborne Mendel rats(USDHHS, 1980). For a dose of 0.3 ugHxCDD/kg/day (the amount of HxCDDcontained in the highest PCP dose usedin the PCP study) a 0-5% response ratewould be expected in the same ratstrain. This rate is far too low forreliable detection. Moreover, the twobest PCP bioassa ,s (USDHHS, 1980 andSchwetz, 1978) were conducted in rats ofdifferent strains, that may differ inresponse. A review of these and otherPCP bioassays also noted proceduraldeficiencies, such as an inadequateobservation period, the use of only oneanimal species per test, and inadequatenumbers of animals (Williams, 1982).Therefore, we believe that these studiesdo not permit a conclusion as to thepotential carcinogencity of PCP. Inaddition, as outlined above, there areseveral reports showing increasedcancer risk (of unknown etiology) inoccupations associated with PCPexposure. Moreover, the fact thatHxCDDs are potential humancarcinogens of very high potencyrenders them of great regulatoryconcern.

We therefore conclude that, becausethese wastes contain the potent •carcinogen HxCDD at levels ofregulatory concern, they meet thecriteria of 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2), and areproperly listed as acute hazardouswastes.4. Changing the Regulatory Status ofDiscarded PCP Formulations

Several respondents commented thatEPA does not have the authority toregulate tetra- and pentachlorophenolcontaining wastes as acute hazardouswastes. These persons called attentionto prior RCRA rulemaking involvingthese compounds.

More specifically, in the hazardouswaste regulations published on May 19,1980, PCP was listed as an acutehazardous waste (§ 261.33(e)) becausethe Agency was under the mistakenimpression that its oral LD50 in the ratwas less than 50 mg/kg. When this errorwas pointed out, the Agency'sdetermination was rectified, and PCPwas listed as a hazardous waste under§ 261.33(f) (see 45 FR 78533, November25, 1980). However, EPA's evaluationconsidered only the acute oral toxicityof PCP, and did not consider its knowncontamination with CDDS and CDFs. Itwould not be in the best interests of the

public if EPA allowed a previousdetermination to go unaltered whenadditional data show that priorrulemaking was in error. Thus, theregulatory classification of PCP wasinitially rectified when data seemed towarrant it. In the current regulation, thatstatus is once more changed, becausereconsideration of additional datawarrant such action.

5. Alternative Basis for Establishing a 1kg per Month Small Quantity Generator(SQG) Exclusion Limit

In response to the arguments thatthese wastes are not acute hazardouswastes, we note that we also have analternative (and independent)justification for a small quantitygenerator limitation of 1 kg per monthfor these (PCP) wastes. Under§ 261.11(c) of these regulations, EPAmay consider the criteria for listingcontained in § 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3) ofthe regulations to establish smallquantity generator limitations forparticular wastes that are lower than1000 kg per month. EPA will do thiswhere "the general exclusion limits of1000 kg per month is insufficient toprotect human health or theenvironment." (See BackgroundDocument to Section 261.11, May 19,1980, at p. 60.) That situation is the casefor these wastes. As explained in thepreamble and the Background Documentfor the proposed rule, and restated here,these wastes contain significantconcentrations of potent carcinogens,and high concentrations of othercompounds (HxCDFs and PCP) that arealso very toxic. These contaminantshave proven to be mobile and persistentin the environment. There also havebeen many damage incidents involvingPCP formulation wastes (seeBackground Document for this listing).For all these reasons, we believe thatthese wastes could (and have) cause(d)substantial harm to human health andthe environment when managed atunregulated facilities, and that a 1000 kgper month SQG limit is inappropriate forthese wastes. In order to ensure thatthese wastes will be managed atSubtitle C facilities, the appropriateexclusion limit established in the 40 CFR

-Part 261 regulhtions is 1 kg per month.This same reasoning applies, with equalforce, to the other wastes covered bythis listing. The legislative history of thenewly enacted HSWA also statesunequivocally that these wastes (i.e., allof the wastes covered by the April 4proposal) are not to be excluded fromregulation by virtue of the smallquantity generator exemption. See S.Rep. No. 98-284, 98th Cong. 2nd Sess. at34.

We are making a conforming changeto § 261.30(d) of the regulations toindicate that these wastes are subject tothe 1 kg. per month small quantitygenerator limitation. (It should be noted,however, that we read § 261.30(d) as aprovision for designating toxic as wellas acute hazardous wastes as subject tothe lower small quantity generatorlimits).

6. Regulation of Wastes from EquipmentPreviously Used in the Production orManufacturing Use of PCP

Based on the arguments presentedabove, the commenters also believe thatwastes from equipment previously usedin the production or manufacture use ofPCP should not be regulated as acutehazardous waste. Although we generallydisagreed with the specific points oftoxicology made by the commenters, wenevertheless have decided not tofinalize this provision at this time. Inreviewing our data base, we determinedthat, unlike wastes that are generated onequipment previously used in theproduction or manufacture use of tri-and tetrachlorophenols or theirderivates, we have insufficientinformation on the concentration ofHxCDDs and HxDCFs in wastesgenerated on equipment previously usedin the production or manufacture use ofPCP to determine whether these wastes.contain HxCDDs and HxCDFs insufficient concentrations to be regulatedgenerically as acute hazardous orhazardous waste. As a result, EPAexpects to further investigate the wastesthat are generated on previouslycontaminated equipment; based onthose findings, we will take appropriateregulatory action. In the meantime, thesewastes may still be hazardous waste ifthey either exhibit one or more of thecharacteristics of hazardous waste, or ifthe waste is already listed (or contains awaste listed) in Subpart D of Part 261.

C. Wastes Generated on EquipmentPreviously Used in the Production andManufacturing Use of Tri- andTetrachlorophenols

Several respondents commented onEPA's proposal to regulate, as acutehazardous wastes, wastes resulting frommanufacturing processes conducted onequipment previously used to producetri- and tetrachlorophenols (proposedEPA Hazardous Waste No. F022). Thesewastes were listed based on samplingand analysis data which show thatwastes generated on equipmentpreviously used in the production andmanufacturng use of tri- andtetrachlorophenols are contaminatedwith CDDs even after production shifts

1982




to other products; in many cases, thesetoxicants have been found to remain inthe wastes years after productionshifted. In addition, there is a history ofenvironmental contamination resultingfrom these contaminated equipmentwastes at such places as Verona,Missouri, to justify these regulations.Furthermore, there is precedent forlisting these wastes in that some of themare currently regulated under 40 CFRPart 775, a regulation issued underSection 6 of the Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA), based on a findingthat unregulated disposal presents anunreasonable risk of injury to health orthe environment.

Nevertheless, a number ofcommenters questioned the scope andpracticality of the regulations andsuggested several changes.

1. Scope of the Listing

(a) Several commenters felt that theproposed definition of EPA HazardousWaste No. F022 was broader thanintended by EPA. In particular, theyindicated that EPA Hazardous WasteNo. F021 refers only to themanufacturing use of certainchlorobenzenes under alkalineconditions, but does not cover the actualproduction of the compoundsthemselves. These commenters arguethat the proposed listing of F022 refersto wastes from the production ofmaterials on equipment previously usedfor the production or manufacturing useof materials listed under F020 andF021. Thus, the commenters believe thatthere is an unintended inconsistency inthe rules as proposed.

In reviewing these comments, weagree that the proposal erroneously readto include wastes generated onequipment once used to producechlorobenzenes. Therefore, we havemodified the listing to make it clear thatthe listing only applies to wastes fromequipment used previously in themanufacturing use of designatedchlorobenzenes (under alkalineconditions) ISee new hazardous wastelisting F026.J

(b) One commenter argued that theeffect of the contaminated equipmentlisting is extremely broad, and indicatesthat, while it is not explicitly stated,storage, treatment, and disposalfacilities that have ever managed thesechlorophenols and chlorobenzenes willbe deemed to be part of the "equipment"used to manufacture these products, andthus, be covered under this listing.Consequently, they argue that all wastemanagement facilities in this categorywould be shut down until full permitstatus is achieved.

We disagree with the point made bythe commenter. As currently drafted,and as discussed in the supportingdocumentation, this listing applies andis only meant to apply to equipmentused in the actual production ormanufacturing use of the appropriateproducts (i.e., reactor vessels,distillation columns, filtrationequipment, etc.), and does not apply toequipment used by waste managementfacilities (i.e., treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities). The existing TSCArule (40 CFR 775.183(g)) is likewise solimited. The commenter raises a validpoint, however, that needs to beinvestigated to determine whether thelisting should be expanded. EPA will,therefore, investigate the extent ofdioxin contamination in wastes (e.g.,incineration residues) generated fromwaste management facilities thatpreviously managed these dioxinwastes. However, until theseinvestigations are completed and adecision is made, this listing will onlyapply to wastes generated on equipmentused as part of the actual productionprocess.

It has also been argued that like thewastes that are generated frommanufacturing operations-namely, theproduction and manufacturing use of tri-and tetrachlorophenols-that havebecome contaminated from pastproduction or use, the equipment onwhich these wastes were generated (i.e.,reactor vessels, product storage tanks,etc.) when they are taken from serviceand scrapped (rather than cleaned)should likewise be regulated underRCRA. In fact, extensive TCDDcontamination at a scrap metal salvagefacility in Newark (NJ) has been tracedto the presence of scrapped reactionvessels which, it is thought, were onceused for the production of 2,4,5-T. Scrapmetal wipe samples, taken many yearsafter the equipment has been scrapped,showed extensive contamination: 250 ngTCDD/m2 at the surface of a largereaction vessel in the center of a wastepile. Soil adjacent to cut tanks containedabout 3 ppm of TCDD, and low ppbconcentrations were detected insurrounding properties (USEPA, 1984).Although situations such as these are ofgreat concern to the Agency, we havedecided not to list this equipment, evenif discarded, as hazardous (or acuteharzardous) waste at this time. EPA hasvery limited information to define, on ageneric basis, all equipment which atone time was used to produce tri- ortetrachlorophenols as hazardous (oracute hazardous) waste under RCRA.However, as is the case for residueswhich are generated from waste

management facilities, EPA plans tostudy the extent of environmentalcontamination from this equipment if itwere discarded prior todecontamination. Once theseinvestigations are completed, we willtake the appropriate regulatory action.

(c) One commenter argued that theregulation regarding contaminatedequipment waste should be limited toequipment used during the actualsynthetic process and the subsequentpurification procedures, since thesewastes would tend to have the highestconcentrations of CDDs and CDFs. Thecommenter also suggested that EPAshould specifically exclude equipmentused for subsequent handling ofproducts in ways which are notexpected to generate additional CCDs orCDFs.

We cannot agree that the listingshould be limited in this way. While it istrue that wastes generated on equipmentused in synthesis or purification areexpected to contain CDDs and CDFs inconcentrations several orders ofmagnitude higher than in wastegenerated on equipment used only forformulation, (i.e., several hundred ppmvs. several ppm), the latter levels arestill of regulatory concern. Accordingly,EPA has decided that all wastes that aregenerated on equipment which hasbecome contaminated from previousmanufacturing operations must bemanaged as acute hazardous wastes,unless a delisting petition establishesthat a particular waste is not ofregulatory concern or should not beconsidered an acute hazardous waste.

2. Practicality of the Listing

Several commenters questioned thereasonableness of listing as hazardous,wastes that are generated on equipmentthat may, at any time in the past, havebeen used in processes generating CDDsor CDFs. They argued that such a listingis not necessary since current cleaningpractices (i.e., triple rinsing or otherequivalent cleaning methods) willensure that any wastes generated fromsuch equipment will not becontaminated. They, therefore, suggestthat a person be allowed to make such ademonstration. They believe that such ashowing could be accomplished bydemonstrating that the equipment hasbeen adequately cleaned (e.g., by vaporphase degreasing, solvent washing, etc.),or by testing the waste to determine if itcontains significant concentrations ofCDDs/CDFs. (The commenters,however, did not indicate how such ademonstration of adequate cleaningwould be made, short of testing thewaste.) One commenter felt, in any

1983




event, that after some time period duringwhich the equipment has been inanother use, the equipment shouldautomatically be considered to no longerbe contaminated with CDDs/CDFs. Inparticular, they suggested a reasonabletime period would be three years, as it iscommon for industry tt retain recordsfor this time period.

EPA agrees that persons should beallowed to demonstrate that their wasteis no longer contaminated with CDDs/CDFs. However, we believe the onlyway to make this showing is by testingthe waste and submitting an exclusionpetition (commonly referred to as"delisting") under 40 CFR 260.20 and260.22. These procedures have been inuse for several years, and we see noreason to set up a special set ofprocedures. There is no differencebetween a petition making such ademonstration for these wastes, andpetitions to exclude any other wastefrom the hazardous waste regulations,or petitions to change the regulatorystatus of a waste from acute hazardousto hazardous.

We do not believe, however, that ashowing of equipment cleanliness couldeasily be made by evaluating theconcentration of CDDs and CDFs inequipment rinsate. Such a showingwould be very difficult, if notimpossible, to make without knowing agreat deal of detail for each equipmenttrain, such as its size and complexity,and the amount of rinsate that was used.Even knowing this information,however, may not suffice, because of themany factors that need to be consideredto set a standard for CDD/CDF"cleanliness". For example, largeequipment trains are difficult to rinse,and the concentration of CDDs andCDFs in the rinsate would depend inpart on the amount of solvent used;compliance would therefore be difficultto d~termine.

In an effort to get additionalinformation on this option, however, werequested the commenter (and severalother industrial entities) to provide theAgency with data showing in whatmanner, and to what extent adequatedecontamination of manufacturingequipment might be achieved anddemonstrated. We did not obtain aresponse. Additionally, experienceindicates that decontamination is, infact, very difficult, even if strenuousattempts are made (see, for instance,Bleiberg, 1964; Goldmann, 1973;Dalderup, 1978; Fishbein, 1982; Sambeth,1983).

We likewise do not believe thatenough information is available to set atime period after which wastes that aregenerated on previously contaminated

equipment should be deemed non-contaminated. Quite the opposite: recentsampling and analysis at a facilitywhich used 2,4,5,-TCP almost eight yearsago showed ppb concentrations ofTCDD in still bottoms from 2,4-DCPmanufacture (where the presence of2,3,7,8,-TCDD in such concentrations isnot expected, absent contaminationfrom an outside source). We alsorequested further information from thosecommenters who made this last point(i.e., set a time period after which thewaste is no longer considered to becontaminated with CDD's/CDF's);however, no response was returned,indicating a lack of information tojustify setting any time period at thistime.

3. Economic Burden

Several commenters argued that thislisting will result in economic hardshipby requiring premature discarding of"contaminated" equipment, especially tothose who prudently cleaned and arereusing the equipment. They believe thatsuch a requirement bears norelationship to whether or not anycontaminants may be present and wouldpreclude the use of some verysophisticated and expensive equipmentto establish the absence of hazards inwastes that they claim would present norisk.

We disagree with these comments. Asdiscussed above, generators who havecleaned their equipment can show byanalysis of their wastes, and a delistingpetition, that their wastes do not containthe toxicants of concern at levels thatare of regulatory concern. Generatorsalso can dispose of the wastesgenerated on this equipment as acutehazardous wastes, rather thandiscarding the equipment (i.e., nowherein this regulation does the Agencyrequire (or even suggest that existingproduction equipment must be scrappedand discarded). In any case, a regulatoryimpact analysis conducted for thisregulation (see Section IX. A. below) hasconvinced us that its economic burdenwill be modest. The details of thisanalysis are discussed in Section IX. ofthis preamble.

4. Historical Documentation

As part of the proposal, the Agencyalso solicited comments on theappropriate recordkeeping time periodsand types of historical records thatshould be considered adequate for ashowing that equipment was not usedfor processes generating CDDs/CDFs.Several commenters suggested thatthree to four years should be set as thetypical document retention period.Otherwise, they argue, the approach will

not have much utility, since mostcorporations will not have the recordsnecessary to make the requisiteshowing. Regarding the types of recordsthat should be considered adequate,they suggest that production processand product records would supply thenecessary information.

In requesting comments in this area,EPA was concerned as to how agenerator could legitimately knowwhether the equipment in question waspreviously used in these processes Ifrecords are kept for only three to fouryears, as claimed by the commenters, agenerator could question how thisregulation could be enforced, i.e., willevery generator be required to test theirwaste to determine whether it iscontaminated with CDDs/CDFs ifrecords are not available?

Upon re-evaluation of this point, wenow believe this to be much less of aproblem than originally thought. Morespecifically, as part of its preliminaryinvestigations conducted as part of thedioxin strategy, EPA has identified most,if not all, of the manufacturers andformulators of tri- andtetrachlorophenols and their derivativesfrom the list of registrants who havenotified the Agency, under the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideAct (FIFRA). In addition, the Agency,through its Regional Offices, hascontacted many of these companies toverify the Agency's information.

Therefore, we believe that thosecompanies who once made theseproducts, and who still use theequipment, will most likely know thatthis regulation applies to them. Thesame is true for those who boughtequipment from companies thatproduced or formulated tri- ortetrachlorophenols (or their derivatives),and who knew what type of equipmentthey bought (i.e., these buyers know thatthis equipment is contaminated withCDDs and CDFs, and that the resultantwastes are regulated under RCRA).Therefore, the only group of personswho may not know that the wastes theyare generating are regulated under thesedioxin rules are those who unknowinglybought equipment used to produce orformulate tri-or tetrachlorophenols ortheir derivatives. This group ofindividuals may have difficulty inknowing that they are subject to theregulations. However, as indicatedabove, the Agency has been able toidentify most, if not all, companies thatproduce or formulate these products.

Therefore, any person who suspectsthat he may have equipment that iscontaminated with CDDs or CDFsshould contact EPA for further

1984




information. In any event, this list willbe useful for any person wishingverification that they are generatingdioxin-contaminated wastes. It shouldalso be noted that some of these personsshould already be aware of thiscontamination, since they have beensubject to the TSCA rule since May1980.

D. Hexachlorophene ManufacturingWastes

One commenter believes that EPAhad approximately excluded wastesfrom the production onHexachlorophene (HCP) synthesizedfrom highly purified 2,4,5-TCP from theproposed F020 listing, 13 but added that,because CDDs and CDFs are notgenerated in that process, HCPproduction and formulation wastesshould similarly be exempted from theproposed F022 and F023 hazardouswaste listings.

EPA agrees with the commenter that asimilar exception is warranted in caseswhere such HCP is the only ingredient inthe discarded formulation. Theregulatory language has been changed toreflect this point. It should also benoted, however, that HCP is itself toxic.Therefore, we anticipate listing HCPmanufacturing wastes and discardedformulations which contain HCP ashazardous wastes at some future date.

IV. Management Alternatives andRequirements

A. Land Disposal and Storage of TheseWastes

The Agency proposed a degree ofhazard approach for these wastes. Inlight of their inherent danger andprevious poor management history, EPAproposed that these wastes beprohibited from being managed at mosttypes of interim status facilities, andthat land disposal be conductedpursuant to additional special standardsimplemented during the course of thepermit proceeding. We also requestedcomment as to whether incinerators,and tank and container storage facilitiesshould be subject to additionalmanagement standards when theymanage these wastes. This section of

13 EPA has re-examined its decision not to listthese wastes as acute hazardous wastes, and hasdeveloped an engineering analysis for this process.(The document (which contains ConfidentialBusiness Information) is available in the docket forthis rule making.) Based on this analysis, theAgency believes that wastes from the production ofHCP synthesized from highly purified 2,4,5-TCPprepared by the usual route could contain TCDDs.However, since there are no present producers ofHCP using this route, the wastes from HCPproduction are not listed. The Agency is aware of anew route of synthesis for 2.4,5-TCP during whichno CDDs or CDFs are formed (CBI information).

* the preamble describes the comments tothese proposals, and the Agency'sresponse and changes in approach madein response to comments.

We also note that all of these wastesare specifically identified as candidatesfor being banned from land disposal intwo years under the HSWA (See RCRAamended Section 3004(e)). Thus, thefollowing discussion describes aninterim regulatory regime, insofar as itpertains to land disposal of thesewastes.

1. Management of the Dioxin Wastes atInterim Status Facilities

a. Prohibitions on Management.Several comments related to EPA'sdecision prohibiting the management ofCDD- and CDF-containing wastes atland disposal, incinerator, and open pilestorage interim-status facilities. Severalcommenters suggested that interim-status facilities that are properlyequipped and managed (i.e., that meetthe Part 264 standards) should beallowed to manage these wastes. Othercommenters suggested that the proposedrules should be changed to allow theincineration of dioxin wastes in interimstatus incinerators that have approval,under TSCA, to burn PCBs. Thissuggestion was put forth since theprocess of gaining fully permitted statusunder RCRA would take some time. Thecommenters, therefore, fear that therequirement in the proposed rule wouldlead to a shortage of availablemanagement capacity.

The Agency continues to believe that,for these wastes, management in fullypermitted facilities is preferable due tothe extreme toxicity of these wastes, thepersistence of the toxicants of concern,and the wastes' mismanagementhistory.' At the same time, the Agencyis concerned about possible shortages inshort-term management capacity forthese wastes. We thus reject thesuggestion that these wastes should beprohibited from all interim statusfacilities. We believe that certain typesof interim status storage facilities canprovide adequate management in theshort term. Other interim statusfacilities, we think, can be evaluated forcompliance with the Part 264 standardswithout undue administrativecomplication, and so also should not beprohibited from managing these wastes.

We do not believe, however, thatinterim status land disposal facilitiesshould be allowed to manage thesewastes. (There is one exception, for

"We are, however, allowing the residue resultingfrom the incineration or thermal treatment ofdioxin-contaminated soil to go to interim statusfacilities. See Section VI.C for discussion.

interim status impoundments in whichthese wastes are generated.) Not onlyare the interim status standardsinsufficient to prevent an unreasonablerisk (see 45 FR 32682), but it is verydifficult to evaluate these facilities forcompliance with the Part 264 standardsin the absence of a permit proceeding,because, under today's rule, landdisposal facilities must seek approval ofa waste management plan.

The only interim status facilities thatmay accept these wastes are: (a)Impoundments holding wastewatertreatment sludges that are created inthose impoundments as part of theplant's wastewater treatment system,(b) waste piles that meet therequirements of § 264.250(c) (referred toin this preamble as "enclosed wastepiles"), (c) tanks, (d) containers, (e)incinerators if certified, and (f) thermaltreatment units subject to regulationunder Subpart P of Part 265, if certified.(See next Section for more detailed-discussion.) However, we believe itappropriate to discuss here themanagement of sludges inimpoundments in which the waste wascreated.

For surface impoundments, theAgency has determined that this is asituation when a distinction betweennew and existing facilities maypermissibly be drawn. (See RCRASection 3004 and 48 FR 14519). If theAgency were to ban all interim statusimpoundments from managing thesewastes, facilities generating wastewatertreatment sludges in impoundmentswould have to build and receive apermit for new capacity before theycould legally manage these wastes. As apractical matter, this would requirehalting the manufacturing process forsome undetermined period of time. Theshort-term management of these sludgesin interim status impoundments could beprotective, since the CDDs and CDFswill adsorb to the sludges, and othermobilizing organics will be present inthese wastes at low corcentrations dueto dilution and biological treatment(USEPA, 1982).15 It should also be notedthat these facilities also must obtain aPart 264 permit (which includescompliance with the waste managementplan), so that management at theseimpoundments will be upgraded as partof the permitting process. This could

"One facility, that used to produce PCP,estimated that process wastewater could containvarious chlorophenols at 1000 ppm.However, these data are estimates submitted to theAgency, and were not verified by sampling andanalysis. Because they differ greatly from samplingdata at other facilities, they are judged to be toounreliable for use in the present context.

1985



1986 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

result, for example, in a requirementthat the impoundment not be allowed toreceive the wastes unless it is lined, ifthe permit writer concludes that there ispotential for leaching from theimpoundment. (See text at FN 26 below.)Thus, interim status impoundments inwhich these wastes are generated mightnot be able to continue receiving thesewastes indefinitely. In addition, underthe new legislation, within four yearsthese impoundments must be upgradedto meet the technical permittingstandards for new surfaceimpoundments (subject to certainenumerated exceptions). See RCRAamended Section 3005(j). (Theseimpoundments, however, will not beimmediately prohibited from receivingthese wastes as a result of this rule.) Inlight of all of these circumstances, wehave decided to allow surfaceimpoundments in which wastewatertreatment sludges are generated tocontinue to manage these sludges.

The suggestion that land disposalfacilities which meet the requirementsfor fully permitted facilities be allowedto handle these wastes is reasonableonly in theory. The evaluation processpresently needed to ascertain whether afacility meets the requirements of Part264 would need to be thorough, and EPAjudged that, in terms of necessarydocumentation and public participation,the process of ensuring this fact wouldbe equivalent (or virtually equivalent) tothe evaluation needed for issuing a Part264 permit. This is particularly true forpreparing and evaluating the wastemanagement plan. This plan must bediscussed with the permit writer; thereis no way a facility can be evaluated inadvance to determine if they meet thisstandard. EPA thus believes that there isno reason for either applicants or EPA togo through the permitting process twice.

We generally agree that allowingthese wastes to be disposed of only atfully permitted facilities (except asdiscussed below) will in the short term,lead to a shortage of facilities able tohandle these wastes. This problem willbe alleviated, as is the case at present,by the possibility of storage in tanks,containers, or enclosed waste piles atinterim status facilities. Such storagewill not in the short term be harmful tohuman health or the environment, andwill reduce the pressure to permit afacility to handle these wastesimmediately without a full evaluation ofthe facility's performance. Interim statusincinerators will also be allowed to bumthese wastes if they can demonstratecompliance with the performancestandards for fully permittedincinerators (including destruction and

removal of principal organic hazardousconstituents in the waste). Likewise,Interim status thermal treatment unitscan also be approved to handle thesewastes.16 The Agency also may issueemergency permits (see 40 CFR 270.61)to facilities to store these wastes insituations where there is no otherrealistically available managementcapacity. For example, if nomanagement capacity is avalablefollowing a dioxin waste clean up, anemergency permit could be issued to afacility if the alternative is to leave thewastes in place in an unsecure setting.

B. Interim Status Facilities Allowed ToManage These Wastes

Two persons commented on EPA'sproposal to allow interim statusfacilities to handle these wastes. One ofthem stated that the Agency should, at aminimum, require submission of a Part Bapplication; a demonstration, withrespect to surface impoundments, thatthe wastes will not migrate; andnotification to the RegionalAdministrator on the part of interimstatus facilties handling such wastes."The commenter further stated thatmanagement in unlined impoundmentsshould not be allowed. In View of thefact that we will require a wastemanagement plan for fully permittedland disposal facilities, one commenteralso questioned how EPA can allowinterim status land disposal facilities tohandle these wastes.

As discussed above, EPA agrees thatfor these wastes, management at fullypermitted facilities is preferable.However, as outlined above, pragmaticas well as environmental considerationsmotivate the Agency to allow interimstatus facilities to manage some of thesewastes for an interim period under someconditions.

In the case of surface impoundmentsin which the wastewater treatmentsludges are generated, we havedetermined that the manufacturingfacilities now generating the listedwastewater treatment sludges wouldprobably have to close down until they

16The Agency must provide some legsl means ofhandling these materials while disposal capacity ismade avalLble thugh the permitting program.

"As already indicated, al, persons who genemit,transport, teat, store, or dispose of these CDD/CDF-contaminated wastes are required to nbtlfyEPA of their activities under Sectien 3010 of krRA,It should be noted that the newly enacted HSWAcreate- 0,ttuto-y deadlines fUr submission of Part Bapplications by facilities hav ing interim status. Seenewly amended Section 3005(e). Under the statute.land disposal facilities must submit applications byNovember 9,1985, incinerators must submitapplications by November 9. 1986. and all otherfacilities must submit applications by November 9.1988. A facility which fails to meet these deadlineswill, under the statute, lose interim status.

can obtain permits for theirimpoundments or build alternativetreatment facilities. (See 48 FR at 14519.)In addition, and as described above,allowing these interim status surfaceimpoundments to store or treat thesewastewater treatment sludges shouldpresent a limited risk in the short-termdue to the reduced potential of the CDDsand CDFs to migrate into theenvironment. These impoundments,however, must obtain a Part 264 permitwhich will include whateverrequirements are imposed by the wastemanagement .plan.

EPA also judges that interim statustank and container storage facilitiesprovide adequate short termmanagement of these wastes. Althoughnot providing maximum protection, theydo provide control of these wastes toprevent them from posing a substantialenvironmental hazard or anunreasonable risk in the interim; tanksor containers at interim status facilitiesthat will accept these wastes must meetmost of the requirements required forfully permitted tank and containerfacilities. See, e.g., §§ 265.171, 265.173,and 265.174 (containment, management,and inspection of containers) and§§ 265.192 and 265.194 (containment andinspection of tanks).

In addition, the Agency judged thatstorage in interim status enclosed wastepiles also represents a minimal, andacceptable risk. By "enclosed wastepile" we mean a pile that meets therequirements of § 264.250(c)-namely,that the pile is inside a structure thatprovides protection from rurf-on,precipitation, and wind disperal, doesnot generate leachate, and does notcontain free liquids. This regulationallows enclosed waste piles to acceptthese wastes without first obtaining apermit, because enclosure of this typewill guard in the short-term against theexposure pathways of concern (run-off,wind dispersal, and leaching). Allowingthis type of interim status facility toaccept these wastes should help providenecessary management capacity untildisposal facilities receive permits tomanage these wastes.

The Agency also believes that interimstatus incinerators that are evaluated byEPA to determine whether they canmeet the performance standards forthese wastes contained in § 264.343 willprovide adequate protection to humanhealth and the environment (see SectionIV. B. 2. for detailed discussion on theuse of interim status incinerators to burnthese dioxin wastes). Similarconsiderations justify allowing interimstatus thermal treatment units subject toregulation under Subpart P of Part 265 to




receive these wastes. (Examples arepyrolysis units not designed asincinerators.) These units will beevaluated the same way as interimstatus incinerators, and, thus, must becertified as meeting the applicableperformance standards in § 264.343(including the 99.9999% DRE for POHC'sin the waste). Procedures for obtainingcertification likewise will be the sameas for interim status incinerators.Another reason for allowing theseinterim status thermal treatmentfacilities to receive these wastes is thatthere are presently no Part 264 permitstandards for these facilities. Aprohibition on interim status facilitiesconsequently, would prohibit thesefacilities from receiving these wastes atall. This result is unwarranted since ameans exists to evaluate theircompliance with the most importantenvironmental standard, and thesefacilities may prove to be one of theoptimal means of managing thesewastes. Managing these wastes at thesetypes of interim status facilities istherefore judged to present minimalrisks until final permits are issued.

Several commenters stated thatinterim status facilities should beallowed to handle wastes containingPCP, since these wastes do not containTCDD, other CDDs do not posesubstantial risks of chronic or acutetoxicity, and there is no history ofmismanagement of these wastes.

We generally agree that wastesderived from the production ormanufacturing use of PCP are unlikely tocontain 2,3,7,8-TCDD or other TCDDs orTCDFs at levels of concern. Thesewastes, however, are likely to containhigh concentrations of HxCDDs andHxCDFs-the PCP in these wastes iscontaminated with these potentcarcinogens. While we agree that thesecongeners are less toxic than 2,3,7,8-TCDD, we believe them to besufficiently toxic to warrent thedesignation of wastes containing thesesubstances as acute hazardous wastes.(The reasons for this determination wereoutlined earlier in this preamble.)

In addition, there is a substantialhistory of mismanagement of wastes(including spilled or abandonedformulations) resulting from the use ofPCP in wood treatment processes. Thesewastes, or very similar wastes, havebeen mismanged repeatedly,, causingvery serious damage incidents. Therehave been many actions under RCRAand CERCLA involving wood treatmentfacilities using PCP solutions and woodpreservation wastes; in addition, thereare 22 damage incidents involving thesechemicals at sites on the National

Priorities List for Actions underCERCLA. These mismanagementincidents (outlined in the revisedBackground Document for this listing)include discharge of process wastes intooff-site drainage ditches, storage (inmost cases for many years) of suchwastes in impoundments which wereimproperly sited, improper storage oftreatment solutions in leaky tanks 6ndcontainers, etc. These mismanagementincidents resulted in PCP contaminationof soil, surface water, and ground water;in several instafices, this contaminationwas at very high levels. In one instance,the soil of a residential area surroundinga wood treating facility thatmismanaged these wastes was analyzedfor HxCDDs and HxCDFs. In foursamples, HxCDDs ranged from 1.5 to 12(average, 4) ppb, while HxCDFs werepresent at 1.7 to 21 (average 9.5) ppb.The clean up of these contaminatedsites can be quite costly.

Because these wastes are very toxic,because the toxic components of thewaste are mobile, persistent and(particularly the HxCDDs and HxCDFs)will bioaccumulate, and because of theirhistory of mismanagement, EPA judgesthat they must be managed at fullypermitted facilities when land disposed,incinerated (except as alreadydiscussed), or stored in open piles.

2. Requirement of a Waste ManagementPlan

Several respondents commented onEPA's proposal to require a wastemanagement plan to specify additionalrequirements for land disposal facilitiesintending to manage these wastes. Mostagreed that such a requirement isdesirable. (In fact, one commenterstated that a waste management planshould be required for all managementoptions for these wastes.) However,several respondents stated that a wastemanagement plan would not beadequate to ensure proper handling ofthese wastes. Still others stated thatinterim status facilities which meet thePart 264 requirements should be allowedto submit such a plan (and thus be ableto handle these wastes) before receivinga final permit.

After reviewing these comments, theAgency still believes that a wastemanagement plan will help provideassurance, as far as is practicallypossible, that these wastes are properlymanaged in a land disposal situation.The waste management plan will be theinterim vehicle for assuringindividualized consideration that thewastes will be managed safely. The planmust be submitted by the owner oroperator of the facility as part of the

permit application. 's Therefore, it will beconsidered in the normal course of thepermitting process, so that no specialEPA review procedures are required.

The waste management plan shouldaddress the factors mentioned atproposal (see 48 FR at 14520) includingwaste volume, concentrations of CDDsand CDFs in the waste, aerosol/particulate dispersion, violatilization ofthe toxicants of concern, soilattenuation properties, waste leachingpotential, and anticipated solvent co-disposal. To assist the owner oroperator in preparing this document,EPA will provide detailed guidance forthe presentation of a waste managementplan. This document will discuss thephysiochemical properties of the wasteconstituents, and the specific factors tobe addressed for disposal of thesewastes at each type of land disposalfacility (i.e., land treatment units,surface impoundments, open wastepiles, and landfills). The document willexplain (1) how the existing Part 264standards should and can beimplemented for these wastes wherespecific guidance is appropriate (i.e.wind dispersal, liner compatibility) and(2) what new requirements should beimposed for such wastes (e.g. soil types,co-disposal, etc.).

More specifically, this guidancedocument will address a number ofareas where existing regulations alreadyprovide adequate control. However, dueto the extreme toxicity of the toxicantsin these wastes, further guidance isprovided to the permit writer and theowner or operator of the land disposalfacility on how the existing regulationscan be applied to these wastes. Forexample, the existing managementstandards under Part 264 are adequateto prevent the dispersion of the CDDsand CDFs by wind dispersal. See§ § 264.221, 264.250, 264.273, and 264.301.However, because of the toxicity of theCDDs and CDFs, the waste managementguidance document will provide specificmanagement techniques for controllingthis exposure pathway (i.e., immediatecover of wastes when placed in landfillsand open waste piles, air monitoring toensure compliance with this provision,etc.). In addition, the existing regulationsalready address liner compatibility. See§§ 264.221, 264.251, 264.301, and 264.302.However, the waste managementguidance document includes a

"Sections 270.17, 270.18, 270.20, and 270.21 of thehazardous waste regulations have also beenamended to include the specific Part B informationrequirements concerning the waste managementplan that must be included in the permit applicationfor surface impoundments, non-enclosed wastepiles, land treatment units, and landfills.

1987



1988 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

discussion of an advanced liner designsystem to assist the Region and theowner or operator of the land disposalfacility to comply with thesepro-isions. 19

In addition to the existing standards,we believe that additional requirements(for which the existing rules do notaddress) also need to be considered inland disposing these dioxin-containingwastes. Therefore, the wastemanagement guidance document willdiscuss the types, the additional factorsthe permit writers should consider in-approving the waste management plan.In particular

(1) Co-disposal-The appropriatenessof disposing of the dioxin-containingwastes with other wastes that mayincrease the solubility of the CDDs andCDFs. In general, we believe that it ismore desirable to mono-dispose thesewastes.

(2) Soil Types-The appropriatenessof using various sol types at landdisposal facilities. In particular, webelieve these wastes should be disposedof in facilities with underlying soil ofhigh sorptive capacity for organicchemicals (i.e., high organic carboncontent) and low permeability; thiscould be accomplished by bringing soilswith high sorptive capacity and lowpermeability to a particular site.

(3) In-situ Trectmert-Theappropriateness of using in-situtreatment, such as mixing with carbonor other sorbents, to minimize themigration potential of the CDDs andCDFs, and the formation of free liquids.

(4) Liners-The appropriateness ofdisposing of these wastes in unlinedunits. In general, we believe that theseCDD and CDF-contairing wastes shouldnot be stored or disposed of in unlinedunits.20 This does not mean that ownersor operators of existing facilities willneed to retrofit the facility to put inliners. Rather, we expect that the permitwiter would preclude placing thesewastei in unlined units after a specifieddate. Permittees u'shirg to ccatinueplacing wastes in the unit would havethe option of lining the unit.

With respect to the other comments,we believe that it is neither necessarynor appropriate to require incinerators,

'"It e6wutd be noted VhL th'7. du t omentmay also be appropriate !or ether hdza7ruus wastes,that contain similar hazardous constitrents [i.e.,chlorophenolal.

21As already discuss.cd, we will allow sludgesthat are generated in interim status surfaceimpoundments (even if unlined Ias part of theplant's wastewater treatment aystem to managethese wastes. These impoundments are subject tofli Part 264 siandards, however. Taus. the permitwriter will address whether it is appropriate forunlined impoundments to continue to receive thesewastes.

thermal treatment units, tanks,containers, or enclosed waste piles tosubmit a waste management plan. Forincinerators, the requirement (seebelow) of a trial burn showing 99.9999%(six 9s) destruction and removalefficency (DRE) is adequate protectionfor proper incineration of these wastes.The same is also true for thermal

'treatment facilities. The regulatoryrequirements for tank, container, andenclosed waste pile storage facilitieslikewise provide the Agency withsufficient information to evaluate thestorage facility's ability to contain thesewastes, and the additional requirementfor secondary containment for suchfacilities (see Section IV. A.4. below)provides further protection.

We also do not agree with thesuggestion that interim status facilitiesbe allowed to submit a wastemanagement plan and manage thesewastes. (See, also, Section IV. A. 1.above rejecting the suggestion thatinterim status facilities meeting therequirements of fully-permitted facilitiesbe allowed to accept these wastes,} Wehave determined that interim statusfacilities, in general, should not beallowed to manage these wastes. In fact,where management at interim statusfacilities is allowed, EPA expects toissue permits quickly, in order to limitthe interim status period. Therefore, theAgency will not allow interim statusfacilities that have submitted a wastemanagement plan to manage thesewastes.3. Prohib,ting Land Disposal of TheseWastes

Several commenters suggested.thatland disposal of these wastes should beprohibited except "in exceptionalcircumstances." One person, howeve r,felt that a better approach would be todevelop a "let el of concern" (LOC)above which all dioxin-containingwastes sheuld be prohibited from landdisposal; however, the commenter didnot spec:fy what such a level should be.

The recently enacted legislation giv esthe Agency two years to determinewhether these wastes should be bannedfrom some or all types of land disposal,except for underground injection Inwhich the Agency has 45 months tomake such a decision, and thecicumstances under which they shouldbe banned. The Agency has recentlyinitiated a program to explore whethercertain hazardous wastes should berestricted from scme or all types of landdisposal, what the nature of therestrictions should be. and whattreatment and recycling alternativesexist for such wastes. CDDJCDF-containing wastes are currently heing

examined under this program forpossible restriction. For more details onthis program, see the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking published onFebruary 15, 1984, at 49 FR 5854. Inaddition, as discussed in the April 4proposal for this regulation (48 FR14521), EPA is considering developingspecial management standards forCDD/CDF-contaminated wastes inaddition to the special standardsrequired by today's rule. It is possiblethat our investigations may enable us todefine concentration limits within whichland disposal should be prohibited.However, until these studies arecompleted, we believe it inappropriateto make any decision with respect toprohibiting these wastes from landdisposal.

4. Secondary Containment at PermittedTank and Container Storage Facilities

EPA solicited comments as to whethersecondary containment for tanks thatstore or treat CDD- and CDF-contaminated wastes should be requiredas part of their permit. [Interim statusfacilities would not be subject to thisrequirement.) As justification, we citedthe wastes' toxicity as well as longstorage periods, and describedmismanagement incidents involvingboth containers and in-ground andabove-ground tanks. Some commentersdisagreed with such a requirement andargued categorically that secondarycontainment requirements at suchfacilities are not warranted. However,many other commenters argued just asstrongly that secondary containmentrequirements are needed, and urgedtheir adoption.

We have decided that secondarycontainment should be required as apermit requirement for all tanks thattreat or store these wastes presentlysubject to the existing tank design andoperating standards in 40 CFR Part 264,Subpart J, namely above-ground and in-ground tanks, and all underground tanksthat can be entered for inspection. It isthe Agency's intent to guard against therisks posed by storing or treating thesewastes in all types of tanks, includingcovered underground tanks that cannotbe entered for inspection. However, thislatter type cf tank is not presentlysubject to the Part 264 Subpart Irequirements (see § 264.190(b)) and, assuch: cannot receive a permit to treat orstore these wastes. In addition, the useof secciadary containment at suchfacilities was not explicitly discussed inthe April 4. 1983 proposal. Therefore, webelieve we must first solicit publiccomment on our intent to requiresecondary containment at covered




underground tanks that cannot beentered for inspection that handle CDD-and CDF-contaminated wastes. Weintend to address this issue inforthcoming regulations dealingcomprehensively with managementstandards for tanks.

We believe that the secondarycontainment requirement for the storageor treatment of these wastes in tanks isjustified based on the following threeconsiderations: (1) When released intothe environment, it is well-documentedthat these extremely toxic wastespresent a substantial hazard to humanhealth or the environment; (2] thesewastes may be stored for a long timebefore a disposal or incineration facilityis found that is willing or able to acceptthem (for example, the same wastes atthe Vertac facility have now been storedon-site for nearly ten years); and (3)EPA's experience indicates that thesewastes are particularly difficult andexpensive to cleanup when spilled, andtherefore warrant the additionalprotection afforded by secondarycontainment.

For the same reasons cited above, webelieve that secondary containmentshould be part of the permitrequirements for all facilities that storeCDD- and CDF-containing wastes thatare not free liquids in containers. (EPAspecifically solicited comments on thisapproach in the proposal, butcommenters did not reach a consensuson this issue. Some commenterssupported it while others opposed thisaspect of the proposal.) Accordingly, allthe present requirements for secondarycontainment will apply to containerstorage facilities, except for the waiverprovision in § 264.175(c). This waiverallows an exemption from the secondarycontainment requirements for non-liquidwastes, an exception which we believeshould not apply to container facilitiesstoring CDD/CDF-contaminated wastes.Rather, we have concluded that allpossible releases of these wastes to air,ground water, and surface water fromsuch facilities must be prevented.Therefore, a waiver of secondarycontainment requirements for containerswill not be allowed. A container storagearea must have a base which issufficiently impervious and continuousto prevent spills or leaks of these non-liquid wastes into the environment.

With respect to tanks, we havechosen to implement the secondarycontainment requirement through ageneral performance standard.Therefore, the rule does not specify thetypes of designs for the containmentsystem, but rather requires the owner oroperator to choose a design and propose

it in the RCRA permit application forEPA review. Under new § 264.200(a),facilities seeking permits for tanks thatstore or treat these wastes must have asystem designed and operated to detectand adequately contain spills or leaksfrom the tanks. The design of acceptablecontainment and detection systems canvary considerably according to the typeof tank and other factors, as discussedbelow.

An example of a containment systemthat might be acceptable for a tanksituated above-ground is one with animpervious base (such as concrete, or asynthetic liner) underlying the tank, andwalls or dikes around the tanks thatprovide containment for at least 100% ofthe design capacity of the largest tank inthe containment area. This is to preventrelease of CDD- and CDF-contaminatedwastes into the environment from thetank in the event of a complete(worstcase) tank failure. The Agencydoes not believe that the regulationsneed protect against the extremelyremote possibility of simultaneousmultiple tank failures in onecontainment area. Each containmentsystem must also have a method ofmechanical-or visual detection that willidentify leaks of CDD- and CDF-contaminated wastes from the bottom ofthe tank.

An example of a containment systemthat might be acceptable for an in-ground tank is one with a synthetic-typeliner underlying the tank, or a linerplaced inside the tank so that the tankitself provides the secondarycontainment. In either configuration, thecontainment system must be compatiblewith the wastes being stored, and mustbe installed and have sufficient strengthand thickness so as to prevent failuredue to abrasion, pressure gradients, orclimatic conditions. A'method to detectany leaks between the primary andsecondary containment system mustalso be provided.

An example of a containment systemthat might be acceptable forunderground tanks that can be enteredfor inspection is a vault structureconstructed of material impervious tothe wastes being stored in the tank orsimply compatible with the wastes andlined or coated with an imperviousmaterial. This type of containmentsystem must also have a method todetect any leaks from the tank.

As a general alternative to theseexamples of containment systems,double walled tanks equipped with aninterstitial zone monitoring device todetect leaks that enter the spacebetween the walls would also be

considered acceptable for meeting thenew standard prescribed in §264.200(a).

Today's rule requires tank facilitiesstoring or treating CDD- and CDF-containing wastes to provide EPA withinformation in its permit applicationspecifying: The precise design of thesecondary containment system and itsaccompanying leak detection method;the choice of construction material andspecifications; and whether additionalrun-on or precipitation controls areneeded to preserve the system'sintegrity. These new technicalinformation requirements are specifiedin new § 270.16(g) and must beaddressed by each individual facility inits RCRA permit application. Thisinformation will be evaluated by EPAbefore a permit is issued.

With the addition of today'ssecondary containment requirements,we have also decided it is necessary torequire tank facilities storing CDD/CDF-containing wastes to address in thefacility contingency plan the steps to betaken should a leak be detected. When aleak is detected, the owner or operatormust

federal register vol. no. monday, january 14, 1985 rules ......by april 15, 1985 and a part a permit...

Documents