7824 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302

[SWH–FRL–5150–3]

RIN 2050–AD59

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Carbamate Production

Identification and Listing of Hazardous

Waste; and CERCLA Hazardous

Substance Designation and Reportable

Quantities

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 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 onepound 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

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv), the new exemptions to

the definition of hazardous wastes, the

exemption was proposed to read as

follows:

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *; or

(F) One or more of the following wastes

listed in § 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 § 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:

§ 261.3(c)(2)(ii) * * *

(D) Biological treatment sludge from the

treatment of one of the following wastes

listed in § 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 concentrationbased 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,
7826 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 landbased 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 § 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):

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *; or

(F) One or more of the following wastes

listed in § 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 § 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 <5 ppmwt at

the point of generation.

The Agency is not requiring that

generators taking advantage of the K157

exemption actually monitor the

concentration of the constituents of

concern in untreated wastewater, but

uses the same strategy used in other

exemptions for wastewaters discharged

into the headworks of a wastewater

treatment system found at 40 CFR

261.3(a)(2)(4) (46 FR 56582, November

17, 1981). A generator must be able to

demonstrate that the total amount of all

constituents of concern that is

discharged to the environment during

the production week divided by the

average weekly flow of the process unit

discharge into the headworks of the

final wastewater treatment step not

exceed the standards.

This demonstration can be made

through an audit of various records

already maintained at most facilities,

including invoices showing material

purchases, lists including to whom and

how much inventory was distributed

and other, similar, operating records. A

facility can exclude that portion of the

constituents of concern not disposed to

wastewaters. No portion of the material

of concern which is volatilized may be

excluded from the calculation. Under

current regulations (40 CFR 262.11 and

268.7) generators are required to

determine whether their wastes are

hazardous. Facilities claiming the

exemption would have to be able to

demonstrate that they meet the

exemption. Such information would be

intended to verify compliance with this

concentration standard. An EPA

inspector would look to this information

to verify the assessment made by the

generator, and may employ direct

analytical testing as further verification.

If either measurement indicate a total

concentration greater than 5 ppmwt for

the sum of the concentrations of the four

chemicals of concern, then the wastes is

subject to regulation as K157 hazardous

waste. In this manner, the Agency seeks

to discourage and prevent air stripping

or other technologies which would

merely continue to volatilize these

pollutants of concern.

Commenters argued and the Agency

agrees that wastes derived from K156

are no longer hazardous wastes

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.

In the case of wastewaters derived from

the treatment of K156 wastes, other

wastes may be commingled for

treatment. However, other hazardous

wastes mixed with K156 or K157 wastes

are not exempt. Records of incinerator

feed rates and destruction efficiency can

be used to support a facilities claim of

exemption. A facility can demonstrate

that it meets either of these exemptions

only in part by direct effluent

measurement at the headworks. In each

case, the facility must also incorporate

any emissions from the treatment

system prior to the headworks in the

overall determination of regulatory

status.

The Agency is also expanding the

proposed exemption of K157

wastewater treatment sludges to include

sludges from the treatment of K156

wastes. The Agency is specifically

exempting biological treatment sludges

from the treatment of K156 and K157

wastes from the production of

carbamates and carbamoyl oximes from

the definition of hazardous waste,

because it has characterized these

sludges and found that they do not pose

significant risks to human health or the

environment in the advent of plausible

mismanagement. Under § 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

would read (changes to proposal in

bold):

§ 261.3(c)(2)(ii) * * *

(D) Biological treatment sludge from the

treatment of one of the following wastes

listed in § 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),

and wastewaters from the production of

carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (EPA

Hazardous Waste No. K157).

Without exemption, a large volume of

previously disposed wastes and sludge

currently collecting within the various

treatment systems would require

management as hazardous waste under

the derived-from rule (40 CFR

261.3(c)(2)). However, in the case of the

biological sludges from the treatment of

carbamate and carbamoyl oxime

wastewaters, the Agency could only

identify risks resulting from the

hazardous volatile air pollutants present

in the wastewaters being treated.

Neither these air pollutants nor other

hazardous substances were found to be

accumulating in the biological treatment
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7827

sludges studied by the Agency.

Therefore, the Agency finds that these

sludges do not meet the definition of

hazardous waste, and is exempting

these sludges derived from K156 and

K157 wastes from the definition of

hazardous wastes, provided the wastes

are not otherwise characteristically

hazardous. EPA believes that this

exemption is particularly appropriate

because of the small number of facilities

in this industry and the Agency’s

thorough investigation of carbamate

wastes.

B. Appendix VII and Appendix VIII

In the March 1, 1994 proposed rule,

the Agency had proposed the listing of

acetone, hexane, methanol, methyl

isobutyl ketone, and xylene as part of

the basis for listing of one or more

hazardous wastes in part 261 appendix

VII and as hazardous constituents for

addition to part 261 appendix VIII.

Because these constituents were not

significant in the Agency’s

multipathway risk assessment, the

Agency is not finalizing the addition of

acetone, hexane, methanol, methyl

isobutyl ketone, and xylene to part 261

appendix VII. Furthermore, because

these constituents are no longer

significant to the carbamate industry,

and their addition to appendix VIII

could have far reaching impact, the

Agency is also not adding these solvents

to appendix VIII.

In reassessing the basis for listing, the

Agency discovered that although

formaldehyde in K156 wastes had

demonstrated significant risks via the

direct inhalation pathway (59 FR 9827)

it was inadvertently omitted from the

appendix VII basis of listing in the

Federal Register notice for the proposed

rule. The presence and risks attributed

to formaldehyde in K156 waste are

clearly documented in the proposal. The

Agency has corrected this omission and

added formaldehyde to the appendix VII

basis for listing of K156. The Agency is

also correcting the inadvertent omission

of antimony and arsenic to the appendix

VII basis of listing for K161 (see 59 FR

9830 and 9835).

Commenters also brought to the

Agency’s attention, that Agency had not

listed the generic listings of carbamates,

carbamoyl oximes, thiocarbamates, or

dithiocarbamates, N.O.S. to appendix

VIII. Based on either direct toxicological

studies or the extrapolation of existing

studies to the chemical group, the

Agency finds each member of these

groups may exhibit toxicological

properties or degrade to other known

toxic substances. As stated previously,

the Agency is deferring the addition of

the generic U360 through U363 listings

until comment is taken of options to

narrow their scope. This inadvertent

omission of addition of these categories

to appendix VIII will be corrected in the

future rulemaking. Therefore, the

Agency has not finalized the addition of

these generic descriptions to appendix

VII.

C. Listing of Commercial Chemical

Products

The March 1, 1994 notice (59 FR

9808) proposed the addition of 22

substances to 40 CFR 261.33(e). This

final action adds 18 of the 22 substances

to the list of acutely hazardous wastes.

After evaluation of comments received,

four substances (bendiocarb,

thiophanate-methyl, thiodicarb, and

propoxur), proposed for addition to 40

CFR 261.33(e) as acutely hazardous, are

instead being added to 40 CFR 261.33(f)

as toxic wastes when discarded. In each

case, the Agency found that these four

substances did not meet the

§ 261.11(a)(2) criteria for listing in

§ 261.33(e).

In the case of propoxur, the Agency

has examined the more current

inhalation studies provided, as well as

additional studies performed on

propoxur concentrates, and finds that

these more recent studies indicate a 1-

hour inhalation LC50 near, but greater

than, 2 mg/L. The Agency was unable to

document the quality of the prior study

or all study protocols. Therefore, the

EPA is finalizing the listing of propoxur

as a U-waste, rather than as a ‘‘P’’ list

waste, and designating propoxur as

U411.

In the case of bendiocarb,

thiophanate-methyl, and thiodicarb, it

was noted that the Agency had based its

decision on 4-hour exposure studies

rather than 1-hour exposure studies

consistent with the toxicological criteria

of 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2). The Agency has

reevaluated each of the compounds

LC50 (1-hour) inhalation toxicity and

based on these and the other

toxicological results presented in the

proposal is finalizing these three

substances as toxic rather than acute

hazardous wastes.

TABLE 1.—LIST OF PROPOSED ACUTE HAZARDOUS WASTES BEING ADDED AS TOXIC HAZARDOUS WASTES

Hazardous

waste No. Toxic hazardous wastes—CAS name (common name in parentheses) CAS No.

U278 .......... 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate (Bendiocarb) ............................................................................ 22781–23–3

U409 .......... Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester (Thiophanate-methyl) ................................ 23564–05–8

U410 .......... Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N′-[thiobis[(methylimino)carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester (Thiodicarb) .................................. 59669–26–0

U411 .......... Phenol, 2-(1-methylethoxy)-, methylcarbamate (Propoxur) ............................................................................................ 114–26–1

The Agency believes that as proposed

the generic listing descriptions may be

overly broad. Therefore, the Agency is

not finalizing at this time the four

proposed generic U listings (U360

through U363). With regard to the

generic listings, the Agency believes

that each generic group exhibits

significant toxicological properties

either directly from the chemicals

themselves or their potential

degradation products and that the range

of variability in these effects in each

case may pose risks to human health

and the environment. As a result, the

Agency is not finalizing the generic U

listings (U360 through U363) at this

time, and will take comment at a future

date on options to narrow the scope of

the U360—U363 listings.

The Agency also evaluated the

toxicological data for each waste

proposed for addition to 40 CFR

§ 261.33(f). After review of the available

toxicological data, 12 compounds were

not considered to have adequate

toxicological data or predicted toxicity

values in the record to finalize these

listings at this time. The Agency is

deferring action on these 12 substances.

The Agency has performed a more

rigorous quantitative structure activity

relationship analysis (QSAR) to predict

the aquatic toxicity of each of the 12

deferred chemicals. The results of the

QSAR analysis supports the Agency’s

conclusion that carbamates, carbamoyl

oximes, thiocarbamates, and

dithiocarbamates are highly toxic to

aquatic species. The results of these

studies are presented in Table 2 and

included in the Docket (see ADDRESSES).

The Agency will present these studies

and the methodology used for public
7828 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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.

comment during a planned reproposal

of the 12 deferred chemicals.

TABLE 2.—QSAR RESULTS FOR DEFERRED DISCARDED CHEMICAL PRODUCTS

Waste code Toxic hazardous wastes CAS name (common name in

parentheses) CAS No. Fish 96-hLD50 mg/L

Daphnid 48-h

LC50 mg/L

Fish

chronic

value

(ChV)

mg/L

Daphnid

chronic

value

(ChV)

mg/L

U368 .......... Antimony tris (dipentylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)- (Antimony

trisdipentyldithiocarbamate).

15890–25–2 0.09 ............. 0.35 ............. 0.004 0.01

U369 .......... Antimony, tris[bis(2-ethylhexyl)carbamodithioato-S,S’]-,

(Antimony tris(2-ethylhexyl)dithiocarbamate).

15991–76–1 ...................... ...................... 0.001 0.003

U370 .......... Bismuth, tris(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S’-, (Bismuth

tris(dimethyldithiocarbamate)).

21260–46–8 1.8 ............... 0.63 ............. 0.03 0.06

U371 .......... Carbamic acid, [(dimethylamino)iminomethyl)] methyl,

ethyl ester monohydrochloride (Hexazinone intermediate).

65086–85–3 190.0 ........... 30.0 ............. 20.0 3.0

U374 .......... Carbamic acid, [[3-[(dimethylamino) carbonyl]-2-

pyridinyl]sulfonyl]-phenyl ester (U9069).

112006–94–

7

870.0 ........... 1000.0 ......... 90.0 100.0

U380 .......... Carbamodithioic acid, dibutyl-, methylene ester .............. 10254–57–6 ...................... ...................... 0.01 0.06

U388 .......... Carbamothioic acid, (1,2-dimethylpropyl) ethyl-, S-

(phenylmethyl) ester (Esprocarb).

85785–20–2 3.9 ...............

0.46—Carp

28–d

TSCA§ 8E

8379

3.9 ............... 0.40 0.40

U397 .......... Lead, bis(dipentylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)- (Lead, bis

(dipentyldithiocarbamato)).

36501–84–5 0.07 ............. 0.29 ............. 0.003 0.008

U398 .......... Molybdenum, bis(dibutylcarbamothioato)- di-.mu.-

oxodioxodi-, sulfurized.

68412–26–0 4.0 ............... 1.7 ............... 0.20 0.25

U399 .......... Nickel, bis(dibutylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)- (Nickel

dibutyldithiocarbamate).

13927–77–0 0.12 ............. 0.26 ............. 0.004 0.01

U405 .......... Zinc, bis[bis (phenylmethyl) carbamodithioato-S,S’]-

(Zinc dibenzyldithiocarbamate).

14726–36–4 0.10 ............. 0.30 ............. 0.004 0.01

U406 .......... Zinc, bis(dibutylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)- (Butyl Ziram) ..... 136–23–2 0.12 ............. 0.26 .............

0.74—

daphinid

48–h

TSCA§ 8E

9739

0.004 0.01

V. Response to Comments

The Agency is responding in this

preamble to the most significant

comments received in response to both

the notice of March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9808)

and the single comment received on

carbamates that were part of the

‘‘Michigan List’’ proposal 1 (49 FR

49784, December 21, 1984).

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:

R O

R N C O R

2

1 3 − − − −

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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:

R O R

R N C O N C R

2 4

1 3 − − − − = −

Carbamoyl oximes are a combination of

the carbamate functionality and the

oxime functionality. Oximes are

characterized by the structure RO-N=CR1,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

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:

R O R O

R N C S R or R N C O R

2 2

1 3 1 3 − − − − − − − −

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:

R S

R N C S R

2

1 3 − − − −

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:

S C S

R

R N H

M

S

R N C S M

carbon disulfide a e dithiocarbamicacid metalsalt

= = + − −

+

→ − −















 −

+ 2

min

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:

R S S R

R N C S C N R

wheren n − − − − − −

=

( )

1 2 3 4 , , ,

These sulfides are the linkage of two

dithiocarbamic acids and are classed as

dialkyldithiocarbamates in this rule,

because thiuram sulfides are known to
7830 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2The 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.

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.

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 noncarbamate 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 noncarbamate 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 noncarbamate 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

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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.
7832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonwastewaters generated through

permissible switching of treatability

groups when steam stripping generates

wastewater bottoms (<1% total organic

carbon, <1% total suspended solids)

and non-wastewater overheads (>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 <5

ppm of methyl chloride, formaldehyde,

triethylamine, and/or methylene

chloride) if the wastes are treated in

biological treatment systems. This

commenter believes that without the

exemption, the mixture and derivedfrom rule will force manufacturers to

collect incinerator scrubber waters or

stripper bottoms derived from treatment

of K156 wastes for off-site management

or collect all K156 organic wastes for

off-site management. The commenters

also believe that the lack of an

exemption for K156 non-wastewaters

equivalent to that for K157 wastewaters

would result in needless off-site

shipments of wastes.

The Agency has considered the

expansion of the exemptions for other

wastes proposed for listing. For

untreated K156 wastes the Agency does

not believe that it is appropriate to

provide an exemption similar to K157

wastes. K156 wastes typically contain

high concentrations of organic solvents

such as xylene, methanol, methyl

isobutyl ketone, toluene, acetone, and

triethylamine and significant

concentrations of such compounds as

benomyl, carbendazim, carbaryl, and

carbofuran. The Agency used a

multipathway risk assessment and

found that the constituents found in

these wastes presented a risk to human

health and the environment if the waste

is improperly managed. Thus, the

Agency does not feel an exemption for

untreated K156 wastes is warranted.

The Agency believes, however, that

some K156 wastes deserve the same

type of exemption as K157 wastewater.

Wastes derived from the treatment of

K156 wastes such as incinerator

condensate waters and other dilute

wastes present risks similar to those

from K157 wastewaters. For example, a

carbamate process unit may generate an

organic stream (i.e., >1% TOC) that is

identified as K156. This material then

undergoes incineration or steam

stripping generating a wastewater

stream (e.g., scrubber blowdown) with

<1 % TOC. This wastewater is very

similar in constituent type and

concentration as a K157 waste yet

carries the K156 designation as a result

of the derived-from rule (40 CFR

261.3(c)(2)).

Commenters noted that these derived

from wastes are currently managed in

the same treatment systems used for

K157 wastes, and that these are the

same treatment systems sampled and

evaluated by the Agency during it

multipathway risk assessment. Because

wastewater ‘‘derived from’’ K156 wastes

contain pollutant levels which would be

safe to undergo biological treatment are

currently managed with the K157

wastewaters the Agency studied, the

Agency has considered the expansion of

the wastewater exemption to include

wastewaters derived from the treatment

of K156. The risks of concern the

Agency measured for these units were

from the volatilization of waste

contaminants. Since the K156 derived

from wastewaters have such similar

properties and constituent

concentrations and continue to be

treated in tanks, the Agency concludes

that these derived-from wastes deserve

to be provided the same regulatory

coverage as K157 wastes. Furthermore,

the Agency believes that the lack of a

similar exemption for K156 may reduce

the incentives for source reduction by

facilities. Source reduction practices

would result in the production of

smaller volumes of more concentrated

wastes and these wastes would likely be

K156 rather than K157.

The Agency has therefore added a

concentration-based exemption for

wastes derived from K156 wastes. The

exemption reads:

§ 261.4(a)(2)(iv) * * *
7834 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(G) Wastewaters derived from the

treatment of one or more of the following

wastes listed in § 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.

Therefore, in order to be exempt,

these K156 derived wastewaters would

need to demonstrate that the emissions

of formaldehyde, methyl chloride,

methylene chloride, and triethylamine

not exceed a total 5 ppm for

environmental discharges and

subsequent wastewater treatment. This

exemption is different from the K157

exemption in that it is only for

wastewaters (i.e., TSS<1% and

TOC<1%) derived from the treatment of

K156 and not for the generated K156

wastes themselves.

While in general commenters

requested this extension of the

exemption proposed for K157 wastes to

also include similar wastewaters

derived from the treatment of K156

wastes, one commenter did object to the

proposed exemption, as noted above in

section V.B.1. Because significant

treatment will be necessary for these to

meet the exemption criteria, and the

Agency’s sampling had included

sludges derived from both K156 and

K157 wastewaters, the Agency is

confident that risks would not be

increased by extending the exemption to

wastes derived-from K156 wastes and is

finalizing the above exemption in this

rulemaking.

3. Wastewater Treatment Sludge

Exemption

One commenter felt that since K156

scrubber water and steam stripping

bottoms no longer contain VOCs and the

carbamate component has been treated,

that the K156 hazardous waste code

should not apply to downstream

biological treatment system sludges. The

commenter therefore believes that the

proposed biological treatment sludge

exemption should be modified to

include K156 wastes which contain <5

ppm of methyl chloride, formaldehyde,

triethylamine, and/or methylene

chloride) if the wastes are treated in

biological treatment systems. The

commenter believes that without the

exemption, the mixture and derivedfrom rule will force manufacturers to

collect incinerator scrubber waters or

stripper bottoms derived from treatment

of K156 wastes for off-site management

or collect all K156 organic wastes for

off-site management.

The Agency agrees with the

commenter and has reevaluated its

decision to exempt wastewater

treatment sludges. During the industry

study the Agency sampled wastewater

treatment sludges that were derived

from the treatment of K157 wastes as

well as sludges derived from K156

wastes. The Agency performed a

multipathway risk assessment on the

sludges using the collected data and

determined that they did not meet the

criteria for listing presented in 40 CFR

261.11. The Agency is therefore

expanding the scope of the exemption to

include K156 derived from wastewaters.

The exemption reads:

§ 261.3(c)(2)(ii) * * *

(D) Biological treatment sludge from the

treatment of one of the following wastes

listed in § 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),

and wastewaters from the production of

carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (EPA

Hazardous Waste No. K157).

As noted in Section A.5 above, one

commenter believed that wastewater

treatment sludges 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. Specifically, the commenter

believed that total bis (2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate was recorded in one sample as

22 mg/kg, compared to the health-based

concentration of 0.006 mg/L; the

samples contain 3,320 mg/L, and 4,600

mg/kg total methylamine, compared

with aquatic LC50 concentration of 150

mg/L and the lethal dose for mice

(subcutaneous) of 2,500 mg/kg; and one

sample contained an estimated 15,000

mg/kg total trimethylamine.

Concentrations of naphthalene and 4-

methylphenol in the sludges also exceed

health-based concentrations. The

commenter also 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.

For wastewater treatment sludges, the

referenced constituents while present,

were not present in mobile forms above

health-based levels or aquatic LC50.

Specifically, methylamine was detected

in RP–09 at 4.6 mg/kg and not 4600 mg/

kg as the commenter noted. As well

trimethylamine was found at 15 mg/kg

and not 15,000 mg/kg as reported by the

commenter. While some constituents in

the solid wastes exceeded the healthbased numbers, the constituents were

not found to leach from the matrices.

Only one leachate sample had bis 2-

(ethylhexyl)phthalate (DL–05 TCLP (2

times the HBL)) present at a

concentration that exceeded the health

based number.

The Agency used these concentrations

in the multipathway risk assessment

and considered as plausible

mismanagement the current

management pathways of management

in tanks and subsequent disposal in

landfills. No significant risks were

attributed to these management

scenarios. The Agency believes that the

management scenarios used in the risk

assessment were appropriate because

the industry is currently managing the

sludges in this manner. In the

assessment of landfill management,

model leachate concentrations were

matched to analytical TCLP leachate

concentrations. The Agency calibrated

model outputs to experimental

measurements of actual leaching

potential, and believes that it has

accurately assessed the leaching

potential of this wastestream. As a result

the Agency does not believe listing of

the wastewater treatment sludges is

warranted and that the exemptions

provide for these sludges is appropriate.

C. Basis for Listing and Decisions Not to

List

One commenter believes that the

K156 through K161 listings are based on

mischaracterized waste streams. The

commenter believes that in some cases

identified constituents of concern come

from non-carbamate processes and thus

should not be used in evaluating the

risk of carbamate waste streams. The

commenter also believes that the

Agency did not collect enough data to

support this rulemaking and that EPA

has based the proposed listing on

constituents that are only proposed for

addition to appendix VIII rather than

those already on appendix VIII. Several

commenters did not believe that the

EPA demonstrated that the K156

through K161 wastes meet the listing

criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11.

Commenters believe that the Agency

misapplied the listing criteria by using

inappropriate mismanagement scenarios

to evaluate the hazards posed by the

carbamate wastes. The commenters

believed that the Agency should have

used management scenarios which the

waste would normally undergo.

Specifically, the commenter believes

that the Agency only used exposure
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7835

routes for pesticide use rather than

routes for pesticide wastes.

In addition, several commenters

believe that dithiocarbamates as a group

and individual dithiocarbamates did not

meet the listing criteria set out in 40

CFR 261.11. Specifically, several

commenters felt the Agency has not

demonstrated that dithiocarbamates

meet the reactivity criteria of 40 CFR

261.23(a) (1), (2), (3), and (4) or the

toxicity criteria of 40 CFR 262.11(a)(2).

The Agency believes that it has

accurately characterized the waste

streams generated by carbamate

manufacturers. In some cases waste

streams that resulted from the treatment

of commingled streams from carbamate

and non-carbamate streams were

sampled and analyzed. This is because,

at many facilities, carbamate

manufacturing is only part of the

production activities occurring. It is

common (especially for wastewaters) at

carbamate manufacturing facilities to

commingle wastes prior to treatment

and disposal. The Agency believes that

when streams are commingled for the

purpose of treating one with the other

that it was appropriate to sample the

commingled stream. For example, at

Zeneca’s Bucks, AL facility, the Agency

analyzed several streams that result

from the treatment of thiocarbamate

wastes as well as other processes. These

streams are derived from carbamate

streams and it is appropriate to

characterize these streams and consider

them for listing as hazardous.

Specifically, the benzene and toluene in

the commingled streams from the noncarbamate processes at Zeneca are used

to extract the thiocarbamates from the

wastewater streams because

thiocarbamates are extremely soluble in

benzene and toluene. Thus, since the

commingling of the waste streams also

provides a treatment step for the

thiocarbamate wastewaters, it was

appropriate to include the commingled

streams in the risk assessment and use

this information during the listing

determination. In addition, while some

constituents of concern may not be from

carbamate processes, these were never

the sole driving force behind the listing

decision. In the specific case of

thiocarbamate wastes, high

concentrations of thiocarbamate

products are present and clearly pose

the potential for damage to human

health or the environment if not

properly managed.

The Agency believes that it has

collected sufficient information and

data to support listing of the six K

wastes. During the carbamate industry

study, the Agency collected generation

and management information from all

carbamate manufacturers identified in

the United States during 1991 using a

RCRA Section 3007 survey. To

supplement the data and information

collected in the survey, the Agency

visited nine carbamate facilities and

collected waste samples at eight of these

facilities. These facilities are

representative of the carbamate industry

and produce 55 percent by weight of all

carbamates manufactured in the U.S.

These eight facilities represent products

that make up over 89 percent of overall

carbamate production. The Agency

collected and analyzed approximately

60 samples from these facilities. These

samples were supplemented by 26

samples collected from carbamate

facilities by the Office of Water during

the development of the effluent

guidelines for pesticide manufacturers.

The Agency believes that the 86 samples

are representative of the wastes

generated by carbamate manufacturers

and that these analyses, in addition to

the information provided in the RCRA

Section 3007 surveys, provide sufficient

data to support this rulemaking.

The Agency also believes that it is

acceptable to propose both additions to

appendix VIII and appendix VII at the

same time. The Agency believes that it

has the basis for proposing additions to

appendix VIII based on the presence of

the constituents in carbamate wastes

and their toxicity. In addition, the

Agency took comments on the proposed

additions to appendix VIII. There is

nothing that prohibits the simultaneous

hazardous waste listing and appendix

VIII addition, provided that the Agency

solicits and responds to public comment

on both actions. The Agency believes

that listing the wastes and making the

additions to appendix VIII

simultaneously is an efficient system for

developing the regulations and allows

for public participation. Simultaneous

hazardous waste listing and addition to

appendix VIII is a long-standing practice

of the Agency. In addition, the Agency

notes that the following constituents

which are part of the basis for these

hazardous waste listings were on

appendix VIII at the time this rule was

proposed: benzene, chloroform, methyl

ethyl ketone, methylene chloride,

pyridine, carbon tetrachloride,

formaldehyde, and methyl chloride.

The Agency also believes that it has

demonstrated that the K156 through

K161 wastes meet the listing criteria of

40 CFR 261.11. The Agency considered

each of the criteria outlined and

determined that these wastes are

capable of posing a substantial threat to

human health and the environment

when improperly treated stored,

transported or disposed. The Agency

disagrees with the commenter with

regard to the management scenarios

used in the listing determinations. The

mismanagement scenarios that were

used in the evaluation of carbamate

wastes were not hypothetical, but were

based on actual waste management

practices currently used by the industry.

Because these practices are, in fact,

engaged in by the industry they are

plausible management scenarios for

these wastes. The Agency did not rely

on pesticide use exposure routes and

specific damage incidents as the sole

basis for listing. Specific damage

incidents involving pesticides were

used as supporting documentation that

carbamates can have a significant

environmental impact if improperly

disposed.

EPA believes that dithiocarbamate

wastes pose significant risks to human

health and the environment, because

these materials are bioavailable and

degradable and have the potential to

exhibit significant aquatic toxicity,

reproductive and neurological effects,

and have the potential once released in

the environment to form among other

degradation products, carbon disulfide

(a potent reproductive and neurological

toxicant).

These risks specifically meet EPA’s

listing criteria as described in the

preamble to the dyes and pigments

listing determination (59 FR 66072,

December 22, 1994). With regard to the

toxicity of the dithiocarbamates, the

Agency believes that in addition to the

toxic effects of intact dithiocarbamates,

the formation of toxic decomposition

products is a major concern for

dithiocarbamates. Dithiocarbamates

exhibit risks as a result of the parent

compound, metal ion, and daughter

products. As presented in the proposed

rule, dithiocarbamates exhibit acute

aquatic toxicity in a narrow range for

those compounds with available data

(LC50 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
7836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 nnitrosodimethylamine in the wastes

sampled. Methylisothiocyanate is

reactive and toxic, and nnitrosodimethylamine 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 261.11(a)(2)

criteria for listing in § 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 § 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
7838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

toxicity is of concern. The Agency’s

benchmark for inclusion of a waste on

40 CFR § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 sitespecific 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
7840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 261.2(e)(i)), or is

being returned to the original process

without first being reclaimed

(§ 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 (§ 261.6(a)(3)(iii)).

However, aerosol containers that are not

empty in accordance with § 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 § 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 § 3010(b).

A period of six months from the

publication date of the listing is

generally adequate time for the industry
7842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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 nonauthorized 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 HSWArelated 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 § 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 groundwater 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
7844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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-toKnow 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

Waste code Constituent of concern

Statutory

RQ

(pounds)

K156 ................ benomyl, carbaryl, carbendazim, carbofuran, carbosulfan, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, triethylamine .......... 1

K157 ................ carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, pyridine, triethylamine.1

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 (Tirpate) ..................................... 1

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-trimethylpyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-yl

methylcarbamate ester (1:1) (Physostigmine salicylate).

1

P189 ................ Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl ester (Carbosulfan) ............... 1

P190 ................ Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester (Metolcarb) ......................................................................................... 1

P191 ................ Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1-[(dimethylamino)carbonyl]-5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl ester (Dimetilan) ........................... 1

P192 ................ Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester (Isolan) ................................................. 1

U409 ................ Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester (Thiophanate-methyl) ............................ 1

P194 ................ Ethanimidothioc acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester (Oxamyl) ................ 1

U410 ................ Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N’-[thiobis[(methylimino)carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester (Thiodicarb) .............................. 1

P196 ................ Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)- (Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate) ........................................ 1

P197 ................ Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N’-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- (Formparanate) .................... 1

P198 ................ Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N’-[3-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, monohydrochloride (Formetanate hydrochloride).1
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7845

TABLE 3.—ONE-POUND STATUTORY RQS FOR K, P, AND U WASTES—Continued

Waste code Constituent of concern

Statutory

RQ

(pounds)

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 (Aldicarb sulfone) ................................... 1

P204 ................ Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)- (Physostigmine).1

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 (Benomyl) ....................................... 1

U375 ................ Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester (3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate) ............................................... 1

U376 ................ Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, tetraanhydrosulfide with orthothioselenious acid (Selenium,

tetrakis(dimethyldithiocarbamate)).

1

U377 ................ Carbamodithioic acid, methyl,- monopotassium salt (Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate) ...................................... 1

U378 ................ Carbamodithioic acid, (hydroxymethyl)methyl-, monopotassium salt (Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-nmethyldithiocarbamate).1

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 dithiocarbamate) ............................................ 1

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 (Triallate) ............................................ 1

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 tetrasulfide) .......................................... 1

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,
7846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3Costs are discounted at a rate of 7 percent over

a 20 year period.

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.

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 offsite 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 postregulatory 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 incineration ............................................ $1,600 per metric ton .................... SAIC/ICF analysis.

Commercial hazardous waste landfill ..................................................... $200 per metric ton ....................... SAIC/ICF analysis.

Hazardous waste transportation ............................................................. $0.27 per metric ton per mile if

under 200 miles.

SAIC analysis.

$0.24 per metric ton per mile if

over 200 miles.

Class II on-site hazardous waste landfill permit modification 4 .............. $80,102 .......................................... ICF analysis.

Class II on-site hazardous waste incinerator permit modification 5 ....... $40,585 .......................................... ICF analysis.

Other class II on-site hazardous waste treatment permit modification .. $7,476 ............................................ ICF analysis.

Segregation of industrial Subtitle D waste ............................................. $10 per metric ton ......................... EPA estimate.

Maintenance of contingency plan ........................................................... $200 per facility per year ............... Source a.

Manifesting 5 ........................................................................................... $36 per shipment ........................... Sources b, c.

BRS reporting ......................................................................................... $428 per facility per year ............... Sources c, d.

4Permit 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7847

6Recent vendor quotes of off-site steam-stripping

showed a cost of $0.75 per gallon (approximately

$200 per metric ton).

7EPA 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.

TABLE 5.—TOTAL CARBAMATE PRODUCTION WASTE QUANTITIES AND

TOTAL INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST

INCURRED BY EACH POST-REGULATORY WASTE MANAGEMENT CATEGORY

Post-regulatory

waste management

scenario

Total

quantity

of carbamate production

waste affected (in

metric

tons)

Total

annualized

incremental cost incurred

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

Total a ................ 840,000 910,000

a Numbers 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 stripping 6. The total

estimated annualized cost for scenario

two is $6.4 million.

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 lowercost management 7. The costs estimated

for scenario one have been used in the

total costs for K157 wastes reported

below.

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-ofservice 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 concentrationbased 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

RCRA waste code Annual incremental

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
7848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

8A small business is defined by the Small

Business Size Regulations (13 CFR part 121) as one

with under 500 employees.

9According to ‘‘EPA Guidelines for Implementing

the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (April, 1992), any

producer of pesticides and agricultural chemicals

(SIC 2879) with less than 500 employees constitutes

a ‘‘small entity.’’ None of the entities which would

incur incremental compliance costs as a result of

this proposal have less than 500 employees.

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.

TABLE 7.—RESULTS OF THE

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

Facility

Annual

incremental cost of

rule

Annual

sales

(millions)

Annual

cost of

compliance/annual

sales

(percent)

1 ............ $772 $17.8 <0.01

2 ............ 628 110 <0.01

3 ............ 664 6.6 0.01

4 ............ 628 45 <0.01

5 ............ 736 19 <0.01

Of the 24 entities which are directly

subject to this rule, 18 entities would

incur incremental compliance costs. Of

the 18 affected facilities, 4 entities fit

the definition of a ‘‘small entity’’ as

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act.9 The annual incremental cost

impact to these 4 entities ranges from

$600 to $800. For each of the 4 facilities

impacted, these annual costs constitute

less than 1 percent of total annual sales.

EPA believes that these costs do not

represent a significant impact. Hence,

pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), ‘‘the Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of entities.’’

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

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.

To the extent that this rule imposes

any information collection requirements

under existing RCRA regulations

promulgated in previous rulemakings,

those requirements have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

and have been assigned OMB control

numbers 2050–120 (ICR no. 1573, Part

B Permit Application); 2050–120 (ICR

1571, General Facility Standards); 2050–

0028 (ICR 261, Notification to Obtain an

EPA ID); 2050–0034 (ICR 262, Part A

Permit Application); 2050–0039 (ICR

801, Hazardous Waste Manifest); 2050–

0035 (ICR 820, Generator Standards);

and 2050–0024 (ICR 976, Biennial

Report).

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).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

materials, Waste treatment and disposal,

Recycling.

40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business infirmation,

Hazardous material transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

40 CFR Part 302

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals,

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act, Extremely

hazardous substances, Hazardous

chemicals, Hazardous materials,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous substances, Hazardous

wastes, Intergovernmental relations,

Natural resources, Pesticides and pests,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

Dated: January 31, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, amend title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

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

6922, and 6938.

2. Section 261.3 is amended by

removing the period at the end of

paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(E) and adding a

semi-colon and the word ‘‘or’’ and by

adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(F),

(a)(2)(iv)(G) and (c)(2)(ii)(D) to read as

follows.

§ 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) * * *

(E) * * *; or

(F) One or more of the following

wastes listed in § 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 § 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.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

(D) Biological treatment sludge from

the treatment of one of the following

wastes listed in § 261.32—organic waste
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7849

(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), and

wastewaters from the production of

carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (EPA

Hazardous Waste No. K157).

* * * * *

3. Section 261.32 is amended by

adding in alphanumeric order (by the

first column) the following waste

streams to the subgroup ‘Organic

chemicals’ to read as follows.

§ 261.32 Hazardous waste from specific

sources.

* * * * *

Industry and

EPA hazardous

waste No.

Hazardous waste Hazard

code

* * * * * * *

Organic Chemicals:

* * * * * * *

K156 ......... Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from the

production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.

(T)

K157 ......... Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters, washwaters, and separation waters) from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.(T)

K158 ......... Bag house dusts and filter/separation solids from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes .................. (T)

K159 ......... Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes ................................................................................................. (T)

K160 ......... Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and spent catalysts) from the production of thiocarbamates and

solids from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.

(T)

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.).

(R,T)

* * * * *

4. The tables in § 261.33(e) and (f) are amended by adding in alphabetic order (by the third column) the following

substances to read as follows:

§ 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Hazardous

waste No.

Chemical

abstracts

No.

Substance

* * * * * * *

P203 ................. 1646–88–4 Aldicarb sulfone.

* * * * * * *

P127 ................. 1563–66–2 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-, methylcarbamate.

P188 ................. 57–64–7 Benzoic acid, 2-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).

* * * * * * *

P189 ................. 55285–14–8 Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)- thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- 7-benzofuranyl ester.

P191 ................. 644–64–4 Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 1-[(dimethyl-amino)carbonyl]- 5-methyl-1H- pyrazol-3-yl ester.

P192 ................. 119–38–0 Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1- (1-methylethyl)-1H- pyrazol-5-yl ester.

P190 ................. 1129–41–5 Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester.

P127 ................. 1563–66–2 Carbofuran.

* * * * * * *

P189 ................. 55285–14–8 Carbosulfan.

* * * * * * *

P202 ................. 64–00–6 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate.

* * * * * * *

P191 ................. 644–64–4 Dimetilan.

* * * * * * *

P185 ................. 26419–73–8 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O- [(methylamino)- carbonyl]oxime.

* * * * * * *

P194 ................. 23135–22–0 Ethanimidothioc acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino) carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester.

* * * * * * *

P198 ................. 23422–53–9 Formetanate hydrochloride.
7850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Hazardous

waste No.

Chemical

abstracts

No.

Substance

P197 ................. 17702–57–7 Formparanate.

* * * * * * *

P192 ................. 119–38–0 Isolan.

P202 ................. 64–00–6 3-Isopropylphenyl N-methylcarbamate.

* * * * * * *

P196 ................. 15339–36–3 Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-,

P196 ................. 15339–36–3 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate.

* * * * * * 23422–53–9 Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-[[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, monohydrochloride. *1P198

P197 ................. 17702–57–7 Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-

P199 ................. 2032–65–7 Methiocarb.

* * * * * * *

P190 ................. 1129–41–5 Metolcarb.

* * * * * * *

P199 ................. 2032–65–7 Mexacarbate.

* * * * * * *

P194 ................. 23135–22–0 Oxamyl.

* * * * * * *

P128 ................. 315–18–4 Phenol, 4-(dimethylamino)-3,5-dimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester).

P199 ................. 2032–65–7 Phenol, (3,5-dimethyl-4-(methylthio)-, methylcarbamate

* * * * * * *

P202 ................. 64–00–6 Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate.

* * * * * * *

P201 ................. 2631–37–0 Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate.

* * * * * * *

P204 ................. 57–47–6 Physostigmine.

P188 ................. 57–64–7 Physostigmine salicylate.

* * * * * * *

P201 ................. 2631–37–0 Promecarb

P203 ................. 1646–88–4 Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methyl-sulfonyl)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime.

* * * * * * *

P204 ................. 57–47–6 Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)-.

* * * * * * *

P185 ................. 26419–73–8 Tirpate.

* * * * * * *

P205 ................. 137–30–4 Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-,

* * * * * * *

P205 ................. 137–30–4 Ziram.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

Hazardous

waste No.

Chemical

abstracts

No.

Substance

U394 ................. 30558–43–1 A2213.

* * * * * * *

U365 ................. 2212–67–1 H-Azepine-1-carbothioic acid, hexahydro-, S-ethyl ester.

* * * * * * *

U280 ................. 101–27–9 Barban.

U278 ................. 22781–23–3 Bendiocarb.

U364 ................. 22961–82–6 Bendiocarb phenol.

U271 ................. 17804–35–2 Benomyl.

* * * * * * *

U278 ................. 22781–23–3 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7851

Hazardous

waste No.

Chemical

abstracts

No.

Substance

U364 ................. 22961–82–6 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-,

U367 ................. 1563–38–8 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-

* * * * * * *

U401 ................. 97–74–5 Bis(dimethylthiocarbamoyl) sulfide.

U400 ................. 120–54–7 Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram tetrasulfide.

* * * * * * *

U392 ................. 2008–41–5 Butylate.

* * * * * * *

U372 ................. 10605–21–7 Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester.

U271 ................. 17804–35–2 Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-, methyl ester.

U375 ................. 55406–53–6 Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester.

U280 ................. 101–27–9 Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester.

U373 ................. 122–42–9 Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester.

U409 ................. 23564–05–8 Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis (iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester.

* * * * * * *

U379 ................. 136–30–1 Carbamodithioic acid, dibutyl, sodium salt.

U277 ................. 95–06–7 Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, 2-chloro-2-propenyl ester.

U381 ................. 148–18–5 Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, sodium salt.

U383 ................. 128–03–0 Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl, potassium salt.

U382 ................. 128–04–1 Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, sodium salt.

U376 ................. 144–34–3 Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, tetraanhydrosulfide with orthothioselenious acid.

* * * * * * *

U378 ................. 51026–28–9 Carbamodithioic acid, (hydroxymethyl)methyl-, monopotassium salt.

U384 ................. 137–42–8 Carbamodithioic acid, methyl-, monosodium salt.

U377 ................. 137–41–7 Carbamodithioic acid, methyl,- monopotassium salt.

* * * * * * *

U389 ................. 2303–17–5 Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester.

U392 ................. 2008–41–5 Carbamothioic acid, bis(2-methylpropyl)-, S-ethyl ester.

U391 ................. 1114–71–2 Carbamothioic acid, butylethyl-, S-propyl ester.

U386 ................. 1134–23–2 Carbamothioic acid, cyclohexylethyl-, S-ethyl ester.

U390 ................. 759–94–4 Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester.

U387 ................. 52888–80–9 Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester.

U385 ................. 1929–77–7 Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-propyl ester.

U279 ................. 63–25–2 Carbaryl.

U372 ................. 10605–21–7 Carbendazim.

U367 ................. 1563–38–8 Carbofuran phenol.

* * * * * * *

U393 ................. 137–29–1 Copper, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)-,

U393 ................. 137–29–1 Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U386 ................. 1134–23–2 Cycloate.

* * * * * * *

U366 ................. 533–74–4 Dazomet.

* * * * * * *

U395 ................. 5952–26–1 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U403 ................. 97–77–8 Disulfiram.

* * * * * * *

U390 ................. 759–94–4 EPTC.

* * * * * * *

U404 ................. 101–44–8 Ethanamine, N,N-diethyl-

* * * * * * *

U410 ................. 59669–26–0 Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N’- [thiobis[(methylimino)carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester

U394 ................. 30558–43–1 Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester.

* * * * * * *

U395 ................. 5952–26–1 Ethanol, 2,2′-oxybis-, dicarbamate.
7852 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Hazardous

waste No.

Chemical

abstracts

No.

Substance

* * * * * * *

U407 ................. 14324–55–1 Ethyl Ziram.

* * * * * * *

U396 ................. 14484–64–1 Ferbam.

* * * * * * *

U375 ................. 55406–53–6 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U396 ................. 14484–64–1 Iron, tris(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-,

* * * * * * *

U384 ................. 137–42–8 Metam Sodium.

* * * * * * *

U365 ................. 2212–67–1 Molinate.

* * * * * * *

U279 ................. 63–25–2 1-Naphthalenol, methylcarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U391 ................. 1114–71–2 Pebulate.

* * * * * * *

U411 ................. 114–26–1 Phenol, 2-(1-methylethoxy)-, methylcarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U400 ................. 120–54–7 Piperidine, 1,1′-(tetrathiodicarbonothioyl)-bisU383 ................. 128–03–0 Potassium dimethyldithiocarbamate.

U378 ................. 51026–28–9 Potassium n-hydroxymethyl- n-methyldi-thiocarbamate.

U377 ................. 137–41–7 Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U373 ................. 112–42–9 Propham.

U411 ................. 114–26–1 Propoxur.

* * * * * * *

U387 ................. 52888–80–9 Prosulfocarb.

* * * * * * *

U376 ................. 144–34–3 Selenium, tetrakis(dimethyldithiocarbamate).

* * * * * * *

U379 ................. 136–30–1 Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate.

U381 ................. 148–18–5 Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate.

U382 ................. 128–04–1 Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate.

* * * * * * *

U277 ................. 95–06–7 Sulfallate.

* * * * * * *

U402 ................. 1634–02–2 Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide.

* * * * * * *

U401 ................. 97–74–5 Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide.

U366 ................. 533–74–4 2H-1,3,5-Thiadiazine- 2-thione, tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-

* * * * * * *

U410 ................. 59669–26–0 Thiodicarb.

* * * * * * *

U402 ................. 1634–02–2 Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetrabutyl.

U403 ................. 97–77–8 Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetraethyl.

* * * * * * *

U409 ................. 23564–05–8 Thiophanate-methyl.

* * * * * * *

U389 ................. 2303–17–5 Triallate.

* * * * * * *

U404 ................. 101–44–8 Triethylamine.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7853

Hazardous

waste No.

Chemical

abstracts

No.

Substance

* * * * * * *

U385 ................. 1929–77–7 Vernolate.

* * * * * * *

U407 ................. 14324–55–1 Zinc, bis(diethylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)-

* * * * *

5. Appendix VII to Part 261 is amended by adding the following waste streams in alphanumeric order (by the

first column) to read as follows.

Appendix VII to Part 261—Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste

EPA hazardous

waste No. Hazardous constituents for which listed

* * * * * * *

K156 ................ Benomyl, carbaryl, carbendazim, carbofuran, carbosulfan, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, triethylamine.

K157 ................ Carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, methyl chloride, methylene chloride, pyridine, triethylamine.

K158 ................ Benomyl, carbendazim, carbofuran, carbosulfan, chloroform, methylene chloride.

K159 ................ Benzene, butylate, eptc, molinate, pebulate, vernolate.

K160 ................ Benzene, butylate, eptc, molinate, pebulate, vernolate.

K161 ................ Antimony, arsenic, metam-sodium, ziram.

* * * * *

6. Appendix VIII of Part 261 is amended by adding the following hazardous constituents in alphabetical order

to read as follows: The appropriate footnotes to Appendix VIII are republished without change.

APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261—HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS

Common name Chemical abstracts name Chemical abstracts No.

Hazardous

waste

No.

* * * * * * *

A2213 .................................................. Ethanimidothioic acid, 2- (dimethylamino) -N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester .. 30558–43–1 U394

* * * * * * *

Aldicarb sulfone ................................... Propanal, 2-methyl-2- (methylsulfonyl) -, O-[(methylamino) carbonyl] oxime . 1646–88–4 P203

* * * * * * *

Barban ................................................. Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl) -, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester ........................... 101–27–9 U280

* * * * * * *

Bendiocarb .......................................... 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate .................................. 22781–23–3 U278

Bendiocarb phenol .............................. 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, ................................................................ 22961–82–6 U364

Benomyl .............................................. Carbamic acid, [1- [(butylamino) carbonyl]- 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl] -, methyl

ester.

17804–35–2 U271

* * * * * * *

Bis (dibutylcarbamothioa to)

dioxodimolydenum sulfurized.

Molybdenum, bis (dibutylcarbamothioato) dioxodi-, sulfurized ....................... 68412–26–0 U389

Bis (pentamethylene)-thiuram

tetrasulfide.

Piperidine, 1,1′-(tetrathiodicarbonothioyl)-bis- ................................................. 120–54–7 U400

* * * * * * *

Butylate ............................................... Carbamothioic acid, bis (2-methylpropyl)-, S-ethyl ester ................................ 2008–41–5 U392

* * * * * * *

Carbaryl ............................................... 1-Naphthalenol, methylcarbamate ................................................................... 63–25–2 U279

Carbendazim ....................................... Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester ........................................ 10605–21–7 U372

Carbofuran .......................................... 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-, methylcarbamate ........................ 1563–66–2 P127

Carbofuran phenol .............................. 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- ...................................................... 1563–38–8 U367

* * * * * * *

Carbosulfan ......................................... Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino) thio] methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-

benzofuranyl ester.

55285–14–8 P189

* * * * * * *

Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate ........ Copper, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)-, ................................................. 137–29–1 U393
7854 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261—HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS—Continued

Common name Chemical abstracts name Chemical abstracts No.

Hazardous

waste

No.

* * * * * * *

m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate ............. Phenol, 3-(methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate ................................................... 64–00–6 P202

* * * * * * *

Cycloate .............................................. Carbamothioic acid, cyclohexylethyl-, S-ethyl ester ........................................ 1134–23–2 U386

* * * * * * *

Dazomet .............................................. 2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione, tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl ................................... 533–74–4 U366

* * * * * * *

Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate ........... Ethanol, 2,2’-oxybis-, dicarbamate .................................................................. 5952–26–1 U395

* * * * * * *

Dimetilan ............................................. Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 1- [(dimethylamino) carbonyl]-5-methyl-1Hpyrazol-3-yl ester.644–64–4 P191

* * * * * * *

Disulfiram ............................................ Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetraethyl ........................................................ 97–77–8 U403

* * * * * * *

EPTC ................................................... Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester ................................................... 759–94–4 U390

* * * * * * *

Ethyl Ziram .......................................... Zinc, bis(diethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)- .......................................................... 14324–55–1 U407

* * * * * * *

Ferbam ................................................ Iron, tris(dimethylcarbamodithioat-S,S′)-, ........................................................ 14484–64–1 U396

* * * * * * *

Formetanate hydrochloride ................. Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-[[(methylamino) carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-,

monohydrochloride.

23422–53–9 P198

* * * * * * *

Formparanate ...................................... Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino) carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-.17702–57–7 P197

* * * * * * *

3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate ... Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester ............................................... 55406–53–6 U375

* * * * * * *

Isolan ................................................... Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester .. 119–38–0 P192

* * * * * * *

Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate . Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-, .......................................... 15339–36–3 P196

* * * * * * *

Metam Sodium .................................... Carbamodithioic acid, methyl-, monosodium salt ........................................... 137–42–8 U384

* * * * * * *

Methiocarb ........................................... Phenol, (3,5-dimethyl-4-(methylthio)-, methylcarbamate ................................ 2032–65–7 P199

* * * * * * *

Metolcarb ............................................. Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester ................................................ 1129–41–5 P190

* * * * * * *

Mexacarbate ........................................ Phenol, 4-(dimethylamino)-3,5-dimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester) ............... 315–18–4 P128

* * * * * * *

Molinate ............................................... 1H-Azepine-1-carbothioic acid, hexahydro-, S-ethyl ester .............................. 2212–67–1 U365

* * * * * * *

Oxamyl ................................................ Ethanimidothioc acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-

oxo-, methyl ester.

23135–22–0 P194

* * * * * * *

Pebulate .............................................. Carbamothioic acid, butylethyl-, S-propyl ester .............................................. 1114–71–2 U391
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7855

APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261—HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS—Continued

Common name Chemical abstracts name Chemical abstracts No.

Hazardous

waste

No.

* * * * * * *

Physostigmine ..................................... Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-01, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-,

methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)-.

57–47–6 P204

Physostigmine ..................................... Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, compd. with (3aS-cis) –1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro1,3a,8-trimethylpyrrolo [2,3-b]indol-5-yl methylcarbamate ester (1:1).57–64–7 P188

* * * * * * *

Potassium dimethyldithiocarbamate ... Carbamodithioc acid, dimethyl, potassium salt ............................................... 128–03–0 U383

Potassium hyroxymethyl-n-methyldithiocarbamate.Carbamodithioc acid, (hydroxymethyl)methyl-, monopotassium salt .............. 51026–28–9 U378

Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate ... Carbamodithioc acid, methyl-monopotassium salt .......................................... 137–41–7 U377

* * * * * * *

Promecarb ........................................... Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate ................................. 2631–37–0 P201

* * * * * * *

Propham .............................................. Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester ................................................... 122–42–9 U373

Propoxur .............................................. Phenol, 2-(1-methylethoxy)-, methylcarbamate .............................................. 114–26–1 U411

* * * * * * *

Prosulfocarb ........................................ Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester ................................... 52888–80–9 U387

* * * * * * *

Selenium, tetrakis (dimethyldithiocarbamate.Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, tetraanhydrosulfide with orthothioselenious

acid.

144–34–3 U376

* * * * * * *

Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate ........... Carbamodithioic acid, dibutyl, sodium salt ...................................................... 136–30–1 U379

Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate ........... Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, sodium salt ..................................................... 148–18–5 U381

Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate ........ Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, sodium salt .................................................. 128–04–1 U382

* * * * * * *

Sulfallate .............................................. Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, 2-chloro-2-propenyl ester ............................... 95–06–7 U277

* * * * * * *

Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide .................. Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetrabutyl ........................................................ 1634–02–2 U402

* * * * * * *

Tetrabutylthiuram monosulfide ............ Bis (dimethylthiocarbamoyl) sulfide ................................................................. 97–74–5 U401

* * * * * * *

Thiodicarb ............................................ Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N’-[thiobis [(methylimino) carbonyloxy]] bis-, dimethyl ester.59669–26–0 U410

* * * * * * *

Thiophanate-methyl ............................. Carbamic acid, [1,2-phyenylenebis (iminocarbonothioyl)] bis-, dimethyl ester 23564–05–8 U409

* * * * * * *

Tirpate ................................................. 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-[(methylamino) carbonyl]

oxime.

26419–73–8 P185

* * * * * * *

Triallate ................................................ Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester . 2303–17–5 U389

* * * * * * *

Triethylamine ....................................... Ethanamine, N,N-diethyl- ................................................................................ 121–44–8 U404

* * * * * * *

Vernolate ............................................. Carbamothioc acid, dipropyl-, S-propyl ester .................................................. 1929–77–7 U385

* * * * * * *

Ziram ................................................... ZInc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S’)-, (T–4)- ........................................... 137–30–4 P205

* * * * * * *

1The abbreviation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members of the general class not specifically listed by name in this appendix.
7856 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR

AUTHORIZATION OF STATE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

7. The authority citation for part 271

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6902; 33 U.S.C. 1321

and 1361.

8. Section 271.1(j) is amended by

adding the following entry to Table 1 in

chronological order by date of

publication to read as follows.

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register

reference Effective date

* * * * * * *

Feb. 9, 1995 .......... Listing Wastes from the Production of Carbamates .......................................... [Insert Federal Register page numbers].Aug. 9, 1995

* * * * * * *

PART 302—DESIGNATION,

REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND

NOTIFICATION

9. The authority citation for part 302

continues to read as follows:

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

33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.

10. Section 302.4 is amended by

adding the following entries in

alphabetical order to Table 302.4 to read

as follows. The appropriate footnotes to

Table 302.4 are republished without

change.

§ 302.4 Designation of hazardous

substances.

* * * * *

TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES

Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory

synonyms

Statutory Final RQ

RQ Code∂

RCRA

waste

No.

CategoryPounds

(Kg)

* * * * * * *

1H-Azepine-1-carbothioic acid, hexahydro-, S-ethyl ester

(Molinate).

2212671 1* 4 U365 # #

* * * * * * *

1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, (Bendiocarb phenol) .... 22961826 1* 4 U364 # #

1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate

(Bendiocarb).

22781233 1* 4 U278 # #

* * * * * * *

7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- (Carbofuran phenol).1563388 1* 4 U367 # #

* * * * * * *

Benzoic acid, 2-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).

57647 1* 4 P188 # #

* * * * * * *

Bis(dimethylthiocarbamoyl) sulfide (Tetramethylthiuram

monosulfide).

97745 1* 4 U401 # #

* * * * * * *

Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester (3-iodo-2-

propynyl n-butylcarbamate).

55406536 1* 4 U375 # #

Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol2-yl, methyl ester (Benomyl).17804352 1* 4 U271 # #

Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester

(Carbendazim).

10605217 1* 4 U372 # #

Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester

(Barban).

101279 1* 4 U280 # #

Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-

dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl ester (Carbosulfan).

55285148 1* 4 P189 # #

Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1- [(dimethylamino)carbonyl]-5-

methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl ester (Dimetilan).

644644 1* 4 P191 # #

Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1Hpyrazol-5-yl ester (Isolan).119380 1* 4 P192 # #
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7857

TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES—Continued

Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory

synonyms

Statutory Final RQ

RQ Code∂

RCRA

waste

No.

CategoryPounds

(Kg)

* * * * * * *

Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester (Metolcarb) ... 1129415 1* 4 P190 # #

Carbamic acid, [1,2- phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-,

dimethyl ester (Thiophanate-methyl).

23564058 1* 4 U409 # #

Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester (Propham) ....... 122429 1* 4 U373 # #

* * * * * * *

Carbamodithioic acid, dibutyl, sodium salt (Sodium

dibutyldithiocarbamate).

136301 1* 4 U379 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, 2-chloro-2-propenyl ester

(Sulfallate).

95067 1* 4 U277 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, diethyl-, sodium salt (Sodium

diethyldithiocarbamate).

148185 1* 4 U381 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl, potassium salt (Potassium

dimethyldithiocarbamate).

128030 1* 4 U383 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, sodium salt (Sodium

dimethyldithiocarbamate).

128041 1* 4 U382 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, dimethyl-, tetraanhydrosulfide with

orthothioselenious acid (Selenium,

tetrakis(dimethyldithiocarbamate)).

144343 1* 4 U376 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, (hydroxymethyl)methyl-,

monopotassium salt (Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-nmethyldithiocarbamate).

51026289 1* 4 U378 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, methyl,- monopotassium salt (Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate).137417 1* 4 U377 # #

Carbamodithioic acid, methyl-, monosodium salt (Metam

Sodium).

137428 1* 4 U384 # #

* * * * * * *

Carbamothioic acid, bis(2-methylpropyl)-, S-ethyl ester

(Butylate).

2008415 1* 4 U392 # #

* * * * * * *

Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-

propenyl) ester (Triallate).

2303175 1* 4 U389 # #

Carbamothioic acid, butylethyl-, S-propyl ester (Pebulate) ... 1114712 1* 4 U391 # #

Carbamothioic acid, cyclohexylethyl-, S-ethyl ester

(Cycloate).

1134232 1* 4 U386 # #

Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester (EPTC) ............ 759944 1* 4 U390 # #

Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester

(Prosulfocarb).

52888809 1* 4 U387 # #

Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-propyl ester (Vernolate) .... 1929777 1* 4 U385 # #

* * * * * * *

Copper, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-(Cooper

dimethyldithiocarbamate).

137291 1* 4 U393 # #

* * * * * * *

1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-

[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxime (Tirpate).

26419738 1* 4 P185 # #

* * * * * * *

Ethanimidothioci acid, 2-(dimethylamino-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-,

methyl ester (A2213).

30558431 1* 4 U394 # #

* * * * * * *

Ethanimidothoic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-

[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester

(Oxamyl).

23135220 1* 4 P194 # #

* * * * * * *

Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N′-

[thiobis[(methylimino)carbonyloxy]]bis-,dimethyl ester

(Thiodicarb).

59669260 1* 4 U410 # #
7858 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES—Continued

Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory

synonyms

Statutory Final RQ

RQ Code∂

RCRA

waste

No.

CategoryPounds

(Kg)

* * * * * * *

Ethanol, 2,2′-oxybis-, dicarbamate (Diethylene glycol,

dicarbamate).

5952261 1* 4 U395 # #

* * * * * * *

Iron, tris(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-(Ferbam) ............... 14484641 1* 4 U396 # #

* * * * * * *

Manganese, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-(Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate).15339363 1* 4 P196 # #

* * * * * * *

Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-

[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxylphenyl]-, monohydrochioride

(Formetanate hydrochloride).

23422539 1* 4 P198 # #

* * * * * * *

Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[2-methyl-4-

[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-(Formparanate).

17702577 1* 4 P197 # #

* * * * * * *

Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (m-Cumenyl

methylcarbamate).

64006 1* 4 P202 # #

* * * * * * *

Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate

(Promecarb).

2631370 1* 4 P201 # #

* * * * * * *

Piperidine, 1,1’-(tetrathiodicarbonothioyl)-bis-

(Bis(pentamenthylene)thiuram tetrasulfide).

120547 1* 4 U400 # #

* * * * * * *

Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)-, O-

[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime (Aldicarb sulfone).

1646884 1* 4 P203 # #

* * * * * * *

Pyrrolo[2,3-b] indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-

trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)-(Physostigmine.

57476 1* 4 P204 # #

* * * * * * *

2H-1,3,5-Thiadiazine-2-thione, tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-

(Dazomet).

533744 1* 4 U366 # #

* * * * * * *

Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetrabutyl (Tetrabutylthiuram

disulfide).

1634022 1* 4 U402 # #

Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide, tetraethyl (Disulfiram) ........... 97778 1* 4 U403 # #

* * * * * * *

Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbomodithioato-S,S′)-, (Ziram) ............... 137304 1* 4 P205 # #

Zinc, bis(diethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)-(Ethyl Ziram) ........... 14324551 1* 4 U407 # #

* * * * * * *

K156 Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms,

light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from

the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.

1* 4 K156 # #

K157 Wastewaters (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).

1* 4 K157 # #

K158 Bag house dusts and filter/separation solids from

the production of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.

1* 4 K158 # #

K159 Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate

wastes.

1* 4 K159 # #
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7859

TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES—Continued

Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory

synonyms

Statutory Final RQ

RQ Code∂

RCRA

waste

No.

CategoryPounds

(Kg)

K160 Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and

spent catalysts) from the production of thiocarbamates

and solids from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.

1* 4 K160 # #

K160 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.).

1* 4 K161 # #

+—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