Nick T. Macchiarolo
Manager, Plant Engineering
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
P.O. Box 7020
El Dorado, Arkansas 71731-7020

Dear Mr. Macchiarolo:

     This letter concerns the hazardous waste listing
determination EPA has undertaken for Organobromine
production wastes.  In a notice published on May 11,
1994 (59 FR 24530) EPA proposed to list as hazardous waste
solids and filter cartridges from the production of
2,4,6-tribromophenol.  In response to comments and
information received since the proposal, EPA reexamined the
listing decision, and this letter provides notice to you of
the Agency's further evaluation.  EPA has decided to
provide an opportunity for further comment on its
reevaluation.   As discussed below, EPA continues to believe
that this particular waste warrants listing.

     One commenter disputed the plausible mismanagement
scenario used by the Agency to support the proposed listing
of 2,4,6-TBP production wastes (disposal in unlined Subtitle
D landfills), and noted that the proposed rule contained
errors in the description of 2,4,6-TBP waste quantities and
management practices.  The commenter stated that it was the
sole generator of TBP wastes covered by the proposed listing
and that all of its solid streams containing TBP are shipped
to a Subtitle C disposal facility.  The generator
subsequently submitted information showing that it disposed
of these wastes in Subtitle C facilities for many years. 
(See letter to Anthony Carrell, EPA, from Stephen M.
Wallace, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, dated April 23,
1997).  The generator reported sending the waste to various
Subtitle C landfills since 1981 (1981-1990, Chemical Waste
Management, Emelle, AL; 1991-1994, Chemical Waste
Management, Carliss, LA; 1995-1996, American Ecology,
Winona, TX; 1997, Philips Environmental, Avalon, TX).  The
commenter noted that the only waste from 2,4,6-TBP
production disposed in a Subtitle D landfill consists of 10
tons of empty soda ash bags that do not contain any TBP. 
The commenter stated that the other combined waste solids
from TBP production (floor sweepings, off-specification
product and spent carbon from filters) total approximately
34 tons annually.  The commenter argued that EPA's selection
of an unlined Subtitle D landfill as a plausible
mismanagement scenario is erroneous and, therefore, EPA's
risk analysis significantly overstates the risk.  

     Based on the information provided by the commenter, EPA
agrees that the quantity of waste solids from 2,4,6-TBP
production that contain 2,4,6-TBP levels of concern should
be approximately 34 tons, and should not include the 10 tons
of empty bags.  The Agency also acknowledges that the
generator apparently has a long record of disposing the
wastes with high 2,4,6-TBP content in a lined Subtitle C
hazardous waste landfill.  However, EPA continues to believe
that the waste solids from production of 2,4,6-TBP should be
listed as hazardous, even if the waste continues to be sent
to Subtitle C landfills.  EPA considered several critical
factors in deciding to list this waste stream.  

     First, Congress clearly expressed its intent that the
Agency is not to place excessive reliance on confidence in
landfill design and liners for problematic wastes.  In the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984,
Congress explicitly added as one of the "findings" to RCRA
that "land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring
long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes" and that
"reliance on land disposal should be minimized or
eliminated."  RCRA section 1002(b)(7), 42 USC 6902(b)(7). 
As a result of this finding, and others, Congress added the
land disposal restriction (LDR) program to RCRA, which
significantly restricts land disposal of hazardous wastes. 
Further, it was made very clear in the Conference Report for
HSWA that the new findings in RCRA were intended to  

     "convey a clear and unambiguous message to the          
     regulated community and EPA: reliance on land disposal
     of hazardous waste has resulted in an unacceptable risk
     to human health and the environment.  Consequently, the
     Conferees intend that through the vigorous              
     implementation of the objectives of this Act, land      
     disposal will be eliminated for many wastes and         
     minimized for all others, and that advanced treatment   
     recycling, incineration and other hazardous waste       
     control technologies should replace land disposal.  In
     other words, land disposal should be used only as a     
     last resort and only under conditions which are fully   
     protective of human health and the environment."

House Report No. 98-1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 80-81
(Oct. 3, 1984).  EPA views the statute and legislative
history as sufficient justification to evaluate in a listing
determination all risks of land disposal, including in
appropriate cases risks from voluntary disposal in permitted
Subtitle C facilities.  This is particularly true where
risks presented by a waste might be high if releases occur,
and treatment under Subtitle C would significantly reduce
these risks.

     Accordingly, EPA has added to the rulemaking record
additional data on the effects of disposal in Subtitle C
landfills and has reevaluated its analysis of the factors
contained in 40 C.F.R. section 261.11(a)(3) that are
relevant to listing the 2,4,6- tribromophenol waste solids. 
The following analysis describes EPA's evaluation of, in
particular, the inherent toxicity of the hazard constituent
in the waste (261.11(a)(3)(i)), concentration of the
hazardous constituent in the waste (261.11(a)(3)(ii), the
potential of the hazardous constituent to migrate into the
environment (261.11(a)(iii), the relevance of the quantities
of the waste generated (261.11(a)(3)(viii) when compared
with these other factors, and how these factors are weighed
when considered with the plausible management scenario of
voluntary disposal of the waste in a Subtitle C landfill
(261.11(a)(3)(vii)).  EPA concludes, after balancing these
factors in accordance with the Agency's listing
determination policy described in its December 22, 1994,
proposed rule listing certain wastes generated during the
production of dyes and pigments (59 FR 66073-78) that the
2,4,6-tribromophenol waste solids are capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment.  

     Review of the scientific data, particularly sample
analysis and Structure Activity Relationships (SAR), shows
that evaluation of disposal in subtitle C facilities is
especially appropriate for untreated 2,4,6-tribromophenol
waste solids.  The waste contains a highly toxic chemical,
2,4,6-TBP, which may present significant carcinogenic risk
even at low concentrations.  This chemical was also found to
be present in the wastes of concern at extremely high
concentrations.  EPA's analytical data show levels up to 40%
(equivalent to 400,000 ppm) in the waste solids.  Thus,
while the volume of wastes generated (approximately 34 tons
annually) is not very large, the extremely high levels of
2,4,6-TBP render this waste highly toxic. 

     Furthermore, EPA's data show that 2,4,6-TBP is
relatively mobile and will leach out of the waste at high
concentrations.  In the proposal, EPA used the TCLP method
to estimate the potential concentration of waste
constituents that could be in leachate generated from
disposal of the waste in a landfill, and found up to 760
mg/L of 2,4,6- TBP in the TCLP leachate.  This level is
76,000 times the health-based criteria of 0.01 mg/L that
corresponds to the 10-6 cancer risk level for ingestion. 
The proposed rule estimated risks of 7 x 10-4 from migration
to groundwater, if this waste were placed in an unlined
landfill (see the proposed rule, 59 FR 24538).  Although the
generator has sent this waste to a lined Subtitle C facility
in the past, EPA believes that the risks estimated from
migration from an unlined landfill provide an indication of
the potential risks that could occur if 2,4,6-TBP is
released from the lined landfill due to failure of the unit
to contain the waste leachate.  The Agency agrees that the
liner/leachate collection system in a Subtitle C unit would
serve to contain the waste, and would lessen the risk even
in the case of liner failure.  However, EPA believes that
the uncertainty in the long-term integrity of this
containment is high, and that significant risks may result. 
The purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste treatment
requirements (as expressed by Congress) is to reduce this
uncertainty.

     In past rulemakings EPA has assumed that waste
containment systems will tend to degrade with time.  In the
proposal for the Land Disposal Restrictions (January 14,
1986, 51 FR 1641) EPA noted that in the long-term (beyond
the post-closure period) the efficiency of cover and liner
systems will degrade.  Eventually synthetic liners will
degrade and leachate collection systems will cease
operation.  In the proposed Liner and Leak Detection Rule
(May 29, 1987; 52 FR 20218) EPA also stated that no liner
can be expected to remain impervious forever.  As a result
of interactions with waste, environmental effects,
installation problems, and operating practices, liners
eventually may degrade, tear, or crack and allow liquids to
migrate out of the unit.  In evaluating the benefits of this
rule (see 52 FR 20270), EPA noted that a properly installed
double liner and leachate collection system, together with a
final cover placed at closure, substantially reduces release
during the operating life and post-closure care period. 
However, these technologies may not effectively reduce the
longer-term risk for landfills, especially for persistent
and mobile compounds, because the containment system may
only delay leachate release from the landfill until after
post-closure, when the cap and leachate collection system
begin to fail.

     EPA has attempted to account for the effect of Subtitle
C containment (covers and liners) in the Regulatory Impact
Analyses (RIA) completed for other recent rulemakings.  (See
the RIA for the Land Deposal Restrictions--Phase II rule,
page 5-10, in the docket for the final Phase II rule,
published September 19, 1994, 59 FR 47980; and the RIA for
the final rule on Corrective Action Management Units,
Appendix C, in the docket for the rule published February
16, 1993, 58 FR 8658).  These documents are incorporated by
reference into the docket for this rule.  As EPA noted in
the source document used in these RIAs (Technical Guidance
Document, "Indexing of Long-Term Effectiveness of Waste
Containment Systems for a Regulatory Impact Analysis,"
Office of Solid Waste, November 1992; this document has been
placed in the public docket for the Organobromine listing
determination, F-94-OBLP-FFFFF), the structural integrity of
waste containment systems degrades over time due to stresses
on system components.  EPA noted that failures of
multi-component liner systems have been reported in the
literature, and that some liners fail unpredictably with
time.  While acknowledging the uncertainties in predicting
long-term effectiveness, EPA estimated that the
effectiveness of Subtitle C composite liner systems may
decrease significantly with time.

     Although it is difficult to quantify the impact of the
long-term degradation of liner systems, the high level of
risk estimated from disposal of this waste in an unlined
landfill (7 x 10-4) means that even a modest reduction in
long-term liner effectiveness would present risks of
concern.  For example, if the long-term effectiveness of the
landfill liner and containment system were on the order of
95%, which would reduce the potential risks from releases to
groundwater by 20-fold, the residual risk would exceed 3 x
10-5 .  The risks for this particular waste, therefore,
would remain above EPA's presumptive level of concern for
listing (>10-5), whether they were sent to an unlined
landfill or a Subtitle C landfill (for a discussion in risk
levels used in listing determination see December 22, 1994,
59 FR 66075). 

     The Agency recognizes that a recent court decision
(Dithiocarbamate Task Force  v. EPA, 98F.3d1394D.C. Cir
1996) raised questions as to what constitutes "plausible"
mismanagement under the listing regulations (261.11(a)(3)). 
However, EPA has not yet fully evaluated the recent court
decision to determine how to weigh possible future changes
in management practices and is not relying on projecting new
management practices in this listing decision.  For the
purposes of this analysis in this letter, EPA is assuming
the current waste management practices continue (i.e.,
disposal of the untreated waste in Subtitle C landfills).
  
     To respond to the commenters concern related to waste
solids that do not contain 2,4,6-TBP, EPA is considering
revising the regulatory language to clarify that the wastes
covered in the listing are those of concern, i.e., those
containing high levels of 2,4,6-TBP.  This avoids capturing
the empty soda ash bags, and possibly other  waste solids
downstream from the production unit that EPA did not intend
to cover in the listing.  Therefore, the final listing would
read as follows:

     K140---Floor sweepings, off-specification product, and
     spent filter media from the production of               
     2,4,6-tribromophenol.

     Another commenter stated that the high concentrations
of TBP in the floor sweepings sampled by EPA provide
singular justification for the listing of these wastes.  EPA
agrees with the commenter that the high concentration of the
toxic chemical, 2,4,6-TBP, is a major concern.  However, EPA
did not consider this factor in isolation, but also
considered the mobility of the waste and its inherent
toxicity as equally important factors, and balanced all of
these factors in the risk assessment.  As noted above, the
risk assessment predicts TBP leaching from unlined (and
possibly lined) landfills to receptor drinking-water wells
at concentrations well above health-based levels of concern.
     
         Pursuant to a consent decree in Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) v.  Browner (Civ. No. 89-0598 D.D.C.),
EPA had committed to making a final listing determination
for organobromine wastes by September 30, 1997.  However,
EPA and EDF have agreed to request to the court to extend
the date for the final rule in order to provide comment on
the evaluation described above.  The Agency is reopening the
comment period only for the limited purpose of obtaining
information and views on the new evaluation described in
this letter, and is not opening up any other aspects of the
proposed organobromine listing determination for comment.  
Comments on the information in this letter will be accepted
up to 30 days from the date of this letter.  Due to the
limited time EPA anticipates will be available for
promulgating the final rule, EPA does not plan to grant any
extensions of the comment period.

     Commenters must send an original and two copies of
their comments referencing docket number F-94-OBLP-FFFFF to: 
RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste, OSW (Note:  Office of Solid Waste, OSW, was renamed Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, ORCR, on January 18, 2009)(5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters
(EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Hand
deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA,
address listed below.  Comments may also be submitted
electronically by sending electronic mail through the
Internet to:  rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov.  Comments in
electronic format should also be identified by the docket
number.   All electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any
form of encryption.  If comments are not submitted
electronically, EPA asks commenters to voluntarily submit
one additional copy of their comments on labeled personal
computer diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a word
processing format that can be converted to ASCII (TEXT).  It
is essential to specify on the disk label the word
processing software and version/edition as well as the
commenter's name.  This will allow EPA to convert the
comments into one of the word processing formats utilized by
the Agency.  Please use mailing envelopes designed to
physically protect the submitted diskettes.  EPA emphasizes
that submission of comments on diskettes is not mandatory,
nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to any
commenter.

     Commenters should not submit electronically any
confidential business information (CBI).  An original and
two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: 
RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste, OSW (Note:  Office of Solid Waste, OSW, was renamed Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, ORCR, on January 18, 2009)(5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

     Public comments and supporting materials are available
for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at
Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA.  The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.  To
review docket materials, it is recommended that you make an
appointment by calling (703) 603-9230.   You may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no
charge.  Additional copies cost $0.15/page. 

     If you have any questions related to this letter,
please contact Robert Kayser at (703) 308-7304 or Anthony
Carrell at (703) 308-0458 in the Office of Solid Waste, OSW (Note:  Office of Solid Waste, OSW, was renamed Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, ORCR, on January 18, 2009)(E-
mail address: kayser.robert@epamail.epa.gov or
carrell.anthony@epamail.epa.gov.) 

                     Sincerely,




                     Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Acting Director 
                     Office of Solid Waste, OSW (Note:  Office of Solid Waste, OSW, was renamed Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, ORCR, on January 18, 2009)