SFUND RECORDS CTR

1227-00121

REAC SUPPORT ORGANIZATION GSA RARITAN DEPOT WOODBRIDGE AVENUE BUILDING 209, BAY F EDISON, NJ 08837

SFUND RECORDS CENTER 88075346

Jooig

I

PHONE: 201-632-9200

DATE: December 8, 1989

FROM:

TO: Harry Allen, EPA Work Assignment Manager

JoAnn Camacho, REAC Task Leader rVWC_

r 0 , Craig Moylan, REAC Section Chief

X O h t e h L l + 7

2_o|- Q 3 Z - 7 7 * /

7.

THRU:

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON BROWN AND BRYANT SI

WORK ASSIGNMENT # 1-292

1.0 BACKGROUND

On July 11, 1989, REAC received Work Assignment # 0-292 requesting a Bioremediai ion

Treatabi l i ty Study on contaminated surface soi ls f rom the Brown and Bryant (B&B) s i te in Arvin, Kern County, Cal i fornia . The tests were to include shaker f lask and soi l column studies . The si ie ,

a former agricul tural chemical formulat ion, s torage, and custom appl icat ion faci l i ty , is located on South Derby Street in a mixed agricul tural / industr ia l / res ident ia l area. The s i te is known to be contaminated with Dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6 dini t rophenol) , and the tes ts were to be targeted lo remediating the Dinoseb contamination.

Under this work assignment, eight bulk soil samples were collected. The samples were analv/ed. and

a ser ies of biotreatment tes ts performed to determine the feasibi l i ty of bioremediai ion technology for the B&B si te . The tests included shaker f lask, soi l column, and plate count tes ts on the soi l

a long with a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) test on the leachate obtained from the soi l columns

(detai ls of this work can be found in the Phase I Report) . All of these tes ts indicated that

biodegradation is not a viable remediation technique for this site.

An unexpected soluble component in the soil column leachate was observed as a s t rong yel low color ing and spurred addi t ional tes t ing of the soi l and leachate . The leachate was analyzed and dinoseb was detected. Based on this knowledge that dinoseb was leaching out of the soi l and

information on how a local dinoseb spi l l was t reated in 1974 (see Appendix) , i t was decided that

soils leaching followed by carbon adsorption of the leachate would be investigated.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES

2.1 Methodology

2.1.1 Soil Leaching

Two leach columns were setup to determine the percent reduction of Dinoseb that

could be achieved. The glass columns were three-feet high by three- inches in

diameter . Each column had a three- inch diameter opening at the top, and tapered down to a 1/4 inch spout a t the bot tom. Each column contained from bot tom to

top: a glass wool plug, 580 grams of soi l , and a 1/8-1/4 inch layer of glass beads.

The column was supported onto a r ing s tand with clamps. At the top of each

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292 /

column was a large rubber stopper with three glass tubes. One of these tubes was used as a deionized (DI) water inlet , the other two tubes were open to the

a tmosphere. The DI water dr ipped from the inlet a t a ra te of approximately so ml/hour through the soi l , and was col lected into a one l i ter amber bot t le a t the

bot tom of the column. After approximately every 400 ml of leachate , 1-40 ml sample was col lected. The test cont inued unt i l the leachate was a lmost c lear (with no yel low

colorat ion) . A total of 16,600 ml of DI water f lowed through column one, and 17,830 ml through column two. The f i rs t and last l i ter of leachate f rom each column was sent to Lancaster Laborator ies Inc. a long with samples of the leached soi l for dinoseb analysis . The percent t ransmission of l ight a t 460 nm was measured on a

Hach ki t spectrophotometer for a l l of the 40 ml leachate samples col lected. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) analysis was done at the REAC lab on selected 40 ml leachate samples.

To verify the dinoseb analysis on the leachates, a 50 ppm standard was prepared and sent to Lancaster Laborator ies Inc. as a bl ind prof ic iency sample for analysis . Five

other dinoseb s tandards were made up and analyzed for TOC to setup a cal ibrat ion curve for the other TOC analyses.

2.1.2 Carbon Adsorption

To determine the feasibility of using granular activated carbon to remediate the dinoseb contaminat ion in the leachate , an adsorpt ion isotherm test was run. A l iquid phase isotherm shows the dis t r ibut ion of adsorbate ( that which is adsorbable) between the adsorbed phase and the solut ion phase a t equi l ibr ium. I t is a plot of the amount of adsorbate adsorbed per uni t weight of carbon versus the concentrat ion of adsorbate remaining in solution (1).

The test consisted of nine flasks each filled with 50 ml of composite leachate; the composi te leachate consis ted of the second through the s ixth l i ter of leachate from

both leach columns. A known weight of carbon varying from no carbon (control) to 0.15 grams was added to each f lask. The f lask were then agi ta ted on a shaker

table for 24 hours a t 200 RPM. After being removed from the shaker table each solut ion was centr i fuged for 15 minutes and then f i l tered through a 0.45 micron syringe filter to remove the carbon. Each solution was then analyzed for TOC at the REAC lab and Dinoseb by Lancaster Laborator ies , Inc. , and an isotherm was plotted based on these analyses.

2.2 Results to Date

2.2.1 Soil Leaching

A 96% and a 95% reduction in dinoseb was achieved in leach columns one and two,

respectively. The leachates coming off the columns had an initial concentration of

30 and 50 ppm. It appears that the dinoseb concentration of the leachates increased slightly because the composite leachate had a concentration of 60 ppm. The final

leachate concentrations were 0.3 and 0.1 ppm. A summary of leach column data can be found in Table 1.

A plot showing the reduction in the Total Organic Carbon content of column # 1

leachate with increasing leachate volume is shown in Figure 1. This plot shows that organic contaminants are leaching out of the soi l ; the high ini t ia l TOC levels indicate that contaminants other than dinoseb are also leaching out.

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292

The 50 ppm standard that was sent out for analysis was analyzed as 60 ppm showing (within 20%) accuracy in the data.

2.2.2 Carbon Adsorption

The results of the carbon adsorption test can be found in Table 2. The daia shows that increasing amounts of Dinoseb are adsorbed with increasing doses ot carbon. At carbon doses of 0.094 grams and greater all detectable Dinoseb is adsorbed.

The carbon adsorption data should follow the Freundlich empirical equi l ibr ium

equat ion which relates the amount of adsorbate in solut ion to the amount of adsorbate which has been adsorbed into the carbon by the expression:

x/m = kc Vm

Where x = amount of adsorbate (Dinoseb) adsorbed m = weight of carbon

x/m = concentration in the adsorbed phase ( i .e . , the amount of Dinoseb adsorbed per gram of carbon at equilibrium)

c = equilibrium concentration in solution phase ( i .e . , the concentrat ion of Dinoseb remaining in solution after adsorption) k and n are constants.

Taking the log of each side the following straight line equation is obtained:

log (x/m) = log k + 1/n log c

Therefore if log (x/m) is plotted against log c a straight line is expected. This re la t ionship is the isotherm plot and can be found in Figure 2. By extrapolat ing a l ine through the points to the control f lask concentrat ion of 73 ppm, a x/m (or saturat ion) value of 93 mg of Dinoseb adsorbed per gram of carbon is obtained. This is the maximum adsorbance that can be expected from the carbon if the incoming

Dinoseb solut ion is 73 ppm. With this information est imated l i fe t imes for carbon filters can be obtained.

3.0 FUTURE ACTIVITIES

The tests show Dinoseb does leach out of the soil into the leachate, and that the leachate can then

be t reated by carbon adsorpt ion. I t is suggested that this t reatment scheme be considered for the

Brown and Bryant s i te . I t must be understood however that much of this data has not gone through

Qual i ty Control , and that there is s t i l l data missing such as oi l and grease analysis on the leached soi l , and TOC on the ini t ia l and leached soi l . There are also addi t ional calculat ions being made

based on the porosi ty of the soi l so that an est imate can be made of the number of pore volumes of leachate required to achieve a 95% reduct ion in the dinoseb concentrat ion a t the s i te . The f inal

report on this project with the final calculations and conclusions will be issued on January 12, 1990.

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF LEACH COLUMN DATA

BROWN AND BRYANT SITE

ARVIN, CA

Column #1 Column #2

Dinoseb Cone, in Initial Soil 210 ppm 210 ppm

Dinoseb Cone, in Leached Soil 5 ppm (top) 10 ppm (top)

12 ppm (bottom) 11 ppm (middle)

12 ppm (bottom)

Average Cone, in Leached Soil 9 ppm 11 ppm

% Reduction of Dinoseb in Soil due to 96% 95% Leaching

Dinoseb Cone, in First Liter of 30 ppm 50 ppm Leachate

Dinoseb Cone, in Last Liter of 0.3 ppm 0.1 ppm Leachate

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292

1—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|—r

4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

VOLUME (ml)

i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—|-

14000 16000 18000

Reduction of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in

Leachate vs. Total Volume Leached

Leach Column #1

US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAL CONTRACT

68-03-3482

WO# 3347-11-01-2292

FIGURE 1 | B&B ARVIN, CA*

TABLE 2. CARBON ISOTHERM TEST BASED ON DINOSEB CONCENTRATION

BROWN AND BRYANT SITE

ARVIN, CA

M C X X/M Wt. of Carbon Concentration Adsorbate Adsorbate Adsorbate Adsorbed

in 50 ml of Dinoseb (ug/1) in Solution (ug) Adsorbed (ug) Per Unit Wt (mg'g)

0 73,000 3650 0.010 55,000 2750 900 90.000

0.029 27,000 1350 2300 79.310

0.050 2,550 127.5 3523 70.460

0.069 190 - 9.5 3641 52.768 0.094 <40 <2 3648 38.808

0.113 <40 <2 3648 32.283 0.129 <40 <2 3648 28.279

0.150 <40 <2 3648 24.320

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292

1 .97-

1 .95-

1 .93-

1 .91-1 1 .89-0 •

g 1 .87-

in CO

•

ti

X •

/ 1 .83-

m 1 .81-

1 .79-

1 .77-

1 .75-m 9 1 .73-

/ 1 .71-g •

1 .69-

1 .67-

1 .65-

1 .63-

1 .61 -

1 .59-

logC tug/ml)

Carbon Isotherm Plot Based on Dinoseb Concentration

x/m = Adsorbate Adsorbed per unit weight of Carbon C = Concentration of Adsorbate in Solution

| US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAL CONTRACT

68-03-3482

WO# 3347-11-01-2292

FIGURE 2 B&B ARVIN, CA

REFERENCE

(1) Calgon. The Laboratory Evaluation of Granular Activated Carbons for Liquid Phase Applicat ions, 1986.

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292

APPENDIX

rd/CAMACHO/SR-2292

REMOVAL OF SPILLED HERBICIDE FROM A NEW JERSEY LAKE

JOSEPH P. LAFORNARA and MICHAEL POLITO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Edison, New Jersey

ROBERT SCHOLZ Envirex, Inc.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

INTRODUCTION

On August 9, 1974, the State of New Jersey Depart­ment of Environmental Protection reported a spill of DNBP (dinitro-butyl-phenol) into a small, privately owned, man-made lake, a tributary to the Millstone River, a public water supply for Allentown, N.J. The chemical, a registered pesticide, is approved for use as a herbicide in dilute amounts. Investigations by the State and EPA Region II pesticide personnel revealed that the material was applied, full strength, to the gravel parking lot of the Clarksburg Inn, a local restaurant, in Clarksburg, N.J., on July 21, 1974, in an effort to retard the growth of weeds. The DNBP was then washed off the lot and into the impacted lake by a heavy rain on July 24, 1974. The fish in the lake began dying the next day. The fish kill continued for several days and on August 9, 1974 the local sani­tarian was notified and he, in turn, notified the State.

The first on-scene State personnel observed the park­ing lot and the contaminated lake but also noted that there were several wells located in very close proximity to the contaminated parking lot and lake. Registering their concern, they informed their Trenton headquar­ters who, in turn, notified the Oil and Hazardous Spill Section of EPA's Region II Emergency Response Branch.

The Branch set the wheels of response in motion. In­formation regarding the situation was gathered from the State. The exact location was pinpointed and the identity of the downstream surface watercourses as­certained. The lake emptied its waters into an un­named tributary of Doctor's Creek which flowed into the Millstone River, a tributary of the Delaware. The lake was dammed to stop the threat of contami­nation of these waters, a sampling and analysis pro­gram was instituted, and various alternative methods to remove the pesticide were evaluated.

Results of the first sampling and analysis of the lake water and parking lot indicated that two prob­lems existed: (1) the lake waters were contami­nated at a relatively low level (8 ppb), (2) the parking lot and vegetation still held very high levels of DNBP (up to 0.48To). A diagram of the spill site and first day sampling locations is given in Figure 1. (DNBP

concentrations are included in parentheses). A detailed description of the gas chromatographic - Mass Spec­trometry method of analysis used and detailed results of the entire sampling and analysis program have been presented previously.'

Decontamination Option - Land

The first concern was the parking area which con­tained concentrated DNBP at such high concentra­tions that its characteristic yellow color was plainly visible on the soil and vegetation. At the direction of the State of New Jersey, earth scraping and removal of the soil, gravel and vegetation from the parking

lot, to a secure site, was undertaken on August 10, 1974. In all, 18 cubic yards were removed to the stor­age site and covered with polyethylene to prevent rain­water from leaching DNBP.

However, analyses of the soil remaining still indi­cated a high concentration which might result in fur­ther contamination of the lake by rain water run-off. It was determined that a wash-down of the parking lot with containment and treatment of the wash-down water would alleviate this problem if a water treat­ment method could be found.

Decontamination Options - Water

Under the circumstances, only two possible courses of action were feasible. The first was to hold the water in the lake and allow the DNBP to degrade photochemically and/or microbiologically. The second was to utilize activated carbon adsorption to remove the DNBP from solution with subsequent incineration of the contaminated carbon under closely controlled conditions.

Data from the manufacturer of the spilled DNBP in­dicated that the chemical had a persistence of nine months in the environment. It was determined that the lake could not be effectively dammed for so long a period without flooding the adjacent areas. Moreover, the area around Clarksburg, N.J., was considered to be a recharge area for the "Kirkwood Sands," a ma­jor groundwater aquifer from which many Jersey shore resort communities draw their drinking water supplies. To allow this herbicide to remain in the lake and on

378

EMOVAL OF HERBICIDE 379

Rt . 524 (C larksburg , New Jersey)

Figure l: Block Di.gr.m of DNBP Spill Site. DNBP Concentre tions Shown in Parentheses.

the parking lot for nine months in such high con­centrations would be a risk to this irreplaceable ground­water resource.

It was decided, therefore, to attempt to treat the contaminated water using activated carbon adsorption. The implementation of this concept could have been accomplished either by "jerry rigging" a carbon col­

umn system at the site, or, by utilizing the EPA Mobile Hazardous Material Spills Tre tment Trailer."

The trailer (Figure 2), a self-conta.ned 200 gallon per minute (GPM) water treatment system, was built under contract with Envirex, Inc. for the U.S Envi­ronmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch at Edison, N.J., and is cap­

Figure 2: The EPA Mobile Hazardous Spills Treatment Trailer.

330 REMOVAL OF HERBICIDE

able of removing several classes of hazardous ma­

terials from water.1

The main features of the trailer are its three mixed-media Filters for the removal of suspended or pre­cipitated material, and its three activated carbon columns for the removal of many soluble organic chemicals. Each of the" mixed-media Filters is 42 in­ches in diameter and 80 inches high and contains a 24 inch deep bed of powdered anthracite on top of an 18 inch thick layer of 0.5 mm red flint sand. Each carbon column is 83 inches in diameter and 105 in­ches high and contains 6000 lbs. of 8 x 30 mesh granu­lar activated carbon.

Designed to allow treatment flexibility, the system also includes: a 15,000 gallon rapidly deployable pott-able tank where chemicals can be added to flocculate, precipitate, or neutralize; several 3000 gallon pillow tanks for effluent or sludge storage; and, sufFicient hose and pumps to allow positioning of the unit up to 1000 feet from the system intake or discharge. Descrip­tive statistics for the trailer are contained in Table I.

Design and fabrication of the unit was completed in September 1972 and it was the key link in an EPA project to remove creosote from the bottom of the Little Menomonee River in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, during 1972 and 1974.1 At the termination of the creo­sote removal projects the system was modiFied to in­clude several features to facilitate deployment and operation. The system modiFications were almost com­plete, with all major systems operable at the time of the DNBP spill, but the trailer was still at the En-virex plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On Friday, August 9, 1974, the EPA on-scene coordinator re­quested the aid of EPA's OfFice of Research and De­velopment's Hazardous Spill Technology Research Branch at Edison in mobilizing and transporting the trailer to Clarksburg. Responding to this call, ar­rangements were made with Envirex to load the trailer and have it towed by a commercial trucker from Mil­waukee to Clarksburg that weekend, if emergency overweight permits could be obtained. The acquisition of these permits was difficult due to the fact that the ofFices of the highway departments of the six states involved were closed. However, due in large part to the efforts of "Sandy" Staggerwald of the U.S.

Table I: Describing EPA's Mobile Hazardous Materials Treatment Trailer.

Table 1. TABLE STATISTICS

length

Width

Height

Weight (loaded)

Weight (empty)

Treatment Capacity

Generator (Gasoline)

Design Cost

Fabrication Cost

45 ft.

B ft.

13 ft.. 6 in.

95.000 lbs.

51 .000 lbs.

300.000 gallons/day

100 KW

$100,000

$150,000

Army's Military TrafFic Management Agency, at Brooklyn, N.Y., a Department of Defense priority designation was assigned and the transportation of the trailer was Finally accomplished.

Arrangements were also made for a crew of En­virex employees familiar with the operation of the trailer to arrive on-scene on Monday, August 12, 1974, and assume this portion of the clean-up operation.

Clean-Up Operations - Water

On Monday, operations commenced with the arrival of the Envirex crew and the trailer. The Authority to Proceed was issued to them by the on-scene coordi­nator under Pollution Incident No. 1-5-0014.

At this time, additional carbon was ordered and delivered to the site. Within 24 hours of its arrival at Clarksburg, the trailer was fully loaded with carbon and ready to initiate treatment of the contaminated water.

Prior to actually treating the water, however, several process decisions had to be made. These included: whether or not to flocculate and settle; whether to run the three carbon columns in series or parallel; and, where to position the intake and effluent hoses.

It was determined visually that the turbidity of the water in the lake was low enough so that flocculation/ sedimentation of the lake water would not be necessary before pumping the water to the trailer's mixed-media Filters.

Since one of the carbon columns contained carbon which had been used previously to treat creosote-contaminated water at the Little Menomonee River1, the possible breakthrough of chemicals from this column was of concern. It was decided, therefore, to run the tratment system in series with the pre­viously used column First in line and to monitor all three columns for removal efficiency.

The initial positioning of the intake and effluent hoses was based on the DNBP proFile of the lake. As can be seen in Figure 1, the concentration of DNBP was highest at the head of the lake and lowest at the outlet. The intake was, therefore, placed at the head of the iake-to maximize the influent DNBP concentrations ppbjjtnd its removal from the water. Since no accttfSfF'prediction could be made of the DNBP concentration in the treated effluent, it was de­cided that the effluent hose would be placed at the outlet of the lake so that the lake water would be, in effect, recirculated. Operation in this mode would con­tinue until an analysis of the effluent could be per­formed to ascertain if it was acceptable for release to downstream waters.

On Wednesday, August 14, 1974, treatment of the lake water commenced in the recirculating mode described. When analytical data on the effluent showed that no detectable DNBP was present (<.002 ppb), the decision was made that afternoon to release the effluent downstream of the lake.

Operation in this mode (release of effluent down­stream) continued round-the-clock until clean-up was terminated on August 22, 1974.

Clean-Up Operations - Land

As mentioned previously, attempts to alleviate the problems associated with the rainwater run-off from the parking lot by scraping and removing the con­taminated gravel, soil and vegetation, did not result in low enough residual DNBP concentrations to insure that further contamination of the lake would not occur with subsequent rainfall. It was suggested that the parking lot be washed down and the water from this operation collected and treated with activated carbon.

This was accomplished in the following manner. The fire department adjacent to the site was requested to hose down the parking lot with already contami­nated (low level) lake water. The water which picked up DNBP's characteristic yellow color was allowed to run off the lot, flow down the side of the road and into a sump that had been dug. From the sump, the "yellow water" was pumped into the trailer's floccula-tion/ sedimentation tank where the suspended soil and DNBP were allowed to settle out. The supernatant water was then circulated through the trailer's columns several times to remove the soluble DNBP before being released.

As a precaution against the sump overflowing or the pumping system breaking down, a dam was con­structed at the head of the lake to prevent uncol­lected wash-down water form entering the lake. One breakdown did occur but the back-up dam performed its function; the water was collected and pumped out and none of the contaminant from the washing process entered the lake. The lot was washed until the run-off water was no longer yellow, indicating that less than 1 ppm of DNBP was present in the water.

Problems Encountered

Since operations of this type have been rare until very recently, it may be helpful to some to reiterate some of the more difficult aspects of this clean-up process.

It was evident at the start that a relatively long time elapsed between the occurrence of the spill (July 24, 1974) and the reporting of the spill to the proper authorities (August 9, 1974). Although it is only hind­sight, the killing of the fish in the lake and the spread of the DNBP to downstream waters might have been prevented entirely/if the report of the spill had been more prompt. Hopefully, with the promulgation of the hazardous substances "designation"4 and "harmful quantity"5 regulations, and the associated spill report­ing requirements of Section 311 of P.L. 92-500, this problem will be alleviated in the future.

Obtaining overweight permits was another problem. State officials were very hesitant (and not without good cause) to allow such heavy loads to travel over their bridges and highways. One state highway commis­sioner refused for three hours to permit the "trailer"

Removal of herbicide 38i

on his roads.. It was not until an early Sunday morn­ing phone call from Mr. Francis Mayo, EPA Admin­istrator for Region V, to the Governor of his state, that the unit got moving again. This problem can be solved, however, by transporting the trailer as light as possible (unfilled carbon columns, etc.); this will be done in the future.

The problem of obtaining rapid analytical results with which to judge not only the severity of the prob­lem, but also the effectiveness of the amelioration techniques, was overcome only by the outstanding work of EPA's Region II Technical Support Branch. Their efforts in reporting precise and accurate data in a timely manner were instrumental in the conduct of this clean-up.

The other minor problems associated with a field operation of this type were overcome by the Envirex crew. These activities included system deployment, pump and hose placement, sandbag dam building, sump excavation, and other sundry duties such as getting generator fuel (gasoline) at 5:00 A.M. on a Sunday morning.

CONCLUSION The clean-up effort was significant not only be­

cause it alleviated the threat of contamination of precious surface and groundwater public water sup­plies, but also because it demonstrated that the age of Hazardous Material Spill Clean-up is close at hand. The technology is now becoming available to de­toxify spill-impacted water.

REFERENCES '"TTjJudenbostel B.F., and Speis D.N., Computerized s~LiC/EIMS Used to Monitor Herbicide Clean-up of

Contaminated Pond, Proceedings of Twenty-third Annual Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Al­lied Topics, American Society for Mass Spectrometry Houston, Texas, 1975.

2. Gupta M.KDevelopment of a Portable Treatment System for Handling Spilled Hazardous Materials, EPA, OR&D Report, In Press.

3. Lafornara J.P., and Wilder I., Solution of the Hazardous Material Spill Problem in the Little Menomonee River, Control of Hazardous Material Spills: Proceedings of the 1974 National Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, A1CLE/ EPA, San Francisco, Calif. (Aug. 1974) 202-207.

A. Designation of Hazardous Substances - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 250, December 30, 1975, p 59960.

5. Determination of Harmful Quantities for Hazardous Substances - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Fed­eral Register, Vol. 40, No. 250, December 30,

1975,p 59982.