[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4590-4596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2198]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6219-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by Occidental Chemical Inc. (Occidental), to exclude
from hazardous waste control (or delist) certain solid wastes. The
wastes being delisted consist of Rockbox Residue, and Limestone Sludge.
This action responds to Occidental Chemical's petition to delist these
treated wastes on a ``generator specific'' basis from the lists of
hazardous waste. After careful analysis, the EPA has concluded that the
petitioned wastes are not hazardous wastes when disposed of in Subtitle
D landfills/surface impoundments. This exclusion applies to Rockbox
Residue and Limestone Sludge generated at Occidental Chemical's
Ingleside, Texas facility. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned wastes from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed
of in Subtitle D landfills/surface impoundments but imposes testing
conditions to ensure that the future-generated wastes remain qualified
for delisting.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of
Information Act review room on the 7th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)
665-6444 for appointments. The reference number for this docket is
``TXDEL-OCCIDENTAL.'' The public may copy material from any regulatory
docket at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per
page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact Bill
Gallagher, at (214) 665-6775. For technical information concerning this
notice, contact Jon Rinehart, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-6789.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow the EPA to determine that the waste to be
excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was
listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must
determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional
[[Page 4591]]
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of This Rulemaking
Occidental Chemical-Ingleside petitioned the EPA to exclude from
hazardous waste control its Limestone Sludge, Rockbox Residue, and
Caustic Neutralized Wastewater waste generated at the wastewater
treatment facility. The Rockbox Residue and Limestone Sludge are
currently disposed in an off-site hazardous waste landfill. The Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater is discharged through its National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. After evaluating the
petition, EPA proposed, on May 11, 1998, to exclude all three of
Occidental Chemical's wastes from the lists of hazardous wastes under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. See 63 FR 25797. This rulemaking addresses
public comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed
decision to grant Occidental Chemical's petition.
II. Disposition of Petition
Occidental Chemical Incorporated--Ingleside, Texas 78362-0710
A. Proposed Exclusion
Occidental Chemical petitioned EPA to exclude, from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, an annual
volume of Rockbox Residue, Limestone Sludge, and Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater generated from the wastewater treatment plant. Specifically,
in its petition, Occidental requested that EPA grant a standard
exclusion for 128 cubic yards of Rockbox Residue, 1,114 cubic yards of
Limestone Sludge, and 148,284 cubic yards of Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater generated per calender year. The Rockbox Residue, Limestone
Sludge, and Caustic Neutralized Wastewater are listed for six EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers due to the ``derived-from'' and mixture rules.
The wastes are listed as K019, K020, F001, F003, F005 and F025. The
listed constituents of concern for these EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
are shown in Table 1. See 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII.
Table 1.--Hazardous Waste Codes Associated With Wastewater Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste code Basis for characteristics/listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K019/K020......................... Ethylene dichloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane,
trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, vinyl
chloride, vinylidene chloride.
F001.............................. Tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, methylene
chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated
fluorocarbons.
F003.............................. N.A. Waste is hazardous because it
fails the test for the
characteristic of ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity.
F005.............................. Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine,
benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-
nitropropane.
F025.............................. Chloromethane, dichloromethane,
trichloromethane, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroethylene, 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1-
dichlorothylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, trichlorothylene,
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene,
pentachloroethane,
hexachloroethane, 3-chloropropene,
dichloropropane, dichloropropene, 2-
chloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachloro-
1,3-butadiene,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, benzene,
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene,
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,
tetrachlorobenzene,
pentachlorobenzene,
hexachlorobenzene, toluene,
naphthalene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Chemical petitioned to exclude the Rockbox Residue,
Limestone Sludge, and Caustic Neutralized Wastewater treatment residues
because it does not believe that the petitioned wastes meet the
criteria for which they were listed.
Occidental also believes that the wastes do not contain any other
constituents that would render them hazardous. Review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional listing criteria and the additional factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See section 222 of
HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d) (2)-(4).
In support of its petition, which included the sampling and
analysis plan, Occidental submitted: (1) Descriptions of its waste
water treatment processes and the incineration activities associated
with petitioned waste; (2) results of the total constituent list for 40
CFR part 264, Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals except
for pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs; (3) results of the constituent
list for Appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) extract for volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals; (4) results
for reactive sulfide; (5) results for reactive cyanide; (6) results for
pH; (7) results of the total basis for dioxin and furan; and (8)
results of the dioxin and furan TCLP extract.
B. Summary of Comments and Responses
The EPA received public comment on May 11, 1998, on the delisting
proposal from two interested parties, the Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) and the petitioner, Occidental Chemical.
Comment
Efficacy of the TCLP. In a recent delisting decision, EPA concluded
that the TCLP may not accurately predict leachability in a highly
alkaline waste. Based on that decision, the EDF commented on the
efficacy of the TCLP and suggested that the pH be tested on the
Limestone Sludge and Rockbox Residue as the pH of the Limestone Sludge
is 9.55. It was suggested that the TCLP values may vary with changing
pH values.
Response
Caustic Neutralized Wastewater is not being delisted. The EPA does
not expect the pH of the Limestone Sludge or Rockbox Residue to vary
greatly, based upon historical data submitted by the company. The
Limestone Sludge was tested for pH on six different occasions. The
values were as follows: (1) 8.81, (2) 7.97, (3) 8.03, (4) 7.95, (5)
8.19, (6) 9.55, which are in standard units. In a recent delisting
action, to which the commenter referred, EPA determined, based upon
unusually high pH values which sometimes exceeded 13, that the accuracy
of the TCLP results was skewed. See 62 FR 41009 (July 31, 1997). There
has been no indication that pH levels of the Limestone Sludge or
Rockbox Residue even approach this
[[Page 4592]]
magnitude. Additionally, waste that was the subject of the earlier
action was disposed of in a monofill, a fact which is at odds with the
premise of the TCLP. The TCLP was designed to predict codisposal in a
municipal landfill not a monofill. Occidental will dispose of its waste
in a Subtitle D landfill where codisposal will occur. At this time EPA
has no reason to believe the TCLP is not an efficacious test as applied
to these wastes.
The EPA will revise the requirements for the verification testing
to include pH testing for the wastes Rockbox Residue and Limestone
Sludge. Verification sampling will determine if the waste will continue
to be delisted.
Air Pathway Risk Analysis. A comment was received concerning the
air pathway risk analysis performed by EPA. First, it was suggested
that EPA did not evaluate the risk from storing the waste in tanks
prior to disposal in a landfill. Second, a comment was made that the
distance of 1,000 feet from the source to a potential receptor used in
analysis of an air pathway was too a great distance. Third, a comment
was made concerning the active life of the landfill used in the model.
The model used 18.6 years when the commenter suggested that 40 years
should instead be used. Fourth, it was suggested that EPA failed to
consider the disposal of other Occidental wastes in the landfill,
therefore, a cumulative affect should have been modeled.
Response
The wastes were modeled using a landfill life of 40 years as
opposed to 18.6 years and a distance of 150 feet to the nearest
receptor as opposed to 1,000 feet. There was no change in the delisting
values; therefore, the delisting will be approved based on this
evaluation. This analysis will be included in the RCRA public docket
for today's decision additionally, EPA similarly adjusted these factors
to determine the effect on the modeling for air emissions. The results
were not significantly impacted. The commenter noted that other studies
have been used with the different landfill life lengths. In listing
determinations like the Petroleum Refining Listing Determination, a
landfill life of 30 years was used in lieu of 20 years. For listing
determinations, waste disposal of materials may already be managed in a
nonhazardous landfill. In contrast, a petitioned waste is hazardous
until it has been delisted, thus, the waste should be managed in a
hazardous waste landfill until the petition is finalized. According to
the 1986 Landfill Survey Act, the planned landfill units average
approximately 21.3 years of life. The active units in the recalculation
average less than 20 years. Currently, until further studies have been
completed, EPA will continue to use a basis of 20 years after the
active landfill life. The model that is utilized by EPA only considers
the waste that is being delisted and no other Occidental waste that is
co-disposed at a landfill.
Comment
Comment was also made concerning storage of these wastes in tanks.
The position was taken that they should be considered in an air pathway
risk analysis.
Response
These tanks are covered so it is not appropriate to consider an air
pathway risk for this petition.
Comment
Due to the presence of dioxin in the Occidental waste, the
commenter felt that a more comprehensive risk evaluation should be done
before the delisting petition could be approved.
Response
The concentration of the dioxin in this waste is very low,
therefore EPA felt the evaluation that was done was adequate.
Use of the EPACMTP Model. Occidental felt that the EPACMTP model,
which was used in the initial screening to determine if the petitioned
waste was a candidate for a delisting petition, should be utilized in
the proposed Federal Register. This model was used as a tool to
preliminarily determine whether the wastes could meet the criteria for
delisting.
Response
The EPACML model was utilized because it is the model used in all
previously approved delisting petitions. In order for the EPACMTP to
actually be used in approval of a delisting petition, the model itself
would have to have been proposed for formal adoption and opportunity
for public comment on its adoption would have been necessary. The EPA
felt instead that if the waste streams could pass the delisting levels
using the EPACML model, then that model would continue to be used in
the petitions. Until the Agency has completed its adoption of the
EPCMTP model for delisting, the EPACML model will continue to be used.
Typographical Errors and Corrections. There were mathematical
errors found in the petition and in the consistent use of nondetectable
constituents in the delisting evaluation.
Response
The mathematical errors will be corrected in the final Federal
Register. The nondetectable total constituents will be included.
Addition of Brine Sludge. The facility proposes to add brine sludge
upstream of the rockbox to help neutralize the acid stream prior to
entering the rockbox tank. This material is currently being disposed in
a Class 1 nonhazardous landfill. The facility feels that this is a
method of recycle/reuse.
Response
No analysis of brine sludge after it is mixed with Rockbox Residue
has been provided to EPA, therefore, is unable to adequately assess
effect on the delisted waste streams. The brine sludge may not be added
to the delisted waste streams until a petition containing the required
delisting criteria is submitted and approved allowing EPA to evaluate
its merit.
Increase in Waste Volume
Comment
The facility would like to increase the waste volume for the
Rockbox Residue from 128 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards per year. The
plant apparently has gathered information that additional waste will be
generated and therefore requests that the increased annual volume be
allowed.
Response
A change in the volume of Rockbox Residue waste will not change the
Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF), therefore the delisting levels will
remain the same. The EPA approves the request to increase the volume of
Rockbox Residue from 128 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards and revising
the exclusion.
Removal of Caustic Neutralized Wastewater
Comment
The facility has reconsidered its request for delisting the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater and has decided to remove the request for
delisting this waste.
Response
The facility was planning on managing this waste in the same manner
regardless of whether the delisting petition was approved or denied.
Therefore, delisting of this waste stream will not be made final.
Conclusions
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, EPA
believes that Occidental Chemical's
[[Page 4593]]
Limestone Sludge, and Rockbox Residue should be excluded from hazardous
waste control. The EPA therefore is granting a final exclusion to
Occidental Chemical, located in Ingleside, Texas, for its Limestone
Sludge and Rockbox Residue. This exclusion applies to the waste
described in the petition only if the requirements described in Table 1
of part 261 and the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The
maximum annual volume of Limestone Sludge is 1,114 cubic yards and the
Rockbox Residue is 1,000 cubic yards.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of the waste in an
on-site facility, must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste or
ensure that the waste is delivered to an off-site storage, treatment,
or disposal facility which is permitted, licensed or registered by a
state to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
III. Limited Effect Of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued
exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner's waste
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and
State (non-RCRA programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State law.
Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) are
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned
waste will be transported to or managed in any State with delisting
authorization, Occidental must obtain delisting authorization from that
State before the waste can be managed as non-hazardous in the State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective January 29, 1999. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. This proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since
its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling a
facility to treat its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional
impact due to today's rule. Therefore, this proposal would not be a
significant regulation, and no cost/benefit assessment is required. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from
the requirement for OMB review under section (6) of Executive Order
12866.
VI. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with concerns, copies of written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
VII. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because this is
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O.
12866 and the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action do not have a disproportionate effect on children.
VIII. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements
that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
[[Page 4594]]
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have any adverse economic
impact on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the
overall costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited
to one facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore,
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
X. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 804 (2) of the
APA as amended.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-
0053.
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), P.L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in
the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance
with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal
mandate for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty
upon state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA
finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting
decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for small
governments and so does not require a small government agency plan
under UMRA section 203.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: December 29, 1998.
William N. Rhea,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
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. In Tables 1, and 2 of Appendix IX of part 261, add the following
waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Occidental Chemical... Ingleside, Texas...... Limestone Sludge, (at a
maximum generation
1,114 cubic yards per
calender year) Rockbox
Residue, (at a maximum
generation of 1,000
cubic yards per
calender year)
generated by Occidental
Chemical using the
wastewater treatment
process to treat the
Rockbox Residue and the
Limestone Sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No.
F025, F001, F003, and
F005) generated at
Occidental Chemical.
Occidental Chemical must
implement a testing
program that meets the
following conditions
for the exclusion to be
valid:
(1) Delisting Levels:
All concentrations for
the following
constituents must not
exceed the following
levels (ppm). The
Rockbox Residue and the
Limestone Sludge, must
be measured in the
waste leachate by the
method specified in 40
CFR Part 261.24.
(A) Rockbox Residue
(i) Inorganic
Constituents: Barium-
100; Chromium-5; Copper-
130; Lead-1.5; Selenium-
1; Tin-2100; Vanadium-
30; Zinc-1,000
(ii) Organic
Constituents: Acetone-
400;
Bromodichloromethane-
0.14; Bromoform-1.0;
Chlorodibromethane-0.1;
Chloroform-1.0;
Dichloromethane-1.0;
Ethylbenzene-7,000;
2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent-
0.00000006
(B) Limestone Sludge
(i) Inorganic
Constituents: Antimony-
0.6; Arsenic-5; Barium-
100; Beryllium-0.4;
Chromium-5; Cobalt-210;
Copper-130; Lead-1.5;
Nickel-70; Selenium-5;
Silver-5; Vanadium-30;
Zinc-1,000
(ii) Organic
Constituents Acetone-
400; Bromoform-1.0;
Chlorodibromomethane-
0.1; Dichloromethane-
1.0; Diethyl phthalate-
3,000, Ethylbenzene-
7,000; 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane-20;
Toluene-700;
Trichlorofluoromethane-
1,000, Xylene-10,000,
2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent-
0.00000006;
[[Page 4595]]
(2) Waste Holding and
Handling: Occidental
Chemical must store in
accordance with its
RCRA permit, or
continue to dispose of
as hazardous waste all
Rockbox Residue and the
Limestone Sludge
generated until the
verification testing
described in Condition
(3)(B), as appropriate,
is completed and valid
analyses demonstrate
that condition (3) is
satisfied. If the
levels of constituents
measured in the samples
of the Rockbox Residue
and the Limestone
Sludge do not exceed
the levels set forth in
Condition (1), then the
waste is nonhazardous
and may be managed and
disposed of in
accordance with all
applicable solid waste
regulations. If
constituent levels in a
sample exceed any of
the delisting levels
waste generated during
the time period
corresponding to this
sample must be managed
and disposed of in
accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Verification Testing
Requirements: Sample
collection and
analyses, including
quality control
procedures, must be
performed according to
SW-846 methodologies.
If EPA judges the
incineration process to
be effective under the
operating conditions
used during the initial
verification testing,
Occidental Chemical may
replace the testing
required in Condition
(3)(A) with the testing
required in Condition
(3)(B). Occidental
Chemical must continue
to test as specified in
Condition (3)(A) until
and unless notified by
EPA in writing that
testing in Condition
(3)(A) may be replaced
by Condition (3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification
Testing: (i) During the
first 40 operating days
of the Incinerator
Offgas Treatment System
after the final
exclusion is granted,
Occidental Chemical
must collect and
analyze composites of
the Limestone Sludge.
Daily composites must
be representative grab
samples collected every
6 hours during each
unit operating cycle.
The two wastes must be
analyzed, prior to
disposal, for all of
the constituents listed
in Paragraph 1. The
waste must also be
analyzed for pH.
Occidental Chemical
must report the
operational and
analytical test data,
including quality
control information,
obtained during this
initial period no later
than 90 days after the
generation of the two
wastes.
(ii) When the Rockbox
unit is decommissioned
for cleanout, after the
final exclusion is
granted, Occidental
Chemical must collect
and analyze composites
of the Rockbox Residue.
Two composites must be
composed of
representative grab
samples collected from
the Rockbox unit. The
waste must be analyzed,
prior to disposal, for
all of the constituents
listed in Paragraph 1.
The waste must be
analyzed for pH. No
later than 90 days
after the Rockbox is
decommissioned for
cleanout the first two
times after this
exclusion becomes
final, Occidental
Chemical must report
the operational and
analytical test data,
including quality
control information.
(B) Subsequent
Verification Testing:
Following written
notification by EPA,
Occidental Chemical may
substitute the testing
conditions in (3)(B)
for (3)(A)(i).
Occidental Chemical
must continue to
monitor operating
conditions, analyze
samples representative
of each quarter of
operation during the
first year of waste
generation. The samples
must represent the
waste generated over
one quarter. (This
provision does not
apply to the Rockbox
Residue.)
(C)Termination of
Organic Testing for the
Limestone Sludge:
Occidental Chemical
must continue testing
as required under
Condition (3)(B) for
organic constituents
specified under
Condition (3)(B) for
organic constituents
specified in Condition
(1)(A)(ii) and
(1)(B)(ii) until the
analyses submitted
under Condition (3)(B)
show a minimum of two
consecutive quarterly
samples below the
delisting levels in
Condition (1)(A)(ii)
and (1)(B)(ii),
Occidental Chemical may
then request that
quarterly organic
testing be terminated.
After EPA notifies
Occidental Chemical in
writing it may
terminate quarterly
organic testing.
Following termination
of the quarterly
testing, Occidental
Chemical must continue
to test a
representative
composite sample for
all constituents listed
in Condition (1) on an
annual basis (no later
than twelve months
after exclusion).
(4) Changes in Operating
Conditions: If
Occidental Chemical
significantly changes
the process which
generate(s) the
waste(s) and which may
or could affect the
composition or type
waste(s) generated as
established under
Condition (1) (by
illustration, but not
limitation, change in
equipment or operating
conditions of the
treatment process),
Occidental Chemical
must notify the EPA in
writing and may no
longer handle the
wastes generated from
the new process or no
longer discharges as
nonhazardous until the
wastes meet the
delisting levels set
Condition (1) and it
has received written
approval to do so from
EPA.
(5) Data Submittals: The
data obtained through
Condition 3 must be
submitted to Mr.
William Gallagher,
Chief, Region 6
Delisting Program, U.S.
EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, Mail Code, (6PD-
O) within the time
period specified.
Records of operating
conditions and
analytical data from
Condition (1) must be
compiled, summarized,
and maintained on site
for a minimum of five
years. These records
and data must be
furnished upon request
by EPA, or the State of
Texas, and made
available for
inspection. Failure to
submit the required
data within the
specified time period
or maintain the
required records on
site for the specified
time will be considered
by EPA, at its
discretion, sufficient
basis to revoke the
exclusion to the extent
directed by EPA. All
data must be
accompanied by a signed
copy of the following
certification statement
to attest to the truth
and accuracy of the
data submitted:
Under civil and criminal
penalty of law for the
making or submission of
false or fraudulent
statements or
representations
(pursuant to the
applicable provisions
of the Federal Code,
which include, but may
not be limited to, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1001 and
42 U.S.C. Sec. 6928),
I certify that the
information contained
in or accompanying this
document is true,
accurate and complete.
As to the (those)
identified section(s)
of this document for
which I cannot
personally verify its
(their) truth and
accuracy, I certify as
the company official
having supervisory
responsibility for the
persons who, acting
under my direct
instructions, made the
verification that this
information is true,
accurate and complete.
In the event that any of
this information is
determined by EPA in
its sole discretion to
be false, inaccurate or
incomplete, and upon
conveyance of this fact
to the company, I
recognize and agree
that this exclusion of
waste will be void as
if it never had effect
or to the extent
directed by EPA and
that the company will
be liable for any
actions taken in
contravention of the
company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations
premised upon the
company's reliance on
the void exclusion.
[[Page 4596]]
(6) Reopener: (a) If
Occidental Chemical
discovers that a
condition at the
facility or an
assumption related to
the disposal of the
excluded waste that was
modeled or predicted in
the petition does not
occur as modeled or
predicted, then
Occidental Chemical
must report any
information relevant to
that condition, in
writing, to the
Director of the
Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division or
his delegate within 10
days of discovering
that condition. (b)
Upon receiving
information described
in paragraph (a) from
any source, the
Director or his
delegate will determine
whether the reported
condition requires
further action. Further
action may include
revoking the exclusion,
modifying the
exclusion, or other
appropriate response
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment.
(7) Notification
Requirements:
Occidental Chemical
must provide a one-time
written notification to
any State Regulatory
Agency to which or
through which the
delisted waste
described above will be
transported for
disposal at least 60
days prior to the
commencement of such
activities. Failure to
provide such a
notification will
result in a violation
of the delisting
petition and a possible
revocation of the
decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Excluded Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Occidental Chemical... Ingleside, Texas...... Limestone Sludge, (at a
maximum generation of
1,114 cubic yards per
calendar year) Rockbox
Residue, (at a maximum
generation of 1,000
cubic yards per
calendar year)
generated by Occidental
Chemical using the
wastewater treatment
process to treat the
Rockbox Residue and the
Limestone Sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No.
K019, K020). Occidental
Chemical must implement
a testing program that
meets conditions found
in Table 1. Wastes
Excluded From Non-
Specific Sources from
the petition to be
valid.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-2198 Filed 1-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
