[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8278-8288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4160]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 261
[SW-FRL-6304-4]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by
Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental Chemical), to exclude (or
delist) a certain solid waste generated at its Deer Park, Texas,
facility from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.24,
261.31, and 261.32, (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). This petition was submitted under
Sec. 260.20, which allows any person to petition the Administrator to
modify or revoke any provision of Secs. 260 through 266, 268 and 273,
and Sec. 260.22(a), which specifically provides generators the
opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a
``generator specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. This
proposed decision is based on an evaluation of waste-specific
information provided by the petitioner. If this proposed decision is
finalized, the petitioned waste will be conditionally excluded from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The EPA is also proposing the use of a fate and transport model to
evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health
and the environment, based on the waste-specific information provided
by the petitioner. This model has been used in evaluating the petition
to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.
DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision
and on the applicability of the fate and transport model used to
evaluate the petition. Comments will be accepted until April 5, 1999.
Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be
stamped ``late,'' and will not be considered in formulating a final
decision.
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Acting Director, Robert E. Hannesschlager,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, whose address appears
below, by March 8, 1999. The request must contain the information
prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments to EPA. Two copies should
be sent to the William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be
sent to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park
35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. Identify your comments at the top with
this regulatory docket number: ``F-97-TXDEL-OCCDEERPK.''
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Acting Director,
Robert E. Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
(6PD), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed 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
[[Page 8279]]
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for
additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Jon Rinehart, Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665-6789.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This
list has been amended several times, and is published in Secs. 261.31
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they typically
and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing
contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background documents
for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require the EPA to consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly,
a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for
the EPA to determine whether the waste contains any other toxicants at
hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and the
background documents for the listed wastes. Although wastes which are
``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to determine whether
or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste,
generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine whether or not
their waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics.
In addition, mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes are also
considered hazardous wastes and wastes derived from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of listed hazardous waste. See
Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(I), referred to as the ``mixture'' and
``derived-from'' rules, respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for
exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6,
1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated
the ``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to the EPA on
procedural grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir.
1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from
rules, and solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures
and residues (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30, 1992
(57 FR 49278). These references should be consulted for more
information regarding mixtures derived from wastes.
B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition
Occidental Chemical's petition requests a delisting for listed
hazardous waste. In making the initial delisting determination, the EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA
agreed with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect
to the original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for
which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny
the petition.) The EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other
factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and
considered the toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantity of waste generated, and waste variability.
For this delisting determination, the EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D
(solid, nonhazardous waste) landfill is the most reasonable, worse-case
disposal scenario for Occidental Chemical's petitioned waste, and that
the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion of contaminated
ground water. Therefore, the EPA used a particular fate and transport
model, the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML), to predict the
maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste after disposal and to determine the
potential impact of the disposal of Occidental Chemical's petitioned
waste on human health and the environment. Specifically, the EPA used
the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported extract
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in
the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the
disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to
as compliance-point concentrations) were then compared directly to the
health-based levels at an assumed risk of 10-6 used in
delisting decision-making for the hazardous constituents of concern.
The EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worse-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worse-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable
worse-case scenario results in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and gives a high degree of confidence that the
waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a
threat to human health or the environment. In most cases, because
(unless conditionally delisted), a delisted waste is no longer subject
to hazardous waste control, the EPA is generally unable to predict, and
does not presently control, how a waste will be managed after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model.
The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water
[[Page 8280]]
monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this
case, the EPA determined that it would be inappropriate to request
ground water monitoring data. Specifically, Occidental Chemical
currently disposes of the petitioned waste (Rockbox Residue) generated
at its facility in an off-site RCRA hazardous waste landfill (which is
not owned/operated by Occidental Chemical). This landfill did not begin
accepting this petitioned waste generated by the Occidental Chemical
facility until 1991. This petitioned waste comprises a small fraction
of the total waste managed in the unit. Therefore, the EPA, believes
that any ground water monitoring data from the landfill would not be
meaningful for an evaluation of the specific effect of this petitioned
waste on ground water. Finally, there are presently no data from ground
water monitoring wells available, therefore there is no data to
evaluate.
From the evaluation of Occidental Chemical's delisting petition, a
list of constituents was developed for the verification testing
conditions. Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations for
these constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a
landfill management scenario. These concentrations (i.e., delisting
levels) are part of the proposed verification testing conditions of the
exclusion.
Similar to other facilities seeking exclusions, Occidental
Chemical's exclusion (if granted) would be contingent upon the facility
conducting analytical testing of representative samples of the
petitioned waste at Deer Park. This testing would be necessary to
verify that the treatment system is operating as demonstrated in the
petition submitted on September 19, 1997. Specifically, the
verification testing requirements would be implemented to demonstrate
that the processing facility will generate nonhazardous waste (i.e.,
waste that meet the EPA's verification testing conditions). The EPA's
proposed decision to delist waste from Occidental Chemical's facility
is based on the information submitted in support of today's rule (i.e.,
description of the wastewater treatment system and analytical data from
the Deer Park facility).
Finally, the HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not be made until all timely
public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on today's
proposal are addressed.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Deer Park, Texas 77536.
A. Petition for Exclusion
Occidental Chemical Corporation, located in Deer Park, Texas,
petitioned the EPA for exclusion for 238 cubic yards of Rockbox
Residue, per calendar year resulting from its hazardous waste treatment
process. The resulting waste is presently listed, in accordance with
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(I) (i.e., the derived from rule), as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K017, K019, and K020. The listed constituents of concern for
these waste codes are listed in Table 1.
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.
K017................... Epichlorohydrin, chloroethers,
trichloropropane, dichloropropanols.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Chemical petitioned to exclude the Rockbox Residue,
treatment residues because it does not believe that the petitioned
waste meet the criteria for which it was listed. Occidental Chemical
further believes that the waste is not hazardous for any other reason
(i.e., there are no additional constituents or factors that could cause
the wastes to be hazardous). Review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the HSWA. See Sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 USC
Sec. 6921(f), and 40 CFR Sec. 260.22(d) (2)-(4). Today's proposal to
grant this petition for delisting is the result of the EPA's evaluation
of Occidental Chemical's petition.
B. Background
On September 19, 1997, Occidental Chemical petitioned the EPA to
exclude from the lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and
261.32, an annual volume of Rockbox Residue, which are generated as a
result of the treatment of offgases from onsite incinerators.
Specifically, in its petition, Occidental Chemical requested that the
EPA grant a standard exclusion for 238 cubic yards of Rockbox Residue,
generated per calendar year.
In support of its petition, Occidental Chemical submitted: (1)
Descriptions of its wastewater treatment processes and the incineration
activities associated with petitioned wastes; (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
ignitability; (8) results of the total basis for dioxin and furan; and
(9) results of dioxin and furan TCLP extract.
Occidental Chemical is an active plant that produces ethylene
dichloride (EDC), and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). The plant utilizes
chlorine, ethylene, and oxygen as feedstock and utilizes two permitted,
onsite RCRA incinerators to burn process vent gases, intermediate
wastes generated during the production of EDC and VCM (K019, K020) and
epichlorohydrin heavy ends (K017). These two incinerators have been in
continuous operation since 1987. Occidental Chemical has previously
classified one waste stream (Rockbox Residue) generated from the
treatment of the offgas from the incinerators as hazardous based on the
``derived from'' rule in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i).
The combustion products from the incinerators contain hydrochloric
acid (HCl). Incinerator offgases are treated in the Incinerator Offgas
Treatment System. In this system, the emissions are passed through
absorption columns, dehumidifier columns, and caustic scrubbers to
remove the HCl. Blowdown water from the dehumidifier columns and
caustic scrubber columns are routed to the Rockbox Tank (the Rockbox)
as the first step in neutralizing the HCl. Excess HCl from the aqueous
HCl storage tanks is commingled with the blowdown water and routed to
the Rockbox. The influent to Rockbox normally contains 2 to 3 percent
HCl. At times when excess HCl is not produced, the influent to the
Rockbox is
[[Page 8281]]
predominantly blowdown from the dehumidifier and caustic scrubber
columns.
The Rockbox contains crushed limestone with small amounts of inert
materials (silica oxide). These inert materials accumulate in the
bottom of the Rockbox as the crushed limestone is utilized in the
neutralization process. The accumulation of inert materials is the
Rockbox Residue. The Rockbox Residue is a ``third generation'' waste
since it is the residue of treating wastewater used to quench gaseous
emissions from the incineration of listed wastes.
The pH of the effluent leaving the Rockbox is between 1 and 4. The
effluent is passed through a primary pH adjustment tank where air is
released into the water to remove carbon dioxide. Additionally, sodium
hydroxide may be added to this tank. Mixing with air minimizes the
formation of calcium carbonate precipitate upon introduction of caustic
soda. The effluent is then passed through the secondary pH adjustment
tank where caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) is added to raise the pH of
the water to a pH between 7 and 9. The stream, consisting of water and
calcium carbonate precipitant in suspension, flows through a clarifier
where the sludge is settled out. The aqueous effluent from the
clarifier tank is the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater.
Rockbox Residue is generated on a batch basis every one to two
years. For the past two years (1995 and 1996), the Rockbox Residue was
generated annually. This is probably due to a higher than average
concentration of inerts in the limestone purchased for the Rockbox. The
Rockbox Residue is disposed of in an offsite permitted hazardous waste
landfill.
Occidental Chemical developed a list of constituents of concern
from comparing a list of all raw materials used in the plant that could
potentially appear in the petitioned waste with those found in 40 CFR
Appendix IX Part 264, as well as dioxins and furans. The EPA has
included the dioxins and furans to the list, due to the incineration of
chlorinated compounds. Using the list of constituents of concern,
Occidental analyzed the four composite samples for the total
concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular constituent per mass of
waste) of the volatiles and semivolatiles, and metals from Appendix IX.
These four samples were also analyzed to determine whether the waste
exhibited ignitable, corrosive, or reactive properties as defined under
40 CFR Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, including analysis for total
constituent concentrations of cyanide, sulfide, reactive cyanide, and
reactive sulfide. These four samples were also analyzed for Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) concentrations (i.e., mass of
a particular constituent per unit volume of extract) of all the
volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals on the Appendix IX list. This list
was developed based on the availability of test methods and process
knowledge. Two sampling events were conducted, one in 1995 and one in
1996.
C. EPA Analysis
Occidental Chemical used SW-846 Methods 8260A, 8270B, 6010, 8290 to
quantify the total constituent concentrations of 40 CFR, Part Sec. 264
Appendix IX Volatiles (including 2-ethoxyethanol, chloroethylene,
vinyldene chloride and trichloromethane), Appendix IX Semivolatiles
(excluding PCBs, Pesticides, Herbicides) Appendix IX Metals, and
Appendix IX Dioxins/Furans. Occidental Chemical used SW-846 Methods
9045, 9030, 9010, 1311, 9045 to quantify pH, 9030 Reactive Sulfide, and
9010 Reactive Cyanide. Occidental Chemical used SW-846 Methods 8260A,
8270B, 6010, 8290 to quantify the constituents from the TCLP extract.
These analyses were performed on the petitioned waste: the Rockbox
Residue. The Rockbox Residue, does not meet the definitions for
reactivity and corrosivity as defined by Secs. 261.22 and 261.23. Table
2 presents the maximum total constituent and leachate concentrations
for the Rockbox Residue.
Table 2--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations Rockbox
Residue \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total constituent Leachate analyses
Constituents analyses (mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone........................... 0.1 <0.1 dichloromethane...................="" 0.007="" 0.11="" xylene............................="" 0.011="" 0.04="" dimethylphthalate.................="" 0.8="" 0="" 2,3,7,8-tcdd="" equivalent...........="" 0.0000781="" 0.00000000531="" arsenic...........................="" 2.0=""><0.1 barium............................="" 4.5="" 0.13="" chromium..........................="" 1.0="" 0.13="" copper............................="" 1.6=""><0.25 lead..............................="" 1.0=""><0.07 tin...............................="" 15=""><0.10 vanadium..........................="" 8.1=""><0.50 zinc..............................="" nd=""><0.4 reactive="" sulfide..................=""><50 reactive="" cyanide..................=""><10 ph................................="" 8.3="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="">