[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25797-25811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12427]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6012-3]
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) certain solid wastes generated at its Ingleside, 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 parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273,
and under Sec. 260.22, 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 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. 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.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until June 25, 1998. Comments
postmarked after the close of the comment period will be stamped
``late.''
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 May 26, 1998. The request must contain the information
prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be
sent to the William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency EPA,
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-OCCIDENTAL.''
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 Library on the 12th
Floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 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 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 25798]]
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. 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 as are wastes derived from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of listed hazardous waste. See
Sec. 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. 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 and residues.
B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition
Occidental Chemical's petition requests a delisting for listed
hazardous wastes. In making the initial delisting determination, the
EPA evaluated the petitioned wastes against the listing criteria and
factors cited in Sec. 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 wastes remained hazardous based on the factors
for which the wastes were originally listed, EPA would have proposed to
deny the petition.) The EPA then evaluated the wastes with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis
to believe that such additional factors could cause the wastes to be
hazardous. The EPA considered whether the wastes are acutely toxic, and
considered the toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the
constituents in the wastes, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the wastes, plausible and specific types of management of the
petitioned wastes, the quantities of wastes 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 wastes. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill/surface impoundment is the most reasonable, worst-case
disposal scenario for Occidental Chemical's petitioned wastes, and that
the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion of contaminated
ground water. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to use 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 wastes after disposal and to
determine the potential impact of the disposal of Occidental Chemical's
petitioned wastes 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 worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned wastes in
a landfill/surface impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-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 worst-case scenario results in conservative
values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the
waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, may not pose a
threat to human health or the environment. In most cases, because 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 monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, the
EPA determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water
monitoring data. Specifically, Occidental Chemical currently disposes
of a part of the petitioned wastes (Rockbox Residue and Limestone
Sludge) generated at its facility in an off-site, RCRA hazardous waste
landfill (which is not owned/operated by Occidental
Chemical).1 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 groundwater monitoring
wells available, therefore there is no data to evaluate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The other portion of waste proposed to be excluded is not
disposed but is instead treated onsite prior to discharge. Discharge
of the waste is regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 25799]]
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 wastes at Ingleside. This testing would be necessary to
verify that the treatment system is operating as demonstrated in the
petition submitted on January 3, 1997. Specifically, the verification
testing requirements, would be implemented to demonstrate that the
processing facility will generate nonhazardous wastes (i.e., wastes
that meet the EPA's verification testing conditions). The EPA's
proposed decision to delist wastes 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 Ingleside facility.
Finally, the HSWA specifically require 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, Ingleside, Texas 78362.
A. Petition for Exclusion
Occidental Chemical Corporation, located in Ingleside, Texas,
petitioned the EPA for an exclusion for 128 cubic yards of Rockbox
Residue, 148,284 cubic yards of Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and
1,114 cubic yards Limestone Sludge per calendar year resulting from its
hazardous waste treatment process. The resulting wastes are presently
listed, in accordance with Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ``derived
from'' rule), as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K019, K020, F001, F003, F005,
and F025. 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.
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,
Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and Limestone Sludge treatment residues
because it does not believe that the petitioned wastes meet the
criteria for which they were listed. Occidental Chemical further
believes that the wastes are 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 section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f),
and 40 CFR 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 January 3, 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, Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater, and Limestone Sludge 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 an exclusion
for 128 cubic yards of Rockbox Residue, 148,284 cubic yards of Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater, and 1,114 cubic yards of Limestone Sludge
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 the
total basis for dioxin and furan; and (8) results of dioxin and furan
TCLP extract.
Occidental Chemical is an active plant that produces ethylene
dichloride (EDC), vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), chlorine, and caustic
soda. 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 F025), waste paint thinner (F001, F003, F005),
and occasionally waste oil. These two incinerators have been in
continuous operation since 1991. Occidental Chemical has previously
classified three waste streams (Rockbox Residue, Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater and Limestone Sludge) 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
[[Page 25800]]
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 3 to 7 percent HCl. At times when
excess HCl is not produced, the influent to the Rockbox is
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 5. 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 which Occidental
Chemical seeks to delist. This waste stream consists of an aqueous
phase that no longer exhibits the hazardous waste characteristic of
corrosivity.
The settled solids (calcium carbonate) from the clarifier are
dewatered on a belt filter press and are dropped directly into rolloff
bins for disposal. Water removed during the operation of the filter
press is returned to the clarifier. The remaining filter cake is the
Limestone Sludge, which Occidental Chemical also seeks to delist.
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 probable 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.
Caustic Neutralized Wastewater and Limestone Sludge are generated
on a continuous basis. The Caustic Neutralized Wastewater is treated in
an onsite unit which has in an National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitted outfall. The Limestone Sludge is transported
to an offsite hazardous waste landfill for disposal.
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
part Sec. 264, as well as dioxins and furans. Based on the knowledge of
process they determined that herbicides, pesticides and PCBs would be
excluded from the Appendix IX analyte list. The EPA has included the
dioxins and furans on the list, due 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 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 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 to quantify pH, Reactive Sulfide, and 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 all three of the petitioned wastes: the Rockbox
Residue, Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater. The
Rockbox Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater do 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 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
constituent Leachate analyses
Constituents analyses (mg/ (mg/l)
kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.............................. <0.02><0.1 bromodichloromethane.................="" 0.007=""><0.02 bromoform............................="" 0.022="" 0.02="" bromomethane.........................=""><0.01><0.05 chlorodibromomethane.................="" 0.027=""><0.02 chloroform...........................="" 0.008=""><0.02 dichloromethane......................=""><0.005 0.11="" ethylbenzene.........................=""><0.005 0.04="" 2,3,7,8-tcdd="" equivalent..............="" 0.000321="" 0.00000000531="" barium...............................="" 1.5="" 0.666="" chromium.............................=""><1.0 0.13="" copper...............................="" 1.1=""><0.25 lead.................................=""><1.0><0.07 [[page="" 25801]]="" selenium.............................=""><1.0 0.11="" tin..................................="" 2=""><0.10 vanadium.............................="" 1.3=""><0.50 zinc.................................="" 23=""><0.4 reactive="" sulfide.....................=""><50 reactive="" cyanide.....................=""><10 ph...................................="" 3.19="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="">< denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" detected="" at="" the="" detection="" limit="" specified="" in="" the="" table.="" \2\="" these="" levels="" represent="" the="" highest="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" found="" in="" any="" one="" sample.="" these="" levels="" do="" not="" necessarily="" represent="" the="" specific="" levels="" found="" in="" one="" sample.="" tables="" 3="" and="" 4="" present="" the="" maximum="" total="" constituent="" and="" leachate="" concentrations="" for="" the="" limestone="" sludge.="" table="" 5="" presents="" the="" maximum="" total="" constituent="" and="" leachate="" concentrations="" for="" the="" caustic="" neutralized="" wastewater.="" table="" 3.--maximum="" total="" organic="" constituent="" and="" leachate="" concentrations="" limestone="" sludge="">3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
constituent Leachate analyses
Constituent analyses (mg/ (mg/l)
kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.............................. 0.034 0.27
Bromoform............................ 0.031 <0.02 chlorodibromomethane.................="" 0.012=""><0.02 dichloromethane......................=""><0.005 0.54="" ethylbenzene.........................=""><0.005 0.03="" 1,1,1-trichloroethane................="" 0.011=""><0.1 toluene..............................=""><0.005 1.8="" trichlorofluoromethane...............="" 0.011=""><0.02 xylene...............................=""><0.020 0.11="" diethylphthalate.....................=""><0.00001><0.04 2,3,7,8-tcdd="" equivalent..............="" 0.00135="" 0.00000000018="" reactive="" sulfide.....................=""><50 .................="" reactive="" cyanide.....................=""><10 .................="" ph...................................="" 9.55="" .................="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="">< denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" detected="" at="" the="" detection="" limit="" specified="" in="" the="" table.="" \3\="" these="" levels="" represent="" the="" highest="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" found="" in="" any="" one="" sample.="" these="" levels="" do="" not="" necessarily="" represent="" the="" specific="" levels="" found="" in="" one="" sample.="" table="" 4.--maximum="" total="" inorganic="" constituent="" and="" leachate="" concentrations="" limestone="" sludge="" \4\="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" total="" constituent="" leachate="" constituent="" analyses="" (mg/="" analyses="" (mg/="" kg)="" l)="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" antimony...............................="" 2.6=""><0.6 arsenic................................="" 18.4=""><0.1 barium.................................="" 15.2="" 0.14="" beryllium..............................="" 0.5=""><0.1 chromium...............................="" 25.2=""><0.1 cobalt.................................="" 2.4=""><0.1 copper.................................="" 41.2=""><0.1 lead...................................="" 13=""><0.1 nickel.................................="" 64.4="" 0.47="" selenium...............................=""><0.001 0.1="" silver.................................="" 1.1=""><0.1 vanadium...............................="" 138=""><0.1 zinc...................................="" 58="" 0.11="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="">< denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" detected="" at="" the="" detection="" limit="" specified="" in="" the="" table.="" \4\="" these="" levels="" represent="" the="" highest="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" found="" in="" any="" one="" sample.="" these="" levels="" do="" not="" necessarily="" represent="" the="" specific="" levels="" found="" in="" one="" sample.="" table="" 5.--maximum="" total="" constituent="" concentrations="" caustic="" neutralized="" wastewater="" \5\="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" total="" constituent="" constituent="" analyses="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" acetone..............................................="" 0.01="" bromoform............................................="" 0.054="" chlorodibromomethane.................................="" 0.015="" [[page="" 25802]]="" 2,3,7,8-tcdd="" equivalent..............................="" 0.0000000006="" arsenic..............................................="" 0.01="" barium...............................................="" 0.18="" lead.................................................="" 0.1="" silver...............................................="" 0.08="" vanadium.............................................="" 0.007="" zinc.................................................="" 0.49="" reactive="" sulfide.....................................=""><50 reactive="" cyanide.....................................=""><10 ph...................................................="" 11.8="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="">10 (mg/l) 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone........................... 0.00143 4.0
Bromoform......................... 0.01 0.01
Chlorodibromomethane.............. 0.001 0.001
2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent........... 0.00000000012 0.0000000006
Arsenic........................... 0.00143 0.05
Barium............................ 0.03 2.0
[[Page 25804]]
Lead.............................. 0.01 0.015
Silver............................ 0.01 0.02
Vanadium.......................... 0.001 0.3
Zinc.............................. 0.07 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Using the maximum total concentration, based on a DAF of 7 for a
maximum annual volume of 148,248 cubic yards.
\11\ See Table 6.
The maximum reported or calculated leachate concentrations of
bromoform, chlorodibromomethane, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene,
2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent, barium, chromium, and selenium in the Rockbox
Residue yielded compliance point concentrations well below the health
based levels used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA did not
evaluate the mobility of the remaining constituents (e.g., acetone,
bromodichloromethane, copper, lead) from Occidental Chemical's waste
because they were not detected in the leachate using the appropriate
analytical test methods (see Table 2). The EPA does not evaluate
nondetectable concentrations of a constituent of concern in its
modeling efforts if the nondetectable value was obtained using the
appropriate analytical method; the EPA then assumes that the
constituent is not present and therefore does not present a threat to
human health or the environment.
The maximum reported or calculated leachate concentrations of
acetone, bromoform, chlorodibromomethane, 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent,
arsenic, barium, lead, silver, vanadium, and zinc in the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater yielded compliance point concentrations well
below the health based levels used in the delisting decision-making.
The maximum reported or calculated leachate concentrations of
acetone, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Equivalent, barium, nickel, selenium, and zinc in the Limestone Sludge
yielded compliance point concentrations well below the health based
levels used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA did not evaluate
the mobility of the remaining constituents ( e.g., bromoform,
beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead) from Occidental Chemical's
waste because they were not detected in the leachate using the
appropriate analytical test methods (see Table 3). As explained above,
the EPA does not evaluate nondetectable concentrations of a constituent
of concern in its modeling efforts if the non-detectable value was
obtained using the appropriate analytical method.
The EPA concluded, after reviewing Occidental Chemical's processes
that no other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for
which tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products
or by products in Occidental Chemical's wastes. In addition, on the
basis of explanations and analytical data provided by Occidental
Chemical, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that the
petitioned wastes do not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and
261.23, respectively.
During the evaluation of Occidental Chemical's petition, the EPA
also considered the potential impact of the petitioned wastes via non-
ground water routes ( i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With
regard to airborne dispersion in particular, the EPA believes that
exposure to airborne contaminants from Occidental Chemical's petitioned
wastes is unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air releases are likely
from Occidental's wastes under any likely disposal conditions. The EPA
evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from Occidental
Chemical's wastes in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case
analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment from airborne exposure to
constituents from Occidental Chemical's Rockbox Residue, Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater, or the Limestone Sludge. A description of the
EPA's assessment of the potential impact of Occidental Chemical's
wastes, regarding airborne dispersion of waste contaminants, is
presented in the RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule.
The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned
wastes via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control
surface water runoff, as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR 50978,
October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters.
Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved
in the run-off will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP
leachate analyses reported in today's notice due to the aggressive
acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that,
in general, leachate derived from the wastes is unlikely to directly
enter a surface water body without first traveling through the
saturated subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous
constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct
measure of solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are
indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in
surface water as well as ground water.
Based on the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated the potential
impacts on surface water if Occidental Chemical's waste were released
from a municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See,
the RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule. The estimated levels
of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well
below health-based levels for human health, as well as below the EPA
chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Occidental Chemical's Rockbox
Residue, the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and the Limestone Sludge
wastes are not a present or potential substantial hazard to human
health and the environment via the surface water exposure pathway.
[[Page 25805]]
E. Conclusion
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Occidental Chemical
hazardous waste process and analytical characterization, in conjunction
with the proposed verification testing requirements (as discussed later
in this notice), provide a reasonable basis to grant Occidental
Chemical's petition for an exclusion of the Rockbox Residue, Limestone
Sludge, and Caustic Neutralized Wastewater. The EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition show Occidental Chemical's process
can render the Rockbox Residue, Limestone Sludge, and Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater non-hazardous. The EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Occidental Chemical and has determined they satisfy
EPA criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in
constituent concentrations in the Rockbox Residue, Limestone Sludge,
and Caustic Neutralized Wastewater. The data submitted in support of
the petition show that constituents in Occidental Chemical's waste are
presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-
making. The EPA believes that Occidental Chemical has successfully
demonstrated that the Rockbox Residue, Limestone Sludge, and Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater is non-hazardous.
The EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions
of the incineration and the wastewater treatment activities associated
with the petitioned waste and characterization of the Rockbox Residue,
the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater. If the
proposed rule is finalized, the petitioned wastes will no longer be
subject to regulation under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting
standards of part 270. The EPA therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to the Occidental Chemical Corporation, located in Ingleside,
Texas, for the Rockbox Residue, Limestone Sludge, and Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater described in its petition.
F. Verification Testing Conditions
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for the following
constituents must not exceed the following levels (ppm). For the
Rockbox Residue and the Limestone Sludge, constituents must be
measured in the waste leachate by the method specified in 40 CFR
Sec. 261.24. The constituents for the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater
must be measured in total constituents.
(A) Caustic Neutralized Wastewater
(i) Inorganic Constituents
Arsenic--0.35; Barium--14; Lead--0.11; Silver--0.14; Vanadium--
2.1; Zinc--70
(ii) Organic Constituents
Acetone--28; Bromoform--0.07; Chlorodibromomethane--0.01;
2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent--0.00000004
(B) Rockbox Residue
(i) Inorganic Constituents
Barium--100; Chromium--5; Copper--130; Lead--1.5; Selenium--1;
Tin--210; Vanadium--30; Zinc--1000
(ii) Organic Constituents
Acetone--400; Bromodichloromethane--0.14; Bromoform--1.0;
Chlorodibromethane--0.1; Chloroform--1.0; Dichloromethane--1.0;
Ethylbenzene--70; 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent--0.000000531
(C) Limestone Sludge
(i) Inorganic Constituents
Antimony--0.6; Arsenic--5; Barium--100; Beryllium--0.4;
Chromium--10; Cobalt--210; Copper--130; Lead--1.5; Nickel--70;
Selenium--1; Silver--2.0; Vanadium--30; Zinc--1000
(ii) Organic Constituents
Acetone--400; Bromoform--1, Chlorodibromomethane--0.10;
Dichloromethane--1.0; Ethylbenzene--70; 1,1,1--Trichloroethane--20;
Toluene--700; Trichlorofluoromethane--1000; Xylene--2000; Diethyl
phthalate--3000; 2,3,7,8--TCDD Equivalent--0.0000006
This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which
Occidental Chemical must test the leachate from the Rockbox Residue,
and the Limestone Sludge, and the water in the Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater, below which these wastes would be considered non-hazardous.
The exclusion is effective when it is signed, but the disposal can not
be implemented until the verification sampling is completed. If these
constituent levels are exceeded then that waste is considered to be
hazardous and must be managed as hazardous waste. If the annual testing
of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements described in
Paragraph 1, the facility must notify the Agency according to the
Paragraph 6. The exclusion will be suspended until a decision is
reached by the Agency. The facility shall provide sampling results
which support the rationale that the delisting exclusion should not be
withdrawn. The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic
constituents specified after reviewing information about the
composition of the waste, descriptions of Occidental Chemical's
treatment process, previous test data provided for the three waste and
the respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-making.
The EPA established the proposed delisting levels for this paragraph by
back-calculating the Maximum Allowable Leachate (MALs) concentrations
from the health-based levels for the constituents of concern using the
EPACML chemical-specific DAFs of 100, 100, and 7 (See, previous
discussions in Section D--Agency Evaluation) i.e., MAL = HBL x DAF).
These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured in
the TCLP extract of the waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Occidental Chemical must store
in accordance with its RCRA permit, or continue to dispose of as
hazardous all Rockbox Residue and the Limestone Sludge generated,
and continue to discharge the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater
generated in compliance with Occidental Chemical's NPDES permit
until the verification testing described in Condition (3)(A) and
(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, the Limestone
Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater 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. Occidental Chemical must continue to treat
and discharge the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater as provided by the
terms of its NPDES permit. If constituent levels in a sample exceed
any of the delisting levels set in Condition (1), the waste
generated during the time period corresponding to this sample must
be managed and disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA and
Occidental Chemical's NPDES permit.
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any Rockbox Residue
and Limestone Sludge which might contain hazardous levels of inorganic
and organic constituents are managed and disposed of in accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA. Holding the Rockbox Residue and Limestone Sludge
until characterization is complete will protect against improper
handling of hazardous material. Further, inasmuch as Occidental
Chemical has a permit to discharge under the NPDES program, it must
continue to fully meet those permit requirements and may, according to
this exception, only dispose of the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater as
provided by that permit. If the EPA determines that the data collected
under this condition do not support the data provided for the petition
or Occidental Chemical is no longer meeting the terms of its NPDES
permit, the exclusion will not cover the three wastes.
(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
[[Page 25806]]
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, and the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater. Daily composites must be composed of
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. 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. The waste must be sampled
after each decommissioning. 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. 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.
If the EPA determines that the data from the initial verification
period demonstrates the treatment process is effective, Occidental
Chemical may request that EPA allow it to perform verification testing
on a quarterly basis for the Limestone Sludge and the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater. The Rockbox Residue will be sampled during
periodic maintenance. If approved in writing by EPA, then Occidental
Chemical may begin verification testing quarterly of the Limestone
Sludge and the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater.
The EPA believes that an initial period of 40 days is sufficient
for a facility to collect sufficient data to verify the data provided
for the Limestone Sludge and the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater in the
1997 petition is representative of the waste to be delisted. If the EPA
determines that the data collected under this condition do not support
the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the
generated wastes. If the EPA determines that the data from the initial
verification period reflected in (3)(A)(i) demonstrates that the
treatment process is effective, EPA will notify Occidental Chemical in
writing that the testing conditions in (3)(A)(i) may be replaced with
the testing conditions in (3)(B). EPA also believes it is sufficient
for Occidental Chemical to collect verification data for the Rockbox
Residue when the Rockbox unit is decommissioned for cleanout.
(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, and 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.)
The EPA believes that the concentrations of the constituents of
concern in the Rockbox Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater may vary somewhat over time. As a result, in
order to ensure that Occidental Chemical's treatment process can
effectively handle any variation in constituent concentrations in the
three wastes, the EPA is proposing a subsequent verification testing
condition. The proposed subsequent testing would verify that the
incinerator offgas system is operated in a manner similar to its
operation during the initial verification testing and that the Rockbox
Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater,
do not exhibit unacceptable levels of toxic constituents. Therefore,
the EPA is proposing to require Occidental Chemical to analyze
representative samples of the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater on a quarterly basis during the first year of
waste generation (commencing on the anniversary date of the final
exclusion) as described in Condition (3)(B). The Rockbox Residue will
be sampled when the unit is out of commission for routine maintenance.
(C) Termination of Organic Testing for Limestone Sludge and
Caustic Neutralized Wastewater: Occidental Chemical must continue
testing as required under Condition (3)(B) for organic constituents
specified in Condition (1)(A)(ii) and (1)(C)(ii) until the analyses
submitted under Condition (3)(B) show a minimum of two consecutive
quarterly samples below the delisting levels in Conditions
(1)(A)(ii) and (1)(C)(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 final exclusion). If the waste
exceeds the delisting levels then the waste will not be delisted.
The EPA is proposing to terminate the subsequent testing conditions
for organics as allowed in Condition (1)(A)ii and (1)(C)(ii) after
Occidental Chemical has demonstrated the delisting levels for the waste
are consistently met. If the annual testing of the wastes does not meet
the delisting requirements described in Paragraph 1, the facility must
notify the Agency according to the requirements in Paragraph 6. The
exclusion will be suspended until a decision is reached by the Agency.
The facility shall provide sampling results which support the rationale
that the delisting exclusion should not be withdrawn. In order to
confirm that the characteristics of the wastes do not change
significantly over time, Occidental Chemical must continue to analyze a
representative sample of the wastes for organic constituents on an
annual basis (no later than twelve months after the final exclusion).
If Occidental Chemical changes operating conditions as described in
Condition (4), then Occidental Chemical must reinstate all testing in
Condition (3)(A), pending a new demonstration under this condition for
termination. Occidental Chemical must continue Organic Testing of the
Rockbox Residue for that waste to be excluded.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Occidental Chemical
significantly changes the process described in its petition or
implements any processes 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), or its NPDES permit is changed, revoked or not
reissued, or if it intends to manage the Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater other than by discharge under its NPDES permit,
Occidental Chemical must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer
handle the wastes generated from the new process, or no longer
discharge as nonhazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels
set in Condition (1) and it has received written approval to do so
from EPA.
Condition (4) would allow Occidental Chemical the flexibility of
modifying its processes (e.g., changes in equipment or change in
operating conditions) to improve its treatment process. However,
Occidental Chemical must demonstrate that the change would not affect
the composition or type of waste and request approval from the EPA.
Wastes generated during the new process demonstration must be managed
as a hazardous waste until written approval has been obtained and
Condition (1) is satisfied. If Occidental Chemical changes operating
conditions as described in Condition (5), then Occidental Chemical must
reinstate all testing in Condition (3) pending a new
[[Page 25807]]
demonstration under this condition for termination.
(5) Data Submittals: The data obtained through Condition 3 must
be submitted to Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6 Delisting
Program, 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. 1001 and 42 U.S.C.
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.
To provide appropriate documentation that Occidental Chemical's
facility is properly treating the waste, all analytical data obtained
through Condition (3), including quality control information, must be
compiled, summarized, and maintained on site for a minimum of five
years. Condition (5) requires that these data be furnished upon request
and made available for inspection by any employee or representative of
EPA or the State of Texas.
If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply only to 128 cubic
yards of Rockbox Residue, 1,114 cubic yards of Limestone Sludge, and
148,284 cubic yards of Caustic Neutralized Wastewater generated
annually at the wastewater system at the Occidental Chemical facility
after successful verification testing. Except as described in Condition
(4), the facility would be required to submit a new petition if the
treatment process specified for the Incinerator Offgas Treatment System
is significantly altered. Occidental Chemical would be required to file
a new delisting petition for any new manufacturing or production
process(es), or significant changes from the current process(es)
described in its petition which generates the three wastes or which may
or could affect the composition or type of waste generated.
Additionally if there is any change to Occidental Chemical's NPDES
permit or if it wishes to manage the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater
other than by discharge under its NPDES permit, except as provided in
Condition (4), Occidental would also be required to file a new
delisting petition. The facility must manage any of the waste in excess
of 128 cubic yards of Rockbox Residue, 1,114 cubic yards of Limestone
Sludge, and 148,284 cubic yards of Caustic Neutralized Wastewater
generated from a changed process as hazardous until a new exclusion is
granted.
Although management of the wastes covered by this petition would
not be subject to Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an
exclusion, the generator of a delisted waste must either treat, store,
or dispose of the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the
waste is delivered to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal
facility, either of which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
(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 Regional
Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of discovering that
condition.
(b) Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a)
regardless of its source, the Regional Administrator or his delegate
will determine whether the reported condition requires further
action. Further action may include repealing the exclusion,
modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
The purpose of paragraph 6 is to require Occidental Chemical to
disclose new or different information related to a condition at the
facility or disposal of the waste if it had or has bearing on the
delisting. This will allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if new or
additional information is provided to the Agency by Occidental Chemical
which indicates that information on which EPA's decision was based was
incorrect or circumstances have changed such that information is no
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if then
presented. Further, although this provision expressly requires
Occidental Chemical to report differing site conditions or assumptions
used in the petition within 10 days of discovery, if EPA discovers such
information itself or from a third party, it can act on it as
appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those provisions
found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions located at
Sec. 268.6.
EPA has recognized that current delisting regulations contain no
express procedure for reopening a decision if additional information is
received and although it believes that it has the authority under RCRA
and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978), et seq.
(APA), to take this action, EPA believes that a clear statement of its
authority in the context of delistings is merited in light of Agency
experience. (See, e.g., Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62
FR 63458 where the delisted waste did not leach in the actual disposal
site as it had been modeled thus leading the Agency to repeal the
delisting.) Until such time as EPA codifies an express reopener
provision in the exclusion regulations, EPA will include language
similar to that expressed above in delistings. EPA is considering the
inclusion of a more specific regulatory process both defining when a
delisting should be reopened and the result of reopening a granted
exclusion and is soliciting comments on this process. Since each
delisting is waste-specific and facility-specific or process-specific,
EPA is currently reluctant to adopt a rule which might inadvertently,
for example, cause an immediate repeal where specific circumstances
would not merit so precipitous a result. In the meantime, in the event
that an immediate threat to human health or the environment presents
itself, EPA will continue to rely on its authority under the APA to
make a good cause finding to justify an emergency rulemaking suspending
notice and comment. APA section 553(b).
(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.
[[Page 25808]]
IV. Effective Date
EPA intends that this rule, should become effective immediately
upon final publication. 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, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements
for persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-
month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010,
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon
final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making this
rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment
of the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant''
regulatory actions. The 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 this facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
There is no additional impact therefore, due to today's proposed 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. Children's Health Protection
Under EO 13045, for all significant regulatory actions as defined
by EO 12866, EPA must provide an evaluation of the environmental health
or safety effect of a proposed rule on children and an explanation of
why the proposed rule is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA. This proposal is
not a significant regulatory action and is exempt from EO 13045.
VII. 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
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 small entities.
This rule if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations. 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.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (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.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA 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. 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. The EPA
finds that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed
delisting does not establish any regulatory requirements for small
governments and so does not require a small government agency plan
under UMRA section 203.
X. Intergovernmental Partnership
Under EO 12875, EPA may not promulgate any regulation which creates
an unfunded mandate upon state, local or tribal government. EPA finds
that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty upon state, local or tribal
governments (See Section IX (UMRA) above) and accordingly, this action
is exempt from the requirements of EO 12875.
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: April 17, 1998.
Robert Hannesschlager,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be 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 it is proposed to
add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to
read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22
[[Page 25809]]
Table 1. Wastes Excluded From Non-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 128 cubic
yards per calendar year)
and Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater, (at a maximum
generation of 148,282
cubic yards per calendar
year) generated by
Occidental Chemical using
the wastewater treatment
process to treat the
Rockbox Residue, the
Limestone Sludge, and the
Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater (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
levels (ppm). For the
Rockbox Residue and the
Limestone Sludge,
constituents must be
measured in the waste
leachate by the method
specified in 40 CFR Part
261.24. The constituents
for the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater
must be measured in total
constituents.
(A) Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater.
(i) Inorganic Constituents
Arsenic-0.35; Barium-14;
Lead-0.11; Silver-0.14;
Vanadium-2.1; Zinc-70.
(ii) Organic Constituents
Acetone-28; Bromoform-
0.07;
Chlorodibromomethane-
0.01; 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Equivalent-0.00000004.
(B) Rockbox Residue.
(i) Inorganic Constituents
Barium-200; Chromium-10;
Copper-130; Lead-1.5;
Selenium-1; Tin-210;
Vanadium-30; Zinc-1000.
(ii) Organic Constituents
Acetone-400;
Bromodichloromethane-
0.14; Bromoform-1.0;
Chlorodibromethane-0.1;
Chloroform-1.0;
Dichloromethane-1.0;
Ethylbenzene-70; 2,3,7,8-
TCDD Equivalent-
0.000000531.
(C) Limestone Sludge.
(i) Inorganic Constituents
Antimony-0.6; Arsenic-5;
Barium-200; Beryllium-
0.4; Chromium-10; Cobalt-
210; Copper-130; Lead-
1.5; Nickel-70; Selenium-
1; Silver-2.0; Vanadium-
30; Zinc-1000.
(ii) Organic Constituents
Acetone-400; Bromoform-1,
Chlorodibromomethane-0.1;
Dichloromethane-1.0;
Ethylbenzene-70; 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane-20;
Toluene-700;
Trichlorofluoromethane-
1000; Xylene-2000;
Diethyl phthalate-3000;
2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent-
0.0000006.
(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, and continue
to discharge the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater
generated in compliance
with Occidental
Chemical's NPDES permit
until the verification
testing described in
Condition (3)(A) and
(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, the
Limestone Sludge, and the
Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater 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.
Occidental Chemical must
continue to treat and
discharge the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater as
provided by the terms of
its NPDES permit. 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 and
Occidental Chemical's
NPDES permit.
(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, and the
Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater. Daily
composites must be
composed of
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.
Occidental Chemical must
report the operational
and analytical test data,
including quality control
information, obtained
during this initial
period no later 90 days
after the generation of
the two wastes.
[[Page 25810]]
(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. 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 and the Caustic
Neutralized Wastewater:
Occidental Chemical must
continue testing as
required under Condition
(3)(B) for organic
constituents specified in
Condition (1)(A)(ii) and
(1)(C)(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)(C)(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
the final 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), or
its NPDES permit is
changed, revoked or not
reissued, or if it
intends to manage the
Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater other than by
discharge under its NPDES
permit, 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 in 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 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
USC Sec. 1001 and 42 USC
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.
(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.
[[Page 25811]]
(7) Notification
Requirements: Occidental
Chemical must provide a
one-time written
notification to any State
Regulatory Agency to
which or through which
the debited 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 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 128 cubic
yards per calendar year)
and Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater, (at a maximum
generation of 148,282
cubic yards per calendar
year) generated by
Occidental Chemical using
the wastewater treatment
process to treat the
Rockbox Residue, the
Limestone Sludge, and the
Caustic Neutralized
Wastewater (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 for
the petition to be valid.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-12427 Filed 5-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
