United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-97-042
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB97-177 539
Agency (5305W) August 1994
Response to Comments
Received on the Newly
Listed Wastes and
Hazardous Soils
Proposed Rule to
Support 40 CFR 268
Land Disposal
Restrictions
Capacity-Related Comments
Printed on paper that contains at lest 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
. 50073
United Stain
Environmental Protection
Agency
(>mc« of
Solid Waste
Wuhlngton, D.C. 2MAO
August 1994
Response to Comments
Received on the
Newly Listed Wastes
and Hazardous Soils
Proposed Rule
to Support 40 CFR 268
Land Disposal Restrictions
September 14, 1993
(58 FR 48092)
U y ^
r C w I
1 r* 2
r< z a,
I O g. g"
a a - w
' 8^iT
C !T 01
3 f
§ a
. ^° S
M
o
C/3
to
O
o
Capacity-Related Comments
CD
UQ
cn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. COMMERCIAL TREATMENT CAPACITY 2-1
2.1 Combustion Capacity 2-3
2.1.1 Combustion Capacity is Problematic 2-3
2.1.2 Combustion Capacity Is Adequate 2-5
2.2 Incineration Capacity 2-7
2,2.1 Incineration Capacity is Problematic 2-7
2.2.2 Incineration Capacity for Mercury is Problematic 2-9
2.2J Incineration Capacity is Adequate 2-10
Z3 Cement Kilri Capacity 2-11
2.3.1 Cement Quality is Independent of the Heating Value of Wastes
Burned in Cement Kilns 2-11
2.4 Availability of Other Treatment Technologies (Including Recycling) 2-13
2.4.1 Innovative Technologies Are Not Commercially Available 2-13
2.4.2 Innovative Technology Capacity for Mercury is Not Adequate 2-14
2.4J Biological Treatment Technologies are Available 2-IS
2.4.4 Solvent Extraction Is Not Commercially Available 2-16
2.4.5 High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) Is Not Commercially
Available 2-17
2.4.6 Thermal Distillation and Thermal Dcsorptiori Are Not
Commercially Available 2-18
2.4.7 Comments on Availability of Retorting Capacity 2-19
3. TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES 3-1
3.1 Sufficient Treatment Capacity Exists for High TOC D001 Wastes and
D012-D043 Wastes 3-2
3.2 A Capacity Variance Is Needed . . . . 3-3
3.3 Information on Required and Available Treatment Capacity for TC Wastes . . 3-4
3.4 Packaging of Wastes for Incineration Will Be Time Consuming 3-5
3.5 Comments of Availability of Treatment Technologies for Specific Wastes .... 3-6
3.5.1 Treatment Capacity for Metals Is Not Available 3-6
3.5.2 Availability of Innovative Technologies for Treating Cyanide
Wastes 3-8
3.5J Quantities and Management of Used Oil 3-9
3.6 Comments of Facilities Generating TC Wastes 3-10
4. OTHER NEWLY LISTED WASTES 4-1
4.1 . Treatment Capacity for Coke Process Wastes Is Available 4-1
5. MIXED RADIOACTIVE WASTE 5-1
5.1 EPA Should Grant the Proposed Two-Year National Capacity Variance for
TC Organic Mixed Radioactive Wastes 5-2
5.2 Radioactive Compounds in Mixed Radioactive Wastes Present Difficulties
in Handling, Analysis, and Compliance Monitoring .--. 5-4
|S *.=:.
>Q O £ g- O
~ " o 0> ~*
e 5 a IQ £
3 -* . f& °
S » ft _ «
aa - «
O «
O « ft
n
C/3
K>
71
o
o
-------
6. HAZARDOUS SOIL CONTAMINATED WITH NEWLY LISTED AND
IDENTIFIED WASTES 6-1
6.1 . Information on Required Treatment Capacity for Soils 6-3
6.2 Information on Available Treatment Capacity for Soils 6-5
6.3 General Comments on a Capacity Variance 6-8
6.4 Commenters Disagreed About Whether Innovative Technologies Could Be
Used to Treat Hazardous Spil 6-10
6.4.1 Innovative Technologies for Treating Soil Are Effective , 6-10
6.4.2 Innovative Technologies for Treating Soil Are Not Effective 6-12
7. HAZARDOUS DEBRIS CONTAMINATED WITH NEWLY LISTED AND
IDENTIFIED WASTES 7-1
7.1 General Comments on Treatment Capacity for Debris 7-1
APPENDIX A-l
SECTION I: AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT CAPACITY A-2
1.1 Treatment Standards for Incinerator Residues from Incineration of
Lab Packs Containing D009 Mercury . . . . A-2
1.2 Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies in General A-2
1.3 Effectiveness of Biorcncdiation . A-4
1.4 Effectiveness of High Temperature Metals' Recovery A-5
1.5 Effectiveness of Stabilization ' A-7
1.6 Effectiveness of Solvent Extraction - A-8
1.7 Effectiveness of Thermal Distillation A-9
1.8 Effectiveness of Other Specific Innovative Technologies A-9
1.9 Storage Capacity May Not Be Available A-10
SECTION 2: TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES . , A-l 1
2.1 Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies for Treating TC Wastes ... A-ll
2.2 Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies for Treating Petroleum
Refining Wastes A-ll
2.3 Effectiveness of Treatment Technologies for Treating Metals -
Bearing Wastes '. A-12
2.4 Effectiveness of Treatment Technologies for Wastes That Exhibit
Arsenic '.... A-12
2.5 Treatment for Underlying Constituents Should Not Be Required ... A-13
SECTION 3: MIXED RADIOACTIVE WASTES A-14
3.1 Commenters Disagreed About Proposed Treatment Standards for
Mixed Radioactive Hazardous Soil ' A-14
3.2 Disagree that Radioactive Compounds in Mixed Radioactive
Wastes Will Not Interfere with the Trcatability of the RCRA
Hazardous Constituents in the Waste A-14
33 Agree that Radioactive Compounds in Mixed Radioactive Wastes
Will Not Interfere with the Treatability of the RCRA Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste A-15
3.4 Wide-Ranging Issues East Regarding Treatment Standards and
Treatment Technologies A-16
SECTION 4. COMMENTS ON HAZARDOUS SOIL CONTAMINATED
WITH ORGANIC TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
AND NEWLY LISTED WASTES A-17
4.1 ' Data Relevant to the Hazardous Soil Treatment Standards A-17
??s
3
1 ? =
.?|3'|
3 < z a :
J3 O ° g" '
B^S;
a a f
o <*
3 n "
n
C/3
to
^Tl
i
O
o
-------
4.2 TTie Proposed Soil Standards Will Hinder Qeanups A-17
SECTION 5: HAZARDOUS DEBRIS CONTAMINATED WITH ORGANIC
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES AND NEWLY
LISTED WASTES A-19
> "1 D i
g5f
ty c 5T 2
~~ o ^
e 5 » ^ o
3 ? <» °
n * ^ - n
a a - »
o w
O o f»
c 2- n
O
oo
O
O
CD
UO
CD!
UQ
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
In the September 14, 1993 proposed rule on the Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Identified and Listed Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Soil (Phase II) (58 FR 48092), EPA
proposed treatment standards for the newly identified organic toxicity characteristic wastes;
treatment standards for all newly-listed coke by-product and chlorotoluene production wastes; new
requirements for ignitable characteristic wastes with high TOC content; treatment standards for
soil contaminated with Phase II wastes; revbions to previously promulgated treatment standards
and requirements, including "universal treatment standards'; anJ modifications to the hazardous
waste recycling regulations.
EPA received more than 180 comment letters on the proposed rule. This document
summarizes those comments received in response to the proposed rule that are related to
required and available waste treatment capacity. Each 'talient comment that was directly related
to capacity issues is represented in two ways; (1) in summary form, and (2) verbatim, i.e., a
photocopy of the relevant portion of the commcnter'j comment letter. This document also
provides EPA's responses to capacity-related comments. Comments that are indirectly related to
capacity are summarized in the Appendix. The source for each comment represented in this
document is shown by a code in parentheses following the comment. The code includes the
abbreviated commenler name, the comment number, and (he page of the comment letter on
which the comment appears.
The following chapters of this comment summary and response document present the
comments received on capacity-related issues and EPA'i responses. Each chapter addresses a
particular aspect of the capacity issues. The chapters. anU the issues addressed in each chapter,
are as follows:
Chapter 2: Available ComraerciaJ Treatment Capacity;
Chapter 3: Toricicy Characteristic Wastes;
Chapter 4: Other Newly Listed Wastes:
Chapter 5: Mixed Radioactive Wastes;
Chapter 6: Hazardous Soil Contaminated with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes;
and
Chapter 7: . Hazardous Debris Contaminated with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes.
Because the source of each comment is identified by an abbreviated commenter name and
the code number corresponding to the EPA docket number of the comment letter, the reader of
this document may identify the organization that submitted a particular comment by referencing
Table 1, which begins on the following page.
c 3- -
» = ffg
£. *"*" 3.
3* *< 2
U2 O rr 5" (
l^li
1 » ??!Li
a a »
O /> (*
C ii* o*
u- en
O
o
o
UOI
-------
Table I
CommenterS on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed lluuirdnus Waste and Hazardous Soil
.o
§ ?i
r rX ^
Comment
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
12
Commenter Name
Chemical Manufacturers Association
National Association of Metal Finiihcrs ,
Lockheed Environmental SVSIC.TIS - w
o y>
° a rt
'> o
3 rr »
2. o c>
O
CD
c
.o
U3,
-------
Table 1
Commenters on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
Comment
Number
23
24
25
26
n
28
29
30
31
32'
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commtnlcr Name
Valero Refining Company
BP Chemicals
Coastal Corporation
RETEC
Rollins Environmental Services Company
RSR Corporation
The Boeing Company
CYTEC Industries
American Coke and Coal Chemical Institute (prepared by Perkins
Coie)
American Zinc Association
American Chrome & Chemicals Inc.
Monsanto Company
Merck & Co., Inc.
Business Recycling Coalition
El Paso Natural Gas Company
PPG Industries, Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company
American Gas Association
Exxon Company, U.S-A.
American Foundrymen's Society's Water Quality & Waste Disposal
Committee
Department of Energy
ASARCO Incorporated .
Carbon Disulfide Panel of the Chemical Manufacturers Association
Browning Ferris Industries
American Wood Preservers Institute
Abbreviation
Valero
BP Chcm
Coastal
RETEC
Rollins
RSR
Boeing
CYTEC
Am. Coke &
Coal
AZA
ACCI
Monsanto
Merck
BRC
El Paso
PPG
Lilly
AGA
Exxon
AFS
DOE
ASARCO
CDP of CMA
BFI
AWPI
«m
fff If
1^20.2
a a w
.. o ^ *
O
oo
to
71
o
o
-------
Table I
Commenters on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
3" 3" 5
" § ?
J3 P-*
° SB 2
Comment
Number
4S
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
53
59
60
61
62
63
64
65-
66
67
68 .
69
Commepter Name
Ss-stech Er.vironmenlal Corporation
North American Die Casting Association
Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc.
Sierra Environmental Services Inc.
National Petroleum Refiners Association
PCS Panel of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, and ihe Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group (prepared 'by Piper & Marbury)
American Iron and Steel Institute
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute.
American Public Power .Association, arid the National Rural Electric
Cooperative
Methacrylate Producers Association (prepared by Latham & Watkins)
American Mining Congress
Seaview Thermal Systems
Chemical Manufacturers Association'] Underground Injection Control
Task Group
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
American Petroleum Institute
Shell Oil Company
The Lubrizol Corporation
Safety-KIeen Corporation
Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration
Reynolds Metal Company
The Dow Chemical Company
E.I. DuPont de Nemours Comptay, Cytec Industries; Sterling
Chemical, Inc; Monsanto Chemical Company, and BP Chemicals. Inc.
Texaco Inc.
Abbreviation
Systech
NADCA
Laidlaw
Sierra
NPRA
CMA et al.
AJSI
USWAG et al.
MPA
A.MC
Seaview
UIC Group
HWTC
API
Shell
Lubrizol
Safcry-Kleen
CRWI
Reynolds
Dow
DuPont et al.
Texaco
a a >- «
. o ^
c aS
g C n
O
C/D
10
o
o
CDi
-------
Table 1
Commenters on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
55
.H *
m
Comment
Number
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
32
83
84
85
86
87
S3
89
90
91
92.
Comoenler Name
Envirosafe Services, Inc.
BP Oil Co.
Allied-Signal inc.
FMC Corporation
Union Oil Company of California Jba Unocal
Olin Corporation
General Electric Company
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
The Aluminum Association
American Forest & Paper Association
American Chemical Society
Steel Manufacturers Association and the Specialty Steel Industry of the
United States (prepared by Collier. Shannon, Rill & Scott)
Independent Zinc Alloyers Association (prepared by The Marker Firm)
Koppers Industries, Inc.
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, Inc.
Mercury Recovery Services
PDC Laboratories, Inc.
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
USPCI, Inc
Inco United States, Inc. and me International Metals Reclamation
Company, Inc. (prepared by Wilrocr. Cutler & Pickering)
^Hazardous Waste Implementation Task Force of the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Chemical Products Corporation
Abbreviation
Envirosafe
BP Oil
Allied-Signal
FMC
Unocal
Olin
GE
CWM
Aluminum
Assoc.
AFPA
ACS
SMA & SSIUS
IZAA
Koppers
CKRC
SOCMA
Mercury
Recov.
PDC
JCP&L
USPCI
Inco
ASTSWMO
CPC
P rr ° D «
g ^ 2. rs °
« rt " ^. n
a a "
2 "-
if g- CT
O
C/3
o
o
1(1 II'
-------
Table I
Commenters on the Proposed Lsind Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Lisled Hazarclmi.s Waste and Hazardous Soil
« Comment
Number
93
94
95
" %
97
98
99
100
I0l
I02
103
104
105
106
107
I OS
1 09
no
111
112
113
,114
US
1 16
Commenter Name
Chevron CoqX)raiion
The Acnloaiirile Group, Inc
General Motors Corporalion
Fntsburgh Mineral & Environmental Technology, Inc.
Amoco Corporation
Mill Service. Inc.
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.
Phillips Petroleum Company
Nortru. Inc.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
Heritage Environmental Services. Inc
Pioneer Chior Alkali Co.. Inc
American Airlines, Inc
Chem-Met Services, Inc. (prepared by Peter O'Rourke)
State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
State of New Mexico Environmental Department's Hazardous &
Radioactive Materials Bureau
Southwest Soil Remediation
Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
Ross Environmental Services. Inc
Steel Structures Painting Council
Silver Coalition
Rohm and Haas Company
Westinghouse Electric Company
B!CC Obles Corporation
Abbreviation
Chevron
Acrylonitrile
Group
GM
PMET
Amoco
Mill Service
Rhonc-Poulenc
Phillips
Nortru
PMA
Heritage
Pioneer
American
Chcm-Met
OK DEQ
NM ED
Southwest
Sterling
Ross
SSPC
Silver
Coalition
Rohm and
Haas
Westinghouse
B1CC
lll
cr'-l
O a
O
oo
to
Tl
i
O
O
CD
UQ
-------
Table 1
Commenters on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
Comment
Number
117
118
119
120
121
122
1-23
124
1:5
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Commenter Name
DuPont Engineering.
Association of Battery Recyders Inc. (prepared by Andrews & Kurlh)
American Galvanizers Association
Molten Metals Technology, Inc.
Molten Metals Technology, Inc. . .
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc-auon
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
OHM Remediation Services Corporation
Hughes Missile Systems Company
Conoco Inc.
CyanoKEM Inc.
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
Gibson Environmental, IBC (prepared by Dcmctriou, Del Guertco,.
Springer & Mover)
Questar Corporation
State of Nevada Division of Environmental Proteciion
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. and Zinc
Corporation of America (prepared by Squire. Sanders & Dempsey)
Aluminum Company of America
Kennecott Corporation
Koch Refining Company
Reynolds Metals Company
American Airlines, Inc.
Separation and Recovery Systems. Inc.
Eastman Kodak Company
L'niroyal Chemical Company. Inc.
Abbreviation
DuPont
Engineering
ABR
Am.
Galvanizers
MMT
MMT
CMA
Hoechst
OHM
Hughes
Conoco
CyanoKEM
AAMA
Gibson
Questar
NV DEP
HRD & ZCA
AJcoa
Kennecmt
Koch
Reynolds
American
SRS
Kodak ' .
Uniroyal
D- = q;
,5 II ="
-a = "
?|i!
12 2. " 3 '
3 f '1 » |
rs '"". I
a a «i
o ">
IS
n
GO
o
o
cn
-------
Table I
f?
Commentcrs on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
Comment
Number
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
155
157
153
159
160
161
162
163
Cnmmenler Name
Air Products and Chemicals. Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation
Occidental Chemical Corporation
State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
ISK-Biotccn Corporation
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Burlington Northern Railroad
State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Valiro Refining Company
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
The Chlorine Institute. Inc.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Texas Utilities Services
Hazardous Waste Action Coalition
Lockheed Corporation
National Petroleum Refiners Association
Department of the Army \
Department of Energy
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute,
American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric
Cooperative
BP Oil
Abbreviation
Air Products
Union Carbide
OxyChem
NY DEC
TX NRCC
ISK-3iotech
Malcolm Pirr.ie
Burlincton
North.
NY DEC
NRC
CMA
Valero
TX NRCC
Chlorine
Institute
LA DWP
TX Utilities
HWAC
Lockheed
NPRA
Army
DOE
US WAG et al.
BP Oil_
3 i _.
-
O
C/5
t-0
o
o
UQ
-------
Table 1
CommenUrs on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Listed Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
r* £ ,.
*" if ?
j2 >-»
r f Ttt ^
Comment
Number
161
165
166
167
163
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 .
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
Commenler Name
RCRA Corrective Action Project (prepared by Morgan, Lewis &
BockJus)
American Gas Association
ASARCO Incorporated
State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
American Industrial Health Council
Petroleum Institute
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
USPCI. Inc.
Coastal Corporation
American Mining Congress
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Williams Natural Gas Company
Merck
-------
Table 1
Commenters on the Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Identified and Lbud Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Soil
Comment
Number
LI
L2
L3
L4
L5
Ommcnler Name
Chemical Manufacturers Association
American Iron and Sieel IcKiiuie
DuPont Chemicals
Ch^Ton Chemical Company
USPCI, Inc.
Abbrr>1atloa
CMA
AISI
DuPont Chcm.
Che%Ton
Chem.
USPCI
??5
a & *
& 3 Z.
g gjr
If 5-5
a a - a
o <"
n 0 n>
c 9- a
3 ^
S- o 5
O
oo
NJ
i
-------
2. COMMERCIAL TREATMENT CAPACITY
In response to the proposed rule. EPA received 24 comments relating lo commercial
treatment capacity. Comments were received from: Coastal Corporation (Coastal, 25); Merck &
Co.. Inc. (Merck, 35); American Gas Association (AGA. 40): Exxon Company. U.S.A. (Exxon.
41); American Foundrymen's Society's Water Quality &. Waste Disposal Committee (A5S. 42);
ASARCO Incorporated (ASARCO. 44): American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI. 47);
Systech Environmental Corporation (Systech. 48); National Petroleum Refiners Association
(NPRA 52); Utility Solid Waste Activity Group. Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power
Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative (USWAG et al.. 55); Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC, 60); American Petroleum Institute (API, 61); Union Oil Company of
California dba Unocal (Unocal, 74); Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC, 84); Jersey Central
Power & Light Company (JCP&L. 88); USPCI. Inc. (USPCI. S9); Inco United States. Inc. and
the International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc. (Inco, 90); Rohm and Haas Company
(Rohm and Haas. 114); OHM Remediation Service Corporation (OHM. 124); Conoco Inc.
(Conoco, 126): Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChcm, 143); ISK-Biotcch Corporation
(ISK-Biotech, 146); and Rollins Environmental Services (Rollins, 183).
The commenters listed above include: hazardous waste treaters. hazardous waste
generators, and trade associations. Most of these commenters addressed the availability, of
commercial treatment capacity. Two commenters (USWAG et al. (55) and Conoco (126)) believe'
that combustion capacity in general may be a problem. However, rwo other commenters (HWTC
(60) and Rollins (183)) believe that there is adequate combustion capacity. Several commenters
specifically addressed incineration capacity- six (Coastal (25). AGA (40). AWPI (47). NPRA (52).
Rohm & Haas (114), and ISK-Biotech (146)) felt that incineration capacity was problematic and
three (HWTC (60), JCP&L (88), and USPCI (39)) felt that there is adequate incineration
capacity. One commenter (Merck (35)) addressed incineration capacity for mercury wastes in
particular., Two commenters (Systech (48) and CKRC (S4j) discussed cement kiln capacity and
cement quality. Several commenters addressed the availability of innovative technologies. Two
(JCP&L (88) and API (61) stated that innovative technologies are not commercially available.
One commenter (OxyChem (143)) discussed the availability of innovative treatment for mercury.
One commenter (OHM (124)) states that there is some available biological treatment capacity. .
Three commenters (Exxon (41), API (61). and Unocal (74)) believe that solvent extraction is not-
available, four (AFS (42), ASARCO (44), USPCI (89). and Inco (90)) believe that high
temperature-metals recovery is not available, and three (Exxon (41), API (61), and Unocal (74))
believe that thermal distillation and thermal desorption arc not available. One commenter (PPG
(38)) discussed the availability of retorting capacity.
More specifically, commenters raised the following issues:
Combustion Capacity is Problematic:
Combustion Capacity is Adequate:
Incineration Capacity is Problematic:
Incineration Capacity for Mercury is Problematic;
Incineration Capacity is Adequate:
a 3 Z
rllf
0 a aa
= - o u
a a »
o '"
° a °
§ c 3
o a
2 o 5"
o
GO
o
o
-------
2-2
Cement Quality is Independent of ihc Heating Value of Wastes Burned in Cement
Kilns;
Innovative Technologies are not Commercially Available;
Innovative Technology Capacity for Mercury is not Adequate;
Biological Treatment Technologies arc Available;
Solvent Extraction is not Commercially Available;
High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) is not Commercially Available;
Thermal Distillation and Thermal Desorption are not Commercially Available; and
Comments on the Availability of Retorting Capacity. .
10 2. §: 3
*"* "
3 X
S g-
3 S
"
0
oo
i
O
o
CD
-------
2-3
2.1 Combustion Capacity
To determine whether to grant a capacity variance for hazardous wastes covered by this
rule. EPA must determine whether available treatment capacity meets or exceeds the required
off-site commercial treatment capacity. Because combustion is one of the most widely used
technologies, and the most likely alternative (o land disposal for wastes regulated under this rule.
EPA is particularly interested in comments regarding the combustion capacity that is available to
meet treatment demands. Many commenlers addressed this issue. Some commenters addressed
combustion in general; their comments are presented in this section. Comments addressing the
specific combustion technologies of incineration or cement kfln combustion are presented in the
following two sections, respectively.
. 2.1.1 Combustion Capacity Is Problematic
Summary:
EPA received two comments statin: that combustion capacity is problematic. One
commenter stated that unless the Agency revives internal conflicts, the regulated community: will
soon be put in the untenable position where combustion, the only technology capable of meeting
the required treatment standards, has been made unavailable (b'SWAG et al., 55-5). .Another
commented that combustion capacity for many of the hardcr-to-trcat wastes is already lacking
(Conoco. 126-5).
Response
In EPA's Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy (May 18. 1993),
we stated that permitting of new combustion capacity would be a lower priority than bringing
existing interim status units under permit controls. This permitting prioritization was due in pan
to current overcapacity of combustion capacity.
In its analysis of combustion capacity. EPA considered only existing hazardous waste
combustion facilities. Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II (Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of the analysis of
available combustion capacity. The Agency has determined that sufficient combustion capacity
exists for organic TC nonwastewaters, soil and debris contaminated with Phase II wastes, and
other organic wastes covered in this rule. However, EPA has determined that sufficient
combustion capacity does not exist for the mixed radioactive wastes covered in this rule, due to
the special nature of these wastes.
EPA is aware of limitations in combustion capacity for wastes that are hard to treat
because of their physical or chemical characteristics. If combustion is not appropriate for a waste
stream, 40 CFR 268.44 allow the waste generator to pursue a variance from the treatment
standards. In addition, facilities generating wastes may apply for extensions on a case-by-case-
basis for specific wastes (RCRA Section 3004(h)(3)). EPA may grant case-by-case extensions to
applicants w-ho can demonstrate that: (1) no capacity currently exists anywhere in the U.S. to
treat a specific waste, and (2) a binding contractual commitment is in place to construct or
otherwise provide alternative capacity, but due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
o ?- 5" o
a c. «>
o a
O
GO
to
o
o
-------
2-4
such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date (40 CFR
:68.5).
Comments:
The comments discussing problems with combustion capacity arc presented in the
following order:
US WAG et al. (55): and
Conoco (126).
3- < -z = -z
- "
3 =" -
"»
o a
o 0 a
O
GO
to
o
o
CD
UQ
ru
Uj
-------
2-5
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number CS2P-00055 Page Number 5
Cotnmenter Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Comment:
The Ag«ncy »ise Resolve Its Internal Conflict Over the
Role Of fnmhti.Mnn
As the Agency recognize* (flea 58 Fed. Reg. at 48095),
its position on combustion as a form of waaee treaunent
reaeables the pushmi-pullyu, the two-ha*d*d «nfm«| in the Dr.
_..Dolittle books, while the Adminl«cr»tor' office embarfci on a
rimpelgn co re-examine ** pocencially diminish the overaj.1 :
role of coobuacion in the aation'i vaece management strategy,
the Office of Solid Na«ee la propoeing creacmenc ecindards for
organic ecnrlcicy wajcee rhat can only be mec by cocbuation.
Onleaa Che Agency reaolv«« this internal conflict, the
regulaced conmunlty will «oon be put In rhe untanaJxle position
^
vhei« tn« only tecnnology capable of meeting the required
treatment standard*, i.»^ combustion, haj bees made
unavailable._ Generators of many hazardous wmstes will then be
put in the position currently occupied by generators of mixed
waste, whereby rheilr wute cannot be disposed because eher« is
inadequse* capecicy to treat it to meet the LOR standard* and
it canaot be stored because of the storage prohibition. To
avoid *hi* dileonm, the Agency oust resolve its Internal
conflicts as expedltiously as possible. USKM urge* the Agency
to adopt a two-track approach in which the Agency provide*
incentives for the UM of alternative technologies by
promulgating alternative treatment standards that would apply
to wastes treated by nonconbuscion technologies, while
retaining.the current standards for wastes treated by
combustion.
2.23
3 n " a
a a rr ""
8 * sr
O
C/3
10
)_^
|||. 'lll-T
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number
Commemen
Comment:
CS2P-00126
Gonoco
Page Number: 5
o £ f o
a a >- M
o w >
O rt <*
- w
In the May 18, 1993 Draft Strategy for Combustion of Hazardous Wastes, EPA
expressed its intent to significantly reduce reliance on combustion technologies.
While there is excess combustion capacity overall, combustion capacity for many of
the harder to treat wastes is already sufficiently lacking. These wastes include
contaminated media, sludges and debris, wastes which most incinerators are not
physically equipped or well suited to handle. In addition wastes like refinery sludges
typically contain significant BTU value. Incinerators must bum these materials in
small quantities or at slow rates. This is an impractical management scenario for
wastes that still contain recoverable material and have fuel value.
For refinery wastes, EPA based its assumption that noncombusiion technologies can
meet the incineration based treatment standards on the limited data available on
solvent extraction and thermal desorption. Most of this data is bench-scale data and
may not be representative of actual field performance. While solvent extraction
continues to hold promise, there is no available commercial capacity and few
companies have actually implemented the technology full scale.- While thermal
desorption has had more success, these units are typically installed at the generator's
site and hence do not represent "commercial" capacity.
Most of the experience to date with thermal desorption units has been at low
temperatures for the purposes of soil treatment (volatile organics and petroleum
hydrocarbons), on recovery and volume reduction. There tre few full scale BOAT
units in operation. Difficulties include variability associated with batch operations,
mechanical breakdown of expensive, long lead equipment items, and multiple runs to
meet BOAT requirements. EPA's proposal to lower standards for certain BOAT
constituents in F and K wastes wfll require significant changes in operation of these
existing units and will result in. major setbacks to the progress achieved to date.
Elevated temperatures required to reduce PNAs to the proposed levels may not be
achievable using existing equipment. Operating at the required temperature levels
may result in cracking. Failure rates will increase significantly and the need for
multiple runs, increased temperatures, and more exotic equipment will make a
promising technology infeasible and unacceptabh/ expensive.
To encourage development of and reliance on non-combustion technologies, EPA
must raise the proposed treatment standards for PNAs. EPA should use the existing
petroleum rcGriing treatment standards for PNAs as the Universal Treatment
Standard to ensure that the standards are technically feasible. Similarly, Conoco
believes EPA should develop cyanide limits for all wastes at the higher levels of 590
rag/kg total cyanide and 30 mg/kg amenable cyanide. .
o
C/3
to
71
o
CD
-------
2-7
2.1.2 Combustion Capacity Is Adequate
Summary:
Two commented provided comments indicating lhat combustion capacity is or may be
adequate. These commenters also made comments about specific types of wasts and incineration
capacity.
One commenter, a trade association, said that its capacity analysis for combustion capacity
indicates that for all solid and sludge categories, the available thermal destruction for group
members is over 504,000 tons per year. Noting that EPA reports a total demand of 525,110 tons
per year in 58 FR 48138. the commenter said that the available capacity among the members of
the commenter's trade association is close to this demand. This commenter said that the
additional 20,000 tons per year of required capacity is easily satisfied by capacity of firms lhat are
not members of the commenter's trade association, giving as an example the Chem Waste facility
in Port Arthur, TX (HWTC, 60-56). This same com.Ticntcr also provided a report on thermal
destruction capacity (HWTC, 60-App. F) is well as, a letter to EPA distinguishing between
thermal desorben and incinerators (HWTC 60-App. I). The report on thermal destruction
capacity summarizes information from the HWTC 1993 Survey of Commercial Hazardous Waste .
Incineration Capacity^
One commenter said that it currently has the capacity to process approximately 550
million pounds (275,000 tons) of waste per year and expects to increase this capacity to 750
milb'on pounds (374,000 tons) of waste per year by the year 1997 (Rollins. 183B-3).
Response:
EPA acknowledges the capacity information provided by the commenters. Where
commenters provided verifiable data on the quantities of wastes they generate or manage, EPA
has taken these data into account in its capacity analysis for the final rule. EPA notes that the
data summarized in the report on thermal destruction capacity also were submitted to EPA. EPA
has revised its preliminary capacity analysis both for the available combustion treatment using
these data. As is explained in more detail in EPA'i Background Document for the Capacity
Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II (Final Rule), EPA used a similar methodology to
that of the thermal destruction report to perform the analysis of the combustion capacity data.
However, there is one major difference in the two approaches. In apportioning excess capacity
among waste forms, the commenter's report used an iterative procedure that does not take into
account the waste forms that have historically lacked capacity. In order to realistically represent
current capacity deficiencies, EPA redistributed excess capacity among waste forms that have
historically lacked capacity according to a hierarchy discussed in the background document.
Rather than Gist redistributing excess capacity to soils and bulk solids as EPA did, the
commenter's report employs an arbitrary scheme that is rooted solely in mathematics.
In its capacity analysis, the Agency has determined that sufficient capacity exists for
organic TC nonwastewaters, soil and debris contaminated with Phase II wastes, and other organic
wastes covered in this rule. However. EPA has determined that sufficient combustion capacity
does not exist for the mixed radioactive wastes covered in this rule, due to the special nature of
c 5 c
r£z2-
o
a 2, Z. 3
~ <* a «
3" J i m ^
a a ^- 5"
o w >-
o .-. f*
i = 3
1 n o
^Ts
O
on
to
o
o
-------
2-8
these wastes. Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for Land
Disposal Restrictions Phase II (Final Ride} for a detailed explanation of these analyses.
Comments:
The comments indicating that combustion capacity is adequate are presented in the
following order:
HWTC (60); and
Rollins (183);
P 9
C £ Ci
C/ ;-. a
?-g-w"
*"* ' Qj *'
I S "
l:a
rt o 5
O
GO
to
Tl
I
O
o
C3
-------
2-9
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
?!f
Docket Number
Conunemer
Comment:
CS2P-00060 Page Number. 56
Hazardous Wasic Treatment Council
a
a a. »
o. M ~
n « rc
c 9- «
3 ;-
£ oi
n
These conclusions are justified as follows: A review of Table 3-1 of the Veraar Report
in Attachment F indicates that for afl solid and sludge categories, the avaHabte thermaJ
destruction capacity among HWTC member companies is over 504,000 tons/year.
the demand reported by EPA in 58 Federal Register 48138 is broken down as follows:
LDR WastM
TC Wastes
Coke byproducts
Chlorinated Toluene Wastes
0012-0017 Restricted from Class I Weds
Soi contaminated with TC Wastes
Debris contaminated with TC Wastes
Treatment Demand, tons/year
252,000 N '
4,600
100
419
234.000
34.000
n
c/3
to
o
o
Total
525,119
The available capacity among HWTC members is very dose to this demand.
The additional 20,000 ton/year required capacity is easiy satisfied ^jy non-HWTC
member capacity (I.e.. Chemical Waste Management in Port Arthur, Texas). In
addition, the HWTC feels that the more recant survey supports adequate capacity not
only for the above wastes, soi and debris, but also for the 90,000 tons/year
F037/FD38 contaminated soils generated from surface impoundment closures, as
discussed at 58 Federal Register 48139.
CQ
-------
_j Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
2-10
Docket Number CS2P-00183B Page Number: 3
Commenter Rollins Environmental Service!
Comment:
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.
INCINERATION CAPACITY
1000-
900-
800-
700-
jj f 600-
- i 500-H
AOOmON Of NEW TRAIN AT RE3(LA). INC
AOOmON Of RRfl AT RES(NJ), INC
90 91 92 93 94 95-9696-97
CAPACITY UTILIZED
CAPACITY AVAILABLE
J-< 2 a 2
>Q O S- g" O
"" H
a a -
w
0
o w
o 0 n>
o
C/3
to
o
o
CD
UQ
i
ru
UQ
-------
2.2 Incineration Capacity
This section presents the comments received regarding incineration capacity.
2.2.\ Incineration Capacity is Problematic
Summary.
Most of the comments on (he issue of incineration argued that incineration capacity was
problem?'ic. Several commenters said that incineration capacity is decreasing (Coastal. 25-2;
AGA. 40-3: Rohm and Haas, 114-3). Some commenters noted specific concerns with regard to
incineration capacity. One said that incineration technology is the only means to meet the UTS
which creates a problem due to a lack of incineration capacity (NPRA, 52-1). One contended
that treatment (incineration) capacity does not exist for wastes containing high concentrations of
salt and halogenated compounds (ISK-Biotech. 146-2). .Another provided an example for non-
Phase II waster., saying that only one facility is permitted to receive haloccnalcd F021 and F027
wastes for incineration (AWPI. 47-4 to 5).
Response;
In EPA's Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization, and Combustion Strategy (May IS, 1993).
we slated that permitting of new combustion capacity would he a lower priority than bringing
existing in:crim status units under perrr.it controls. This permitting prioritizalion was due in pan
to current overcapacity of combustion capacity.
In its analysts of combustion capacity, EPA considered .only existing hazardous waste
combustion facilities. EPA's analysis also indicates that actual combustion capacity has increased.
The Agency has determined that sufficient combustion capacity exists for organic TC
nonwastewaters, soil and debris contaminated with Phase II wastes, and other organic wastes
covered in this rule. However, EPA has determined that sufficient combustion capacity does not
exist for the mixed radioactive wastes covered in this rule, due to the special nature of these
wastes. Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Resmcrions Phase II (Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of these' analyses.
The Agency contacted several commercial incinerator operators and confirmed that at
least one commercial incinerator accepts wastes containing high concentrations of salt and.
halogenated compounds.
EPA is aware of limitations in combustion capacity for wastes that are hard to treat
because of their physical or chemical characteristics. If combustion is not appropriate for a waste
stream. 40 CFR 268.44 allow the waste generator to pursue a variance from the treatment
standards. In addition, facilities generating wastes may apply for extensions on a case-by-case
basis for specific wastes (RCRA Section 3004(h)(3)). EPA may grant case-by-case extensions to
applicants who can demonstrate that: (1) no capacity currently exists anywhere in the U.S. to
treat a specific waste, and (2) a binding contractual commitment is in place to construct or
otherwise provide alternative capacity, but due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control,
such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date (40 CFR
268.5).
o 3
a a '>
O
oo
bO
J-J
o
o
-------
2-12
Comments:
The comments discussing problems with incineration capacity are presented in the
following order
Coastal (25);
AGA (40);
Rohm and Haas (114)
NPRA (52);
ISK-Biotech (146); and
AWPI (47);
M
^Pf
g-*;
a a - «
. o w i
*^ fV **
C ^* CO
O O
3rT fc
(-» rti
o
. ri
O
C/3
to
c
o
-------
M.I
Docket Number CS2P-00025
Commenter Coastal Corporation
Comment:
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity.
Page Number 2
P!
2. iiz i" °
Coutai supports EPA's proposal to cansoikteu tfM current trwrtmem standvds imo on*
s«t of UTS. Coutat b«G«vM. how«v»r. ttwt th« propoMd UTS for metals and TC-orgarrie
wastM an not acrtavabf* using tvaJUU* ncrtnologiaa, particularly if incJraraoon is not an
option.
EPA has incScatad a ganaral poficy >j*in«t tha uaa of indnaration for tha treatmant of
hazardous waataa. Aa a raautt, incinaration capachy la
-------
V»ni'sM« Commercial Treatment Caosc'rv
Deckel Number CS:?->X-U)
Corti.T.tr.ter: Am tricar. Gas .~j; «.:.i;ion
C. .Tirn*3t;
Pace Surrher:
r.TKSroirtt Levers C~J/ Acfth&s&a £y .
. A.G.A is concarrxsd that the prooooed treatment 2t3.Tda.-as for.TC-crganic wastes
msy orJy b« scrtovcbie using incr-njreion. Yet, EPA hoa irxSces-d a csnsrsi pcfcy
ajainst the uss of incanarabon'for r« i-tatmertt of rv?"ri--£Etrs,' ^-3 2 rcrj-t,
incnsrsion capacity is dfcrsasJng. ; it is EFA's dcr.rs ',o rn.rirnca tro u.:o c.'
inoTiCfazxDn, iften tha tresn^nt staxisnia must to tc^i-d or. -ivf^: ccn b-3 ec^i-2-^ us.rsg
aJtsmasvs tscfv>cvastz spacrfic sa-vlanis that are irsdHy
achievable and aT? pnxodivo of ht*ron hasSi STd L*w esTwrcnrrrsnt Furthsrmcffa,
rndusr/ v/a hava si oppsr&jnrty to o«v«cip the necessary tachrcksgiog to meet mere
stringers st
I. J
15'
-------
M5
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number
Cornmemer
Comment
CS2P-00114
Rohm & Haas Company
Page Number 3
1 " ~ _
Pg-sr"
0. Rohm and Hits Supports the Concept of Universal Treatment
Standards, but the Proposed Rule Suffer* Many Flaws.
Rohm and Haas supports EPA's attempt to simplify the Land Disposal
Restrictions ("LDR") by the adoption of Universal Treatment Standards. The
current system is unnecessarily con/using because_the same constituent may
have different treatment standards depending upon whether it is present in a
Toxiciry Characteristic waste, an F listed waste, or a U listed waste. However.
Rohm and Haas believes that EPA is making several fundamental errors in
using technology-based standards. First, human health and the environment
are best protected by risk-based standards. Second, levels proposed for cyanide
waste water are inappropriate as applied to the waste from production of
acetone cyanohydrin. Third, the UTS will continue to force hazardous waste
into incineration, rather than allowing th« us* of alternative treatment
technologies. At the same time, EPA's Combustion Strategy, as announced
on May 18,1993, is making incineration less available and is seeking to put
combustion in its "proper place" in the wast* treatment hierarchy.
o
o
o
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
-r = jr
n$ %
CS2P-00052 Page Number: 1
National Petroleum Refiner* Aisociatkm
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
The UK of todneimUon ttdntotofj m tta omtj a*taa* to toed the UTS
problem for the petroleum refining industry becaoae of lack of mdaeratioo capacity.
The present policy that bans the itciincr of construction permia for new incinenior
facilities limits the national citify for the treatment of hazardous waste by
incineration to mat of existing facilities which are already operatinf near capacity. No
treamxa technologies other than incineration are available today that could meet the
proposed UTS concentration levels.
-
c ;?
3 5
O
cy^
to
.0
O
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
_ g"
Docket Nmnher
Conmiemer:
Comment:
CS2P-OOI46
ISK-Biotech-
Number 2
= 9-«
2) We generate several newly identified hazardous waste streams which contain nigh
concentrations of salt and halogenated compounds. We understand that these
wastes are difficult to incinerate due to slagging problems within the incinerator.
Also, high sodium content waste typically shortens the life of incinerator refractory
material. For this reason, incinerators do not readily accept these' wastes.
Therefore, we fe«l that treatment capacity fo'r these wastes does not exist and we
will need a minimum of two years to adequately define our situation and deveiop
means to manage this material.
In summary, we feel that treatment capacity does not exist for some of our newly
identified hazardous waste streams and, some of our waste streams would require
repackaging to me*t incinerator packaging specifications. Tn«r»for», wo roquast that
EPA offer a two year capacity vthanca for aJi rwwty tfintrfod hazardous wasto streams.
o
C/3
to
T-]
l
O
o
UQ
cn
-------
2-18
Available CommerclaJ Treatment Capacity
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00047
Page Number 4 to 5
American Wood Preservers Institute
Further, torn* AWP1 members have petitioned EPA to have F021 »nd F027 urasns
redassifiad from 'acutely hazardous* to 'toxic* on the basis of the same data that led EPA
to classify F032_wast« as 'toxic.* That request has not been acted uoon by EPA.
Bacausa EPA stiD classifies F021 and F027 *« acutaly hazardous, it may b« unwilling to
revise th« treatment standard. AWPI urges the Agency to act on the pending petition
prior to making a final decision on the approoriate treatment standards for F021 and F027
wastes. Un«ier the current classification. orJy on* facility in the United Stares ra permrttod
to receive F021 and F027 wastes for incineration due to the six-nines destruction
requirement.
00^5-0
-"o S H
K " " >" ^~,
g J a <>
ra " S >_ ci
a a V
o ^ >
n n ra
§ i-3
I " o
O
GO
CD
O
-------
2.2.2 Incineration Capacity for Mrrcury is Problematic
Summary:
One commenter addressed the specific issue of mercury in incinerated wastes. This
commenter said that the proposed mercury UTS is so low that many incinerators may cease to
accept mercury wastes because of concerns that the ash may not meet the mercury standard. This
commenter added that currently only a few incinerators will accept mercury waste (Merck, 35-3 to
ns
° -,«
,»Za
£ < 3 0- 2
a. a i '
o "> i
2 ?:
3 ""
Response:
Upon further examination of available data. EPA has revised the UTS for mercury to be
consistent with existing treatment standards for K071, K106. P065, P092, and U151 nonwaste
waters. Since the amended UTS for mercury conform to the existing standards for waste codes
containing mercury, incinerators that currently accept low level mercury wastes should have no
reason to cease this practice due to this rulernaking.
Comments:
The Merck comment (35) on incineration capacity for mercury wastes is presented below.
n
C/)
ro
-n
o
o
-------
2-20
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
= ?£
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00035
Merck & Co.
Page Number ,3 to 4
>a o 8- g"
o M
" rv ">
c 9- 01
^ c «
Th* cumnt trMtmw* standard for Ow low rrwrcuy trMtaMly group Is 0.20
m«uur»d using th* TCLP. The propotcd trMtrrwnt standard for marcury In Tabto LTTS
would t» lowwvd to 0.009 mg/L TT« Is a signMcant reduction In tha standard and «
do not f»a< It is appreprfata. Mardc gcrwratas low lava< marcury wastas that ars not
amartabia to recovary and tnarefora ara Incinantad. Tha proposed laval is so low that
many ineioarators may osasa to scoot marcury wastas bacaus* of eoocams wrth tha
ash not maafing tha traatmant staneUrt. Ojnintly thara ara only a faw incinarttofs
thatwaiavan accept this typa of matarW and lowering tha standard wfl rvduca that
numbar svan furthar. EPA should tvaJuata not orty If tha laval is
achiavabla but wrathar thara wfl ba capacity (a.k.a accaptanca) at TSOf s aftar tha
changa.
O
(X)
to
o
o
-------
2.2-3 Incinerution Capacity is Adi-quatt
Summary:
Three commenters provided evidence that incineration capacity is adequate. One
commenter said that the Hazardous \Vis:e 'Jcmilkatson Rule (HWIJO to be prornule^ed by
October ;994 will significantly reduce the demand lor soil treatment (HVvTC. 6(1-57). This
comrnenter also noted that there is sufficie.-.t incineration capacity for '.he 95.IHX) ;c.ns\ear cf
deep-wel: inj.vted high TOC D001 ignnable wastes .aid TC Piil2-DOI7 pesticide Bastes (HWTC.
60-39 to 10). .Another commenter said that rnany uiihiies h. .e the ability to treat their waste in
their own utility boilers (JCP&L. SS-2). Tr.e third tomincnter ?aid that F02-1 wastes are uniformly
managed by incineration, and are generated in low- quantities (L'SPC!. 59-35). This same
comrnenter added that it owns 3 permitted hazardous waste incinerator that wiii t-ecin commercial
operations in 1994 (USPCI. 39-1).
Respor.se:
EPA :grees that incineration capj.-..:;. is adequate for Phase il wastes. P.iear.e refer :o
EPA's Bactsrour.d Doaimer.l for ihe Ccp~c:.y Ar:n!yu\ fur Lr.::;i Diwrj/ Restraint Pr.z.'e :1
(Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of the analysis i.l -vaihbie incineration capacity. EPA
notes, however, that it is gfanting a one-year capacity v.-iri.ince for high TOC D001 and Dri\2-
D017 wastes :hat are deep well-injected to allow f:;cih!:i". .:n .-ipprcp:ia:e lead ;ime to iden'.ify.
segregate, andbr arrange for disposal of these waste ,::(.- i..s.
Comnents:
The-comments indicating that incineration capacily is adequate are presented in ihe
following order:
H\VTC (60):
JCP&L (S3): and .
USPCI (S9).
o
en
to
" J
I
CD
-------
2-22
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number:
'Commenter.
Comment:
CS2P-00060 Page Number: 57
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
?|5
Q H «.
c rr
5> rj. -3
cr E: a ?
|5*a.
ifl O S; g" '
n
n
a a - w
. o Jl
In1'
^ Q- w
FlnaSy, the HW1R ruto to be promulgated by October 1994 will reduce the
demand significantly for sod treatment, since rt will define certain contaminated soils as
non-hazardous, and therefore not subject to LOR requirements. Since the time frame
corresponds closely with the schedule for th« Phase II LDR rule, Jufy 1994. a
conservative alternative strategy that EPA could adopt would be a capacity variance
for TC and F037/F038 contaminated soSs being in place only until October 1994. fi.e.
a 3 month variance). Then come October, the effect of HWIR will be to reduce
substantially the quantity of soil requiring management under the LOR program to Part
26'standards.
O
C/Q
bo
o
o
CD!
-------
2-23
Available Coaunerdal Treatment Capacity
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00060
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Page Number: 39 to 40
2 2-S
3 « w
The HWTC agrees wrth EPA's rationale that the court's mandate in the Third
Third's case requires this prohibition on deep wefl Injection. The HWTC also agrees
with EPA that treatment of these concentrated organic wastes is a preferred
management option. The HWTC also supports the decision not to grant a capacity
variance for these waste streams. The HWTC thermal destruction capacity survey
report conducted in May 1993 and included in the attachments, supports an available
capacity for pumpabte wastes of 765,720 tons/year among HWTC members along.
Considering afl of the BJF capacity, in addition to this, there is more than adequate
thermal destruction capacity to provide treatment for the 95.000 tons/year of these
characteristic waste* restricted from deep wed injection.
n
C/3
to
c
o
CD
UQ
-------
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
2-24
CS2P-00088 ,
Jersey Central Power & Light
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number: 2
:r 3" £
m u> J
3 fD
^> «.
gSf
J^01 |
5"* 5 _ 5
iQ O rr 3 O
2 <^ °* tf
c ^ I'D tfl
3 3" _ (5 O
» * ?? _ "
a a «
o »
2 2-8
3 W
fO O
s?»
JCP&L believes that combustion should 00 retained as a viable waste
management option. Many utilities have the ability to cost effectively treat their waste
. in their own utility boilers in a manner which is protective of human hearth and the
environment If the EPA determines that it should restrict the use of combustion, it
must develop treatment standards that are achievable by alternative technologies.
Alternative technologies are being developed tor -many waste streams; however, few
are currentiy on-line or can achieve the same treatment levels as combustion.
Therefore, JCP&L believes that combustion must remain an allowable treatment option
for the management of hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes.
O
C/3
to
71
o
o
ULJ
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number CS2P-00089 Page. Number 35
Commenten USPCI, Inc.
Comment:
If the Agency Does Promulgate the UTS, F024 Should be Included For the
Metals Standards
USPCI agrees that F024 should not be included in the UTS system for organic
constituents. This exclusion ensures that F024 wastes will continue to be incinerated
in high-technology, high temperatme treatment units. Although USPCI disagrees with
the proposed UTS because they encourage impermissible mixing and decrease environ-
mental protection. USPCI does believe that, if the UTS are adopted, F024 should be
included for die purpose of treating the mrfitt. USPCI believes dut P024 wastes are
uniformly managed by incineration. Many incinerator operators attribute die FQ24
code to their ash based on die once-yearly § 262.1 1 hazardous waste determination.
Thus a particular waste shipment may be characterized by the F024 waste code even
though not directly derived from combustion of an PD24 waste. Moreover, F024.
wastes are generated in such low quantities typically that operators can not practically
combust diem i
a a ET "
. o <"
n
on
to
71
o
o
-JC
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Doclcct Number
Commemcr:
Comment:
CS2P-00089
USPO, Inc.
Page Number: 1
--< 2 a
o 8- 3"
" "
a a - <"
o ">
29-3
3 S "
USPC. Inc., a Delaware corporation ("USPCT), is die corporate parent
representing companies providing commercial waste management services nationwide
to industry and government entities. USPCTs operations range-from hazardous wastes
transportation and recycling to remedial design and engineering and hazardous waste
land treatment and~land disposal One USPO subsidiary owns a permitted hazardous
waste incinerator that will begin commercial operations in 1994. USPQ and its
subsidiaries are impacted by Agency actions affecting the hazardous waste
management system. On behalf of PPM, Inc. of Georgia. Hydrocarbon Recyclers
Wichita, Inc., Hydrocarbon Recyclers of San Antonio, Inc., Hydrocarbon Recyclers,
Inc., USPO Incineration Company of Tooele County, Inc., United States Pollution
Control, Inc and its subsidiary operations, and on behalf of itself, USPO is pleased to
submit these comments regarding the EPA'j proposed Phase D Land Disposal
Restrictions Role, published at 58 Federal Register 48,092-204 (September 14, 1992).'
O
C/3
to
o
'o
in urn PTTTTTT m
-------
2-27
23 Cement Kiln Capacity
This section presents the comments received regarding cement kiln capacity. ^
2J.I Cement Quality is Independent of the Hcullng Value of Wastes Burned in
Cement Kilns
Summary:
Two commenters.discussed the energy content or heating value of hazardous wastes
burned in kilns. EPA had stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that cement quality
considerations generally require that wastes burned in cement kilns have a heating value of 5,000
Btu/lb. The two commenters challenged this statement. One commenter said that cement quality
considerations do not require that wastes burned in cement kilns have a heating value of at least
5.000 Btu/lb. contrary to the statement in the preamble (CKRC. S4-16). The other commenter
said that since most if not all hazardous wastes used as fuel in cement kilns are blended at some
point, there is no concern about the "as generated" heat content of the waste (Syslech. 48-5).
Response:
EPA notes that energy recovery questions muM be addressed on a case-by-case basis and
that there is not a minimum requirement for 5.000 Btu wastes burned for energy recovery;
however, if an industrial furnace bums a listed hazardous waste with a heating value less than
5,000 Btu/lb and the facility does not document that the waste is burned for legitimate energy
recovery, then any product applied to or placed on the land in a manner that constitutes disposal
(e.g., cement) would be a waste-derived product subject to regulation as hazardous waste. This
waste-derived product, however, could be eligible for an exemption from regulation as a
hazardous waste by compliance with the treatment standards for land-disposed hazardous waste
found in 40 CFR 268.42 - 268.44 and associated notification requirements (40 CFR 266.20(b)).
(See, for example, EPA's August, 1992 Memorandum regarding Giant Cement, making the same
point)
It is important to note that the "legitimate fuel" determination is on an as-generated, not
as-fired, basis. Blending to augment the as-generated heating value cannot be used to meet the
"legitimate fuel" test (i.e., either the waste must have a heating value of 5.000 Btu/lb, or the
facility must document that lower heating value waste contributes significant, useable energy).
However, the as-generated heating value of a hazardous waste may be increased to meet the
"legitimate fuel" test by bona Cde treatment (e.g.. decanting).
Comments:
The comments discussing cement quality and ihc heating value of hazardous wastes
burned in cement Icilns are presented in the following order:
CKRC (84); and .
Systech (48).
JjfS
2 ^ K
f £ i
< 2 "
o 3. § <
" o o» ;
CI ra iQ
?-» '
o w
O fv f^
C iT* 01
g C y»
O O
3. o »
O
en
to
Tl
i
O
CD
-------
2-28
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number: CS2P-00084 Page Number 16
Commenter Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
Comment;
There are several atatamenta about cement kilna in the
proposal that are either incorrect or misleading:
1. EPA states that "cement quality considerations generally
require that va»t>« burned In c*m*rte kilna hav* a (v««ting v»lu«
of at laaat 5,000 Btu/lb.- 4J140, col. 1. Thim la aiapiy
incorrect.
rirlL, r«»«nt kilns usually burn vaata for an*r?y recovery
purpoa**. If th« »«nt«nc« ia intandad to imply that 5000 Btu la
automatic talisman for datarsinlog anaryy
racovcry, it is wrong. As EPA personnel bar* cootioosd to
raaffira to us over th« y«srs, and as is abundantly clear tram
many EPA ra
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number CS2P-OCKW8 Page Number 5
Comraemer: Systech Environmental Cor[X)ration
Comment:
It il interesting that the Agency has choMfi to single 012 cement kiln issues in its
discussion of potential capacity limitations [51 FR 48140. column 1]. While it is true that there
are many factors that may limit the amount of waste that is used as fuel is a cement kiln, such
as chemical characteristics and physical propcni**, it is safe to say that this is true of any
treatment process. We also take exception to the way that the Agency has stated that 'generally*
cement kilns require a heating value of at least 5.000 BTU/Ib in the waste burned as fuel. This
is merely one of the many operating parameters mat must be taken into consideration as pan of
any complex Industrie] process. Some may infer from this statement that the Agency is referring
to the heat content of the waste fuel as generated. Since we know that there is no regulatory
impediment to burning waste in a cement bin as a fuel, regardless of the heat content, as
generated or as burned, mere is only the process consideration. Since most tf oot ad hazardous
wastes used u fuel in cement kilns are blended at tome point, tbere is no concern abooi me "as
generated* he* content of th« want, as long at it is being us«d as a bona fide rod rather man
f <"* i
1-3
D-&M 1
jS 3 °- =
5 o g. g g
5 C a £ "
3 J-» 3
a a "'
. o *" i
1|^
^05
o
OO
to
o
o
UQ|
j
CQ
-------
2.4 Availability of Other Treatment Technologies {Including Recycling)
Several commenters provided comments on ihc availability of treatment technologies.
other than incineration and cement kilns, for Phase II woMes. This section summarizes comments
received on this issue.
2.4.1 Innovative Technologies Are Not Commercially Available
Summary: .
Two commenters stated that innovative technologies arc not commercially available. One
commenter said that few alternative technologies arc on-line (JCPiL, SS-2). Another commcnter
stated that alternative, non-combustion technologies are not being developed due to the current
regulatory requirement (API, 61-39 to 41). This commcnter also noted that most of the capacity
cited by EPA as being available was combustion.
Response
In its capacity analysis for Phase II wastes. EPA considered commercial capacity for four
types of treatment: combustion, stabilization,.biological treatment, and chemical precipitation.
The Agency did not consider other "innovative' (Le.. non-combustion) technologies. The Agency
has determined that sufficient commercial capacity exists for organic TC nonwastewaters, soil and
debris contaminated with Phase II wastes, and other organic wastes covered in this rule. Any
commercial treatment capacity that is based on innovative technologies and that may become
available will reduce the required capacity for combustion technologies.
Comments:
The comments discussing the commercial availability of innovative technologies are
presented in the following order:
JCP&L (38); and
API (61)
,-ft S» -J
- = -
6 S 3
3 i -'
e 01
O
C/3
NJ|
-n
i
o
o
CD
UQ
J
-------
2-31
Available Commcrctol Treatment Capacity
fs
3 "
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00088
Jersey Central Power & Light
Page Number 2
£ o a 3 o
~ ^ "" a 5
I » s i "
^S^s-
c ft »
JCP&L brli«ves that combustion should be rotain«d as a viable waste
management opjon. Many utiJfties have tfie abiHty to cost effective*/ treat their waste
in their own utility boilers in a manner which is protective, of human hearth and the
environment If the EPA determines that it should restrict the use c4 combustion, it
must develop treatment standards that are achievable by alternative technologies.
Alternative technologies are being developed for many waste streams; however, few
are currentty on-line or can achieve the same treatment levels as combustion.
Therefore, JCP&L believes that combustion must remain an allowable treatment option
for the management of hazardous and nonhazardoua sotfd wastes.
O
00
to
>n
I
o
o
UD
un
-------
Available Commtixial Treatment Capacity
c ^ £
u -r :Z
Docket Number
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00061
.American Petroleum Institute
Page Number: 39 to 41
VIZ. Capacity D«trmin*tion*
While EPA expresses a preference for moving away from
combustion technologies for the purpose of treating of hazardous
wastes and hazardous soil subject to the land disposal
restrictions, the overwhelming r-ajority of the commercial treatment
capacity cited as being available for treating these materials by
EPA in the Phase II rule are combustion technologies. This is an
obvious inconsistency. API is concerned that as long as there is
available (or perceived to be available) commercial .combustion
capacity that there will be little incentive for the development of
alternative, non-combustion capacity particularly it EPA
promulgates the universal standards as proposed.14 The lack of
alternatives to combustion has been exacerbated by the "moving
target' nature of the treatment standards themselves. Few, if any
technology developers (for either commercial or captive use) are
willing to expend significant resources to develop alternatives to
combustion if the target treatment standards continue to change.
" As explained in several places herein,- API is concerned that
the proposed universal standards for polynuclear aromatic compounds
are such that they will require the use of combustion technologies
to achieve them. API believes chat alternative commercial
treatment capacity (other than incineration), that is also capable
of achieving the proposed standards for these-constituents does not
now exist.
2. S. 3
a a m
O M .
n
00
to
-n
o
o
-------
2-33
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number: CS2P-00061 Page Number: .19 to 41
Coramenten American Petroleum Institute
Comment: (continued)
Indeed, API is concerned that in some instances where member
companies have constructed captive units for treating K-listed
wastes, that the technologies may not be capable of achieving the
proposed treatment standards without substantial redesign" and nay
be obsolete. Consequently, under the current 'regulatory climate'
combustion technologies' »r« ntially required for regulatory
compliance by EPA, while at th« sam« time they are disfavored by
EPA's Draft Strategy For Combustion of Hazardous Wastes, May 18,
1993, leaving th« regulated canvtunity in a treatment conundrum.
/
17 In son* instances it may not b« coat effective to redesign
a treatment unit, and off-site solutions may have to be found.'
,p o 3
~ "~* n *
a a - «
. o fjl <-
2 a-S
III
~ ° s
O
i
O
O
-------
2-34
2.4.2 Innovative Technology Capacity for Mercury Is Not Adequate
Summary:
One commenter said that lowering the level to .(X)9 mg/1 for mercury w
constraints for relatively new recovery operations (OxyChcm, 143-2).
Response:
l create capacity
if?
~5i
ra
: «
ft S-q
3
10 2, 2 3
3 J H* n
a a - w
Upon further examination of available data, EPA has revised the UTS for mercury to be
consistent with existing treatment standards for K071, K106, P065, P092, and U151
nonwastewaters. Since the amended UTS for mercury conform to the existing standards for waste
codes containing mercury, recovery facilities that currently accept low level mercury wastes should
have no reason to cease this practice due to this rulcmaking and should be able to meet the
revised treatment standard.
« ^^
ag
C n
t> ° 2
, . Comments:
The OxyChem comment (143) discussing the availability of innovative technology for
mercury is presented below.
O
C/3
o
o
uu
-------
2-35
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number CS2P-00143 Page Number: 2
Commenter Oxychem (Occideaial Chemical Corporation)
Comment:
EET 5*
- ^ at J5
5 o g; g" o
e £ '» iQ £
Table 4 include* perto
i
-------
2.4J Biological Treatment Ttxhnoloyka arr Available
Summary:
One commenier slated thai biological tre.nrnent is avuil.ihlc. This commenter has 4 slurry-
phase biological reactors, each of which can proce-'.s .IW to ISO cubic yards of material per batch.
with a typical batch process lime of 16 days (OHM. 12-4 All. A- 1)
Response:
-3 -; 3
i recognizes this comment which pcn.iiru prirnani;. to on-sitc treatment capacity. EPA
notes that if treatment standards are established as concentrations. EPA does not preclude the
use 'of any technology that can meet these s'.arvJ.irdi. To the extent that biological treatment can
meet the treatment standards promulgated in t<.xJay\ rule for Phase [I wastes, it will reduce the
required capacity for off-site treatment currcrv.ly aMi'gned to combustion technoloeies.
Comments:
The OHM comment (12-4) discussinc ;."c .:\.iil;:bility of biorernediaiion technolor-' is
presented below.
O
C/3
to
-ri
i
-------
2-37
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number
Commentcr
Comment:
CS2P-00124
OHM Corporation
Page Number: Att. A-l
2
^
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM) is currently treating approximately 14,000 tons of
wood preserving wastes (K 001) at the Southeastern Wood Preserving Superfond site in Canton.
Mississippi, using a slurry-phase biological treatment process. The full-scale process components
include a slurry preparation system, four (4) slurry-phase biological reactors, and a slurry
dewatering system.. Each biological reactor has an operating volume of 180,000 gallons and
processes 160 to 180 cubic yards of material per batch. The typical batch process tune to
achieve maxim urn treatment efficiency is 16 days. OHM performed bench and pilot-scale studies
prior to full-scale operation of the slurry-phase biological treatment system. I have enclosed two
technical papers which discuss process performance and economics.
O
C/3
to
TJ
i
O
o
-------
N2.4.4 Solvent Extraction Is Not Ciimmrrciully Available
Summary:
Several commenters argued that solvent extraction is not available. Two commenters said
that there is little or no commercial or captive capacity, either currently or anticipated soon, to
treat petroleum industry hazardous, wastes by solvent extraction (Exxon. -41-4; API. 61-6 to 7, 61-
13). (Likewise, another said thai EPA's reliance on solvent extraction data is inappropriate
becaiui: the technology has little or no commercial capacity (Unocal. 74-6 to 74-7).)
Response:
Absent data to the contrary, the commenters confirmed EPA's initial capacity assessment
for Phase II wastes which assigned the quantities of waste requiring off-site commercial capacity
to combustion. EPA acknowledges the commenter's statement that off-site commercial solvent
extraction capacity is extremely limited or not available. The Agency did not assign any wastes to
solvent extraction technologies in its capacity analysis. However, if any commercial treatment
capacity based on solvent extraction becomes available, it may reduce the required capacity for
combustion technologies.
The Agency has determined that sufficient commercial capacity exists for organic TC
nonwastewaters. soil and debris contaminated with Ph.xsc II wastes, and other organic wastes
covered in this rule. Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for
Land Disposal Restrictions phase II (Final Rule) for.a detailed explanation of this analysis.
Comments:
. The comments discussing the availability of solvent extraction are presented in the
following order:
Exxon (41);
API (61); and
Unocal (74).
. .
o §. 3 o
o
O
O
un
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number CS2P-00041 Page Srumber: 4
C'ommcnlcr: Exxon Company. U.S.A.
Comment:
The Agency stttM that non-combustion t*cnnoiogias such as solvent wdraction and
ln«rmal cfeflbrption could me«t tha proposed uniwrsaJ treatment standaraa for
p*trol«um tnousoy wutes. A review of tn* treatment Oata contained in the docket for
tnj« proposed rule suggests otherwise. An evaluation of these c*ta shows that almost
hatf of the Agency's solvent extraction data do not meet the proposed candartf for
meet PAHa. White the Agency suggasts that solvent axtrsction technologies could be
adjusted* to meet the proposed standards, there la no evidence or documented data to
show that such adjusts art, in fact technicaUy feasible. Additionally, the solvent
extraction data thai EPA is relying on is from bench or pilot scale testing. This
introduce* significant uncertainties as to the ability of this technology to achieve the
proposed standards In commercial appticaucns. In fact, there is current little or no
commercial or captive capacity to treat petroleum industry hazardous wastes by solvent
extraction and thermal dejorpbon today, or a any anticipated in the immediate future....
C £ n i3 |
I ° ~ " '
a a
o
0 o ''
C °" M
^ X <"
I rt r>
T rr ^-
^. O O
in
O
GO
1>J
71
o
o
UQ
CQ
-------
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
2-40
CS2P-00061
American Petroleum Institute
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number: 6 to
» 31 "
3 'f
C C B
?l»i
3. £ z a ^
o o g. g o
3 I -« 5
1- Solvent Extraction and Thqnoal Deaorption/Distillacion
The Agency purports to minimize its reliance on incineration
by arguing that other low cost innovative technologies can meet
these standards. In' particular, for listed petroleum refinery.
wastes, EPA relies on treatment data for solvent extraction and
thermal desorption/distillaticn developed in conjunction with the
K04S-52 treatment standards to suggest that .these technologies can
.meet the proposed universal treatment standards. API questions the
validity of EPA's assumptions for a variety of reasons.
First, the Agency's assertion is based on very limited data
sources, in many instances bench scale data submitted by vendors or
EPA contractors. As a general rule, bench scale data is inherently
suspect because it has not proven to be effective in actual field
operations.
Even more questionable is vendor supplied bench scale data.
Since the goal of vendors is to promote a specific technology, data
in their possession tends to overstate the performance capabilities
of a specific technology.
Thus, it is uncertain whether solvent extraction can in fact
rr.eet the proposed standards as EPA suggests, since solvent
O
O
O
-------
Docket Number: CS2P-00061
Commcnten American Petroleum Institute
Comment (continued):
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number 6 to 7
i -~
rl?f
a a rr M
o » .-
extraction is, as of yet, a relatively unproven technology.
Moreover, for the petroleum refining industry there is ng currently
available commercial1 capacity for this technology, nor is API
aware of any plans for development of corrmercial solvent extraction
capacity. There is little practical application of this technology
in the field due, in large part, to industry's reluctance to invest
in a new technology when the actual treatment standards are a
moving target .
n
Crt
to
71
o
o
UQ
cnj
D
-------
Docket Number
Coimnemer
Comment:
2-42
CS2P-00061
American Petroleum Institute
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number: 13
The Agency's reliance.on alternative non-combustion treatment
technologies is extremely problematic for several reasons. First,
. . ( . - ' - -
much of EPA's .own data does not supportthe proposed universal
treatment standards (at least for petroleum refining wastes).
Second^-as discussed above; EPA relies on a limited amount of data,
much of which-is bench or pilot scale data which has been
contributed, by vendors. Finally, there is currently insufficient
captive and non-existent commercial capacity to treat petroleum
refining wastes by solvent extraction or thermal
desorption/distillation.
s?~
' iS I
ff ||l
If *- n *"^
O o
c e
3 S
O
00
to
"hcj
O
O
-------
Docket Number CS2P-00074
Commenten Unocal Corporation
Comment:
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page S'wnber: 6 to 7
*
a'o. K- w
o w ^-
-8
EPA's reliance on thermal desorptipn and solvent extraction data, even if accurate, is
inappropriate. While high temperature thermal desportion. is projected by EPA to
achieve much lower levels than those used for K048-52. the technology has little or no
commercial capacity. The units built to date, notabry Chevron and Marathon, are
captive, on-srta units. Chevron reports that they are not presentry operating their unit.
The Agency appears to be'rerving on forced investment by generators rather than on
commercially available capacity. The LDR regulations are an inappropriate vehicte to
force generator investment in on-site treatment facilities. The appropriate vehicle is (he
on-going revisions to the definition of solid waate to provide incentives for recycling.
O
00
to-
71
O
O.
-------
2-4-J
2.4.5 High Temperature Metals Recovery (IITMR) Is Not Commercially Available
Summary:
Several commenlers argued thai high temperature' metals recovery is not available. One
commentet said that HTMR is too expensive for wastes generated by foundries (i.e., wastes with
high amounts of silica and low levels of low value metals) (AFS, 42-2). Another said that smelter
and refinery capacity for recovering metals from wastes from other industries may not be used if
RCRA regulatory impediments are too high (ASARCO, 44-2). A third commenter said that
treatment of metals using existing (available) technologies may not be able to achieve levels based.
on HTMR (which is not available) (USPCI. S9-I'J in 20). This same commenter asked EPA not
to adopt UTS for metals based on HTMR until HTMR is commercially available at substantial
capacity levels (USPCI. 89-29). A fourth commenter said that it operates the only
nickel/chromium high temperature metals recovery process in the U.S. (Inco, 90-1).
Response: . - "^ . .
EPA acknowledges this comment EPA notes, however, that HTMR capacity was not
included in its analysis of available capacity for Phase II wastes, since EPA believes that, in
general. HTMR will not be necessary to meet treatment standard? for underlying metal
constituents in Phase II wastes. Absent information lo the contrary,' EPA believes that other
treatment technologies such as stabilization can achieve the treatment standards for these wastes.,
If HTMR capacity is required but unavailable for a specific waste stream, the generator
may apply for extensions to the effective date of the treatment standards on a case-by-case basis
(RCRA Section 3004(h)(3)).- EPA may grant case-by-case extensions to applicants who can
demonstrate that: (1) no capacity currently exists anywhere in the U.S! to treat a specific waste,
and (2) a binding contractual commitment is in place to construct or otherwise provide alternative
capacity, but due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, such alternative capacity cannot
. reasonably be made available by the effective date (40 CFR 268.5). .
Comments:
The comments discussing the availability of HTMR are presented in the following order:
APS (42); ' .
ASARCO (44); ' . '
USPCI (89); and
Inco (90). ,
o-i w j
<* ??
a a ~ w
o w K
O n (t
C 91 en
o
71
o
o
UJ
-------
i
m
-Ml
2-45
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
:?5
3 l»
if
m
Docket Number. CS2P-00042 .' Page Number 2 .
Commenter American Foundrymen's Society, Inc.' , .
Comment:
High TevpcntBT* Metals RK0ftrr
Regardless of the waste streams involved in the present proposal, EPA «"EE*ra that high
temperatnre metals recovery (HTMR) is BDAT far waste streams with metals
contHmnatioa above 1%. At the present time, data from oar own survey at foundries
tnyy-ftt thai HTVfR k e*t**uiue)fVrp^tmwt for m.f^W.^ »Kf/J, ^^^fam Mflji imopntt df
O ^**
<0 g, C. 3
S "
. oi
g o. 2
a a
aS*'
|ff&
S
n g UDOtmtt O
sflica and low levels of tow value metal A vast majority of wastes seaerated by foundries
fit this description. Our data suggests that the present costs of HTMR would be two to foor
time* mora arpendve than prgn»nt management nt rh«r»/t»rkrie w»o^ by O* Vr ff
O
00
ud
on
-------
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
A"*»O> '
=r =r £*
?§.?
Docket Number GS2P-00044 Page Number: 2
Commenter: ASARCO Incorporated
Comment: ,. .
However, k b impocttn* to recognize the (figinrftoB under RCRA betweea E/TTi i
recyditf or reclunatioa activiriea tnd the primary procetnnj sad rebted acthritiei involving
sequential or multiple circuit metal recovery at Aazco's Bnetoen and refineries. TheUter
a^Hffry^ «f« »T* ?fT«nlvg M«m tBryri{r>y nr rfi«r^fHmg m«t>rJ«lT
Finally, Anrcp is in tbe unique powtioa of being able to recover, through its noo/errouj'
snaehinj tad refining procen, meal-beariag autemls from other sources or industries, but
may ba tinwiflBig to cto »o if RC|8A refntoory impedmvao ooqtinue to accompiny'alanf :
**lf3..
& p* - Q o
?-i-ff£W:
f> Q, 5 !." '
3C CD
(V
I fT &
O
00
C3
U3
cn
un
-------
2-47
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00089
USPGI, Inc.
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number: 19 to 20
Recycling Technologies Cw B« tb« Basis For BOAT Wben They Reflect the .
Best Available Technology; Tb* EPA Should Carefully Consider the
Rcmiflcatfonj of Basing Treatment Standards on HTMR Considering the
Technology ii Not Actually A Tillable For Most Wastes
In general. USPdsupjx
abUshing recycling technologies as BOAT when
those technologies represent the best and most protective r*"f"rm«'v'* based on
constiment levels in r*T"fwi This is consistent with USPCTs-adnerence to the
principle that the most protective aestmcnt is preferable to trextmeat that is less
protective. However USPQ does hive tome concerns about Mnihfi. '. ' '
ery (HTMR)9 ptuputed for metals in fisted wastes present this problem.
Although HTMR is a cooBnemtOy demonstrated recovery technology n\»v^u-
sts for cetiaui wastes, it is not coomexciafly availabie-at t ayai My levels that even
approach levels gcncmcd requiring treatment for metals. Based on 1984 TSDR data.
the EPA has rtrimirpd that approximaiety 300 million gallons of waste requiring
treatment for metals ate generated ammaUy.* Because HTMR is not cumrrrUriy
" DSPCI(ia intri{ru»d by the Asancy's emphaais on. the
marie3 o£ high .e«np«ratur« mccala recovery whil« disavowing th«
propriety p£ combuacion. HTML pfsuits exactly chose risk* of
conacicuenc oxidation and mssj.ona chat the Administrator claims
coapela a national r«vi«w of cooOuacion. Stumbling over itself
co disclaim th« important contributions of combustion to waste
minimization, its willingnvsa eo. embrace iflXR is, at lease,
ironic.
"~- S»a 55 F«d. Reg. 22,633.-634. The quoted approximation
waa calculated baaad on th« capacity determinations for required
altamativ* disposal capacity for 0004-11 wastes and F006 and
y a 5
5 a 3 **
|g|
«lffl
'H* O 5 *"*
t= J (0 lQ f^
n ** ?* »-i M
aarw
- o w ^*
. rt A n>
c ji* w
3 ** M
-------
Docket Number CS2P-00089
Commenter USPCI, Inc.
Comment (continued):
2-48 Av"Uable Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number: 19 to 20
. . - t .
. available ia comparison with requiied capacity, wastes will coaonoe to be treated in
currently availabk processes. For metal-bearing Dob-wastewaten. subilization u land
disposal facilities will continue to be atilized USPCI is concerned that treatment using
gTJCThifl technologies to .levels achievable bated on HTMR may not be possible in
some case*. In the alternative, USPCI believes that crcaanenTvia stabilization to the
lower levels win amply require facilities to add additional reagents 10 wastes and will
increase a/ter-freaaneat residual volumes disposed without a corresponding environ-
ment*] benefit
}
c 3 £
«Q o
2. S. i
a a <
_
- <"
o M K-
Sg-S
1S o
O
GO
-------
2-49
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment;
CS2P-00089
USPa, Inc.
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number 29
, , USPCI believes that
treatment by stabilizadon to meet the proposed UTS for metal* in hazardous wastes
will result in substantial addidonal disposed volume of treatment residues. USPCI
.. funfaer believes that the pressures placed on the nation's scarce stock of land disposal
capacity by increased disposal volume without a corresponding measurable increase in
actual environmental protection strikes the wrong balance between immobilization and
utilization in landfills. Thus USPQ respectfully requests that the EPA refrain from ,
adopting UPS for metals based on HTMR until such time as HTMR is commercially
available at substantial capacity levels. At such time as HTMR or other removal
technologies are available to treat wastes. USPCI would support the most stringent
treatment standard achievable and directly measurable by removal based on perfor-
mance data. '
*
?§«"
2 0-8
g e S
o
00
o
o
en
CO
-------
2-50
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment :.
CS2P-00090
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number 1
V
Sir
9/w ~
Inco United State*; toe. and The International Metals Reclamation Company '
Inc.. \ ' '
These Comments are filed- by Inco United States, Inc.
("Inco"), a wholly-owned subsidiary ot Inco Limited, a Canadian
corporation, and The International Ketals Reclamation Company,
Inc. ("IKMETCO"), an Inco subsidiary located in Ellvood city,
Pennsylvania, that operates the only nickel/chromiuji high
temperature metals recovery ('HTKR") proceee in the United
State*. '. '. ' ".. - -''.-'-
8-aS
||8
o " o
3JI
o
GO
to
o
C5
-------
2-51 '
2.4.6 Thermal Distillation and Thermal Desorption Are Not Commercially Available
Summary: -
Two commenters said that there is liulc or no commercial capacity, either currently or
anticipated.soon, to treat petroleum industry hazardous wastes by thermal desorption (Exxon, 41-4
and API. 61-8, 61-13). Another said tha't EPA's reliance on thermal desorption data is
inappropriate because the technology has little or no commercial capacity (Unocal, 74-6 to 7). .
Response: ,
Absentdata to the contrary, the commenters confirmed EPA's initialcapacity assessment,
for Phase II wastes which assigned the quantities of waste requiring off-site commercial capacity .
to combustion. EPA acknowledges the commenter's statement that off-site commercial thermal
desorption capacity is extremely limited or not available. The Agency did not-assign any wastes to
thermal desorption technologies in its capacity analysis. However, if any commercial treatment
capacity based on thermal desorption becomes'available, it may reduce the required capacity for '
combustion technologies. .
The Agency has determined that sufficient commercial capacity exists for organic TC
nonwastewaters, soil and debris contaminated with Phase II wastes, and other organic wastes
covered in this rule. Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II (Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of this analysis.
' ; '
Comments: ,
The comments discussing the availability of thermal distillation and thermal desorption are
presented in the following order
Enron (41);
API (61); and
Unocal (74):
^5 *
9 rr C!
ft o.... w.
o » «
O
on
K)
71
o
o
J.
CD
-------
.2-52
Available Commercial Treatment Capacity
Docket Number:
Conimenten
Comment:
CS2P-00041
Boron Company. US. A.
Page Number: 4
O §; 5"
^rT-S
c <« >Q
The Apency states that non-cc«nbusiicfVJ»chnolo8ie» such as solwnt extraction and
thermal discretion could meet the proposed universal treatment standards for
..petroleum indussy wastes. A review of tha trMtment data contained in tha docket for
this proposed ode suggests otherwise. An evaluation of these data shows that almost
natf of the Agency1 «plv«nt extraction data doinot meet the proposed sianoirdsfor
mostPAHa. Wnite th« Ag*ncy suggastbi that solvent extraction tachnotogiea could be
"adjustatf* to meet the proposed standarm, thar» Is no evidanca or documented data to
show that such adjusts are, in fact, technically feasible. Additionally, the soWtt
exfrmcttondata that EPAi» relyinfl onisfrbm bench or pilot scato tastinfl. This
introduce* significant uncertainHe* as to th« ability of this technoJogy to achieve tft»
proposad standartU tn commercial appficauons. In fact there ia current little or no
commercial or captiv* capacity to treat petroleum industry hazardous wastes by solvent
extraction and thermal dasorption today, or ts any anticjpaad in th* imnwdiatefutLre.....
O
I
O,
O
en
u
-------
2-53 AIUI)I« Commercial Treatment Capacity:
Docket Number
. Commenfer: ;.
Comment:
CS2P-00061
American Petroleum Institute
Page Number 8
For example, it is unclear whether , thermal
desorptioh/distillation units operating at the high temperatures
necessary, to achieve the proposed standards would experience
operational difficulties or have a reasonable life expectancy..
Once again, there has been only limited -application of this
technology in the field.4 Accordingly, ..API is concerned about the
long term ability of .this technology to meet "the proposed universal
treatment standards for listed petroleum- refining wastes.
=> "
c<»P:
£ rr P
c 5 n> uj "
3 « - "> 2
S'&
3 g
Sir
O
oo
to
O
O
CD
UD
-------
'£*
V*^*f
m'
2-54 Ava*l«ble Conuntrdal Treatment Capacity
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00061
.American Petroleum Institute
Page Number 13
'. The Agency's reliance on alternative non-combustion treatment
technologies is extremely problematic for'several reasons. First,
much of EPA's own data doea not support the proposed universal'
treatment standards (at least for petroleum 'refining wastes-).
Second,-as discussed above, EPA relies on a,_limited amount of data,
much -of .which is bench or pilot scale data which has 'been
contributed by vendors. Finally, there is currently insufficient
captive and non-existent commercial capacity to treat .petroleum
refining wastes . by solvent extraction or thermal
desorption/distillation. -
= sr 5
S?
gSB
list
siii-L
a S' . » O
O » rr >_
P'g'ff't
8 e-s
§«"
5 ^a
S- o n>
M
O
00
I
O
o
to
uu
-------
Docket Number: . CS2P-00074
Commenter: Unocal Corporation
Comment:
2-55 AvlslUable Commercial Treatment Capacity
Page Number 6 to 7
EPA's raliance on thermal desorption and solvent extraction data, eyen if accurate, is
inappropriate. White high temperature thermal desportion is projected by EPA to
, achieve much lower levels than those used tor K048-52, the technology has litt/e or no
commercial capacity. The units built to date, notably Chevron and Marathon, are
captive, on-srte units. Chevron reports that they are not presentfy operating their unit
The Agency appears to be rerying on forced investment by generator* rather than on
commercially available capacity, the LOR regulations are an inappropriate vehicle to
force generator investment in on-site treatment facilities. The appropriate vehicle is the
: on-going revisions to the definition of solid waste to provide incentives for recycling.
-e
C^ M [*:
2* & w 1
ft rr S?
»< 5a=s
iQ O S- ff O
.. M> ? 2 ^
a a >7 »
o » >-
o n o
c 9* oi '
is;-
3 rt1 t
"°l
O
CO
K)
O
O
CD
UQ
-JC
-------
rKKrtwv
2-56 .
2.4.7 Comments on Availability of Retorting Capacity
Summary;
One commenter stated that treatment capacity for mercury is available, at least for the
wastes generated by the commenter. This commenter' said it will spend over $7 million to
construct a retort to treat 80,000 to 100,000 poundj of mercury-containing waste annually from.
two of its facilities (PPG, 38-3).
1 . -
Response: .
EPA acknowledges this comment EPA notes, however, that retorting capacity was not
included in its analysis of available capacity for Phaic II wastes, since EPA does not believe that
any of these wastes will require retorting. (The characteristic mercury wastes in the high-mercury
subcategory should already be covered by the Third Third rule, since they would fail both the EP
and the TCLP for "mercury. > They have already been accounted for in EPAVcapacity analysis:)
Comments:
The PPG comment (38) discussing the availability of treatment capacity ibr liCrcury is ,
presented below. . .
:'"> S
a a f~ «.
' 2 * sr
Sg-S
a g w
">
o
c
o
-------
2-57
Available ConuKrdal Tn»tmemt Capacity
; l?s
1 _ 3 »
Docket Number
Comjnemen
Comment:
CS2P-00038 '
PPG Industries, Inc.
Page Number:, 3
Universal Trgatmgnf Standar^ White PPT> .n^w,,^ ^ -gncrpt Of a
universal treatment standard (UTS), PPG objects to many of the aspects
of the sondard in the proposal. First of til, PPO believes that the
treatment levels required by such a standard should be primarily risk-
based. dearly, this approach is permissible tm^rr §3004{m) of RCRA as
stated by EPA m the preamble to its first land ban rule. See 51 fi^'
Beg. 40578 (November 7, 1986). The standard should deviate from risk-
based levels only where die best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) is incapable of acmeving the risk-based levels. In such case, the
Additionally, PPG is deeply concerned dial the UTS
lower the treatment standards for ******" constituents, such as mercury,
chromium, and lead, without justification. PPO's principal concern is
with respect to ni^ii|iny»j'niu«im»g wastes generated from color alkali
operations. The current treatment standard for K106 and D009 requires
retorting for wastes attaining greater than 260 mg/lcg of mercury. K106
and D009 wastes win lower nercnrr cooceotradom, c^retcsniog
residues, most be stabilized to achieve a level ofO JO mg/I as measured
by the TCLP. These casting standards were based on technology that
ar«t tranifri r»t fm>tj tha
and unproven with respect to waste treatment. Nevertheless,
PPG and other members of the Chlorine Institute participated in a $3.1 '
million derauntti itioq project to develop retorting technology capable of
treating
ry containing chlor alkali wastes.
, Following the demonstration project, several chlor alkali producing
companies invested motions of dollars to construct retorts designed to
meet the BDAT standards adopted for K106 and D009 in the Third Third
Rule. PPG wfll spend over $7 million to construct a retort to treat
80,000-100,000 pounds of mercury-containing waste annually from two
of its facilities. The investment decisions of PPG and others were made
in reliance upon the standards adopted in the Third Third Rule.
O
o
O
-------
3. TOX1C1TY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
In response to the proposed rule, EPA received 15 comments relating to treatment
capacity for toxj'city characteristic wastes.' Comment! were received from: Laidlaw Environmental
Services Inc. (Laidlaw, 50); Seaview Thermal Systems (Scaview, 58); Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC. 60); Safety-KIeen Corp. (Safcty-KJccn. 64); FMC Corporation (FMC, 73);
General Electric Company (GE, 76); Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM, 77); Koppers
Industries, Inc. (Koppers, 83); USPCI, Inc. (USPCI, K9); Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association (PMA; 102); CyanoKEM Inc. (CyanoKEM. 127); Separation, and Recovery Systems.
Inc. (SRS, 138); Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide,. 142); Occidental Chemical
Corporation (OxyChem, 143); and ISK-Biotcch Corporation (ISK-Biotech, 146).
The commenters addressing treatment capacity for toxicity characteristic wastes include
hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste trealcn. and trade associations. One commenter
(HWTC (60)) believes that there is sufficient capacity for toncity characteristic wastes. Three
commenters (Union Carbide (142), OxyChem (143). and ISK-Biotech (146)) believe that capacity
variances are needed>for one or more types of wastes. Three commenters (Seaview (58); SRS
(138), and QxyChem (143)) provided information on required and available treatment capacity for
tenacity characteristic wastes. One commenter (ISK-Biotcch (146)) addressed logistical constraints.
associated with treatment of TC wastes. Seven commenters (Laidlaw (50), Safety-Kleen (64),
FMC (73), CWM (77), Koppers (83), PMA (102). and CyanoKEM (127)) addressed the
availability of treatment technologies for particular wastes. One commenter (QE (76)) stated that
EPA's estimate of the number of facilities that generate TC wastes is flawed.
Specifically, the commenters addressed eleven issues:
Sufficient Treatment Capacity Exists for High TOC D001 Wastes and D012-D043
Wastes; ' .
A Capacity Variance is Needed;
Information on Required and Available Treatment Capacity for TC Wastes;
^Packaging of Wastes for Incineration will be Time Consuming;
Treatment Capacity for Metals is Available;.
Treatment Capacity for Metals is not Available; . . . .
. Availability of Innovative Technologies for Treating Cyanide Wastes;
Quantities arid Management of Used Oil; and ' . .
Facilities Generating TC Wastes.
53-J1
s».
' a a ,
o B. ;
I » f? H i
c
3
n
.3
O
GO
CD
UO
-------
3-2
3.1 Sufficient Treatment Capacity Exists for High TOC D001 Wastes and D012-DQ43 Wastes
Summary: -.-.,
f In the proposed rule, EPA requested' comments and any additional data on its assessment
that, adequate treatment capacity exists for DOI8 through D043 nonwastewaters (58. FR 48141).
.One commenter stated that there is sufficient capacity to treat the high TOC D001 wastes, the
D012-D043 wastes and the newly listed Ku-aites (HWTC. 60-54).
Response:
-'-..'
; EPA acknowledges the capacity information provided by the commenter. In the capacity-
analysis for this final rule, EPA has confirmed thai sufficient treatment capacity exists for D018-
D043 nonwastewaters. EPA notes that it is granting a one-year capacity variance for high TOC
D001 and D012-D017 wastes that are deep well-injcclcd to allow facilities an appropriate lead
time to identify, segregate, and/or arrange.for disposal of these waste streams. Please refer to
EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Anafysis. for Ldrid Disposal Restrictions Phase II
(Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of these analyses.
Comments: .
The HWTC comment (60) discussing the availability of treatment- capacity for high TOC .
DOOl wastes and D012-D043 wastes is presented below;
' 10 O ° §"0
«M'n I **
C" a a £
''I "
2 rr 2.
o
ijO
to
>T|.
i
-------
3-3
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00060 Page Number: 54
Hazardous Waite Treatment Council
Wa SUOBSI& EPA'a determinatkxi that there is sufficient capacity to treat the high
TOG D001 wastes, the D012-43 wastes and the newty fisted K wastes. We^
, EPA's proposed capacity variance for soils contaminated with these wastes.
="?" '
o§;
*5l
?&£
g«»i
.a&sr!
8>!
n
00
K)
71
o
o
-------
3.2 A Capacity Variance Is Needed
Summary: .... '
Several comrnenters expressed the need for a capacity variance for TC wastes. One
commenter requested a blanket variance for all newly identified hazardous waste streams, to allow
for repackaging of wastes and for identifying treatment systems for wastes with high
concentrations of salt and halogenated compounds (ISK-Biotech, 146-1 to 2). .Another requested
a variance in consideration that EPA-was. lowering currently applicable treatment standards
(Union Carbide,-142-1 to 2). A third asked for a "reasonable" amount of time (2-3 years) for the
regulated community to come into compliance (OxyChem, 143-1). .
' > - . '
Response: ' ~
EPA recognizes that many generators of wastes covered under this rule will be faced with
logistical issues in complying with the new regulations,. Therefore, the Agency is extending the
effective date for compliance with treatment standards for all waste codes covered by today's rule
by granting a three-month national capacity variance. The Agency has determined that this is a
reasonable time period for addressing logistical issues related to compliance. (This extension does
not apply to mixed radioactive wastes, which arc granted a two-year national capacity variance.) -'
' '."--" ' -.
The Agency contacted several commercial incinerator operators and confirmed that at
least one commercial incinerator accepts wastes containing high concentrations of salt and
halogenated compounds. . . ' . .
EPA has determined that the standards for D018-D043 nonwastewaters can be met by .
existing treatment technologies, and that sufficient capacity exists for these wastes. Please refer to
EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase If
(Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of this analysis.
Comments:
;, *s
order:
The comments discussing the need for a capacity variance are presented in the following
ISK-Biotech (146);
Union Carbide (142); and
OxyChem (143).
c '.
?£E
». f*
P-&G-
* a
!-S
o u ^
||i
. - '* L
O
c/>
to
o
o
-------
3-5
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number:
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00146
ISK-Biotech
Page Number: I'to 2
a a -
o "
Q-
In part 268.38(a). EPA states that the land disposal restrictions for newly identified wastes
wfll take effect within 90 days of pubOcation of the final mle. This time period is not
. sufficient for our company to maintain compliance and effectively manage our waste
streams, to the treatment standards being proposed, for the following reasons:
1)
Our wast* streams (newty identified) are currenth/ package to the specifications
of the TSDF landfifl which manages our. wastes. The proposed treatment
standards v.-ould cause us to incinerate these wasfes. Incineration TSDFs often
require different packaging specifications which are specific to each waste stream.
Repackaging of our wastes to meet incineration criteria wilt be time consuming
and cause unnecessary exposure of hazardous constituents to our employees who
handle the waste. Other areas of concern regarding repackaging include:
Several of bur waste streams are molten wheo placed into appropriate
containers at the point of generation. Once cooled, these wastes would be
2) We generate several newfy identified hazardous waste streams which contain high
concentrations of saft and halpgenated compounds. We understand that these
wastes are difficult to incinerate due to slagging problems within the incinerator.
Also, high sodium content waste typically shortens the life of incinerator refractory
material. For thjs reason, incinerators do not readily accept these wastes.
Therefore, we feel that treatment capacity for these wastes does not exist and we
wiH need a minimum of two years to adequately define our situation and develop
means to manage this material..
In summary, we feel that treatment .capacity does not exist for some of our newly
identified hazardous waste streams and. some of our. waste streams would require
repackaging to meet incinerator packaging specifications. Therefore, we request that
EPA offer a two year capacity variance for all newty identified hazardous waste streams.
O
on
to
-------
.V6
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00142
Union Carbide
Page Number: 1 to 2
The proposed universal treatment standard concentration* are tower than
.current treatment Irnlta tor many feted wastes. This will create the need for
additional treatment of wastes which are presently treated to meet current
landbeni standards. In other words, these wastes alreadymeet 3004(m)
treatment requiremehts. yet would need additional treatment to arbitrarily lower
levels. -. . .' ' ' .-.....
Example: A manufacturing plant partially owned by Union Carbide
generates eight tons per day of dewatered wastewater treatment sludge .
whfchls landfiDed in an on-site MTR tarxtfO. The sludge is derived from
wastewaters classified as F005 and F039, and Is. therefore subject to the
corresponding landban treatment standards. The plant has implemented
a series of source reduction procedures and projects which maintaio
toluene concentrations below the current 28 mgAg landban Imit in the
dewatered sludge.
Historical data indicate that the toluene concentration in the dewatared
sludge is between 10 mg/Jcg(trie proposed new UTS standard) and 28
mg/kg (the current standard) one fourth of the time. Thus, approximatefy
730 tons/year of sludge would need addWonaJ treatment of an as yet
undetermined type. ; .
It is unDcely thataddWonal source reductions coukl meet the new limit,
other than by fundamental and substantial process changes. At a
minimum, new storage facWes would be needed with additional biological
or thermaJ treatment needed, tt indneration is used, total added costs
would be on the order of $1 milion/year.
Ironically, EPA changed the F005 standard very recently (August 19.1992
Federal Register). EPA shouH use the FQ01 F005 concentrations for the
universal standard.
tt is dearly arbitrary for EPA to reduce existing landban treatment standards.
particularly when both the new and old standards are based on the same
technology. At a time when EPA seeks to reduce the amount of waste
incinerated, EPA wlO force the incineration of wastes which already meet ,
3004{m). rnlnimize tnTeaT; levels established in previous rutemaJdngs. EPA
should not reduce current landban treatment levels without 3004{m) based
justification that ^PA has yet to provide.
x
Any lowering of currently applicable treatment standards, if justified, should be'
accompanied by a two year national capacity variance.
&2. 3*
S." I
lQ O rr 5"
b » " ro '
S * f? M- '
a a r w
o u i
O Q^ &
3C 01
. tv
O
on
o
o.
UD
op
ru
-------
3-7
Capacity for TC Wastes
" "T"
Docket Number
Commenler:
Comment:
CS2P-00143 Page Number 1
Qxycbem (Occidental Chemical Corporation)
n
a a [
Of pwfejiv ocacam am m^y modHictifcra to ThH Third
madavltactiv*. OxyOxm tpart ppradmiMy M matoo to comply »ah LDR Mqrirwnehti
tofteM»turyC«8Chkx-Ak«lp*irtiduhn8l981«nd1W2. Nov.««tM anto o« a pen.
the tKhnotogy-taMd mimb«n would b« kMmd ftem 0^ mg/l to 0.000 mgA tor several of
KsMMi<
n ) .highly umMionible to require Indurty to imet new «tmd«rdi very two yean. Thata
opaclaly true tinea irmriaK to 0.009 mgfl it not cupportad by any tr* to mk to bunon
he*Rh or ttw environment If the numbers are to be lowered again, a mimniHe amount ol
time (2-3 years).muet be aBowed to come into oompiianca.
n
C/3
o
o
cm
us
CQ
Uj
-------
3.3 Information on Required and Available Treatment Capacity for TC Wastes
Summary: . .'
. Several commenters provided information on required and available treatment 'capacity for
TC wastes. One commenter said that the technology known as HT-6 has demonstrated the ability
to significantly treat pemachlorophenol (D037) and other wastes (Seaview, 58-6). A second
commenter estimates that 7,500 tons per year of w;istcwalcr treatment sludges, soils, and other
wastes will be impacted, with a minimum incremental cost increase of 6 million dollars per year;
this commenter provided. a table of data in uppott of this conclusion (OxyChem, 143-2 and 143
AtLA-1). A third commenter said that dcchloriri.iicd oil from Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
Process (BCD) can be used for energy recovery, in a cement Kiln. (SRS, 138-1).
Response: '
EPA acknowledges the information on required and available capacity provided by the
commenters. Where commenters provided verifiable dala on the quantities of wastes they .
generate or manage, EPA has taken these, dji'a into account in its capacity analysis for the finaj
rule. _
In 'its capacity analysis, EPA assigned all TC organic nonwastewaters to combustion.
Please, refer to EPA's1 Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase II (Final Rule) for a description of this analysis. However, EPA does not .
preclude the use of other treatment technologies, inlcuding innovative .technologies, if they can
meet the treatment standards for these wastes. Any commercial treatment capacity. that is based '
on innovative technologies and that may. become available will reduce the required capacity for
off-site commercial combustion. " . ' ..'':''
Comments:
The comments providing information on required and available capacity for TC wastes arc
presented in the following order: , " ' '
Seaview (58); .
OxyChem (143); and -.'.-.
SRS (138). .
Q, Qi > W
o w -
o n n>
c 9* 01
O.
C/3
.
I
O
o
UQ
j
CD
-------
3-9
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number CS2P-00058 . Page Numben 6
Commenter: Seavicw Thermal Syitem*
Comment: .
The EPA i* requesting additional information regarding the
capabilities of innovative technologies. As noted in comment
-Number 1, above, the HT-6 has demonstrated th* .ability to
significantly treat wastes and soils. This ability is "matrix-
independent" arid is .achieved irrespective' of whether or not the
.waste is homogeneous or heterogeneous. .Additionally, the HT-6
process is recognized by tbe hazardou* va«te industry to be an
extreaely well operated and well designed treatment process.
i W "*
3 to
y|&l
S-M- 3 a a.
va o ?, g-o
|s?5s
iaf»"
o w >-
O rt A
= & P
'isa
». ff S
O
on
bo
o
o
-------
3-10
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00143 Page Number: 2 and Alt A-l
Oxychem (Occidental Chemical Corporation) . .
> 255-
. e£E
. S"l»l
H; r» A iO '
3 -r ^- < '
S <» t? M.. I
o. a (- <
. o " i
S 3-.S
3C* {/I
(p
II. Coatlmnaet - '
Table 1 ists our factties and roubn*
III.
wated waste* which Ml be impacted by this rule.
OxyChem estimates 7500 T7yr of wastes wi tw Impacted wMi a minimum ncremental cost
increase of S8.000,000ryr. These eifiniata /band on the only currently readily available
technology of incirwritjon: This analysis assume* that characteristic metal wastes and CWA
v wastewataf treatment tystenw are not covered by thtoruto, " -
Tabto 2 (A-O) ist» impacts on foraca*ted remedMfcn project of $38.700.000 far 72.000
tons of «o* to meet Option 2 of th« toi propoul (lOx .UTS). « Jhi prapon* tad been in
effect for the oat two yean. Table 2 (E-G) Indicate* coats woUU hm* mcreased by
S52.800.000 for 138.000 tons, to accomptoh In* tame remediatfon project Smfar
substantial cost Impacts are predictsd tor future (as yet undefined) correctiv« action and
Superfund remedlations. . .' ' ' '>'' .'. ' . ;
Rnvinw . . :.
OxyCnem supports the concept of urmarsal treatment standards (LTTS). However, it is
imperative that UTS be broadly appfcrable to include dMcutt-to-lreat wastes. Furthermore,
the BOAT database should refy on statMcaBy significant ful scale treatment systems and
' never oh mWrhal deta tets far on* wasts type or lab or bench data. OxyCnem believes
incineration must play an nuiuta^rote in caste manjoemant In the future. To be as finable
as posstte. alternative technologies (to ixmorabon) should be encouraged. If properly
designed and operaieJ. when these technologies are used, extensive analytical data to
prove compfiance should not be necessary. , . -
Table 3 includes performance data tor our fuMcaJe wastewatar treatment tfudge
stabiliratlon operation in North Caroftna.' Based, on performance over tost year and three
quarters of Ms yeer, the proposed UTS tovel for chromium is being set tab tow. Ourdata
support a technology-based TCLP number of. 0.56 rng/l QA/QC liilurnaUon is enclosed.
along wtti TCLP metals analyses. UTS levels should be broadly appBcabte and based on
common technologies in use. High Temperature M«tals Recovery (HTMR) is only
technicaly and economtaaly appfcable to some concentrated <
Table 4 indudes perfo
datakt
Cel Chtor-AflaS pttnt tor
operating upgraded retort
i one of our retort operations-ln a southern Mercury
: sludge. K106. OxyCnem has been
ttfans on this and other Ho-beering wastes since the existing
p
technology-based LDff was effective in May. 1992. Ortsrrttme*. It » necessary to reprocess
batches which do not meetthe current LOR of 0.2 mo/I. In addition, we are just beginning to
eliminate backlogs which occurred due to start-up issues. For example. Table 5 illustrates
that 3^% of .the batches in another Texas Mercury Cell Chtor-ABcaJi facility had to be
reprocessed. Lowering the level to 0.000 mo/1 will create capacity constiaints tor these
relatfrely new recovery operations. ' .
O
oo
bo
71
o
o
CD
CO
cn
-------
3-11
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number CS2P-00143 Page Number 2 and Att A-1
Commenter ' .Oxychem (Occidental Chemical Corporation) ' ,
Comment (continued):
TABLE 1
OuMKr
Cortfrr
in
-200
mm
um
it
-u
0011
0011
BICDO ' UMMlM
in.no
tn.no
ran
Kie»
. (40.000
tio.eoo
7t
n
DCO» HJC
OCCT
!>«.*«
43-« PVCi
ee« u»«o
ooa VCM.P*
1100.000
ti.ao
PVC»
4.000
I
\aa
U210
K871
D0»
0040
: TCI
PC*
034
rce
t4.ooo.on.
TOTAJ. 74«T
0»««« Mi 1 (I0> UTB kt
P!
c 5 p
r!5""
~< 3 °-
3
iQ O
o (-1 rt»
O
on-
to
o
o
-------
3-12
Capacity for TC Wastes
fig
Ml
.Docket Number
Cpmmenten
Comment:
CS2P-00138 . Page Numberl
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
g "
SRS is currently in the final sages of ' procuring a lkm»e from EPA for the Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition (BCD) Process to dechlorinaie dioxins and fuiran wastes. PCB's. abd
thermally sensitive haiocmfaon*. Decfalonnuion using EPA's patented cbuui&ujr is
achkvtd using SRS' SAREX Procea to Sat desocb and deconyoae halocarfeona in a
solids reactor, followed by condensing the desortxd stream for subsequent final
dechlorinatioo in a liquid reactor. This technology meets the definition of recycling as the
AffMrfjr\*t»A nil ftnm fhic piTk'jM ran h> tifi1ir»H fqr «K>ygy fTyovi-fy jq-^ V^rTV P* kiliL
SRS recently cnmplrtiid an EPA SITE demonstratioo test using the BCD Process at the
Koppers Superfund Site in Momsville. NC Preliminary laboratory data results indicated
that the levels achieved in the SITE demommtioo would r*** the limits pmpoted in this
. mienudrnig. SRS itquesu that EPA rcconsidff its position in not allowing an inaovative '
technology such as the BCD Process from being utilized for PQ24 and other wastes
containing dioxins and furans. therefore further supporting the agency's desire to promote
nonrxunhntion technologies which also lead to bfaefirial reuse of the recovered materials.
o
C/3
-------
3-13
3.4 . Packaging of Wastes for Incineration Will He Time Consuming -,
Summary:
, One .commenter said that. the proposed standards would require incineration of waste
streams, and that repackaging newly identified wastes for incineration as opposed to landfilling
will be time consuming and unnecessarily expose employees (ISK-Biotech, 146-1 to 2).
Response: ' , \ .
. EPA recognizes that many generators of wastes covered under this rule will be faced with
logistical issues in complying with the new regulations. Therefore, the Agency is extending the
effective date for compliance with treatment standards for all waste codes covered by' today's rule
by granting a three-month national capacity variance. The Agency has determined that this is a
reasonable time period for addressing logistical issues related to compliance. (This extension does.
not apply to mixed radioactive wastes, which are- granted a two-year national capacity variance.)
Comments: , . , ' '
. .The ISK-Biotech comment (146) discussing packaging of wastes for incineration is
presented below. . ;. ' : _
Note: Cut and paste comment sections will follow ' . - ;
>
c 5 E
?|ff|
O
CO-
K)
o
o
UO
GO
UQ
-------
3-14
Capacity for TC Wastes
.Q ...
^ rr C;
'
Docket Number
Cbnunenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00146
ISK-Biotech
Page Dumber: 1 to 2
In part 263.38{a), EPA states that the land disposal restrictions for newly Identified wastes
will take effect within 90 days of pubfication of the final rule. This time period is not
sufficient for our company to maintain compliance and effectively manage our waste
streams, to the treatment standards being proposed, for the following reasons:
1) Our waste streams (newty identified} are currently package to Ore specift&aUcos
of the TSDF landfil'which manages bur wastes. The proposed treatment
standards would cause us to incinerate these wastes. Incineration TSOPs often
require different packaging specifications which are specific to each waste stream.
Repackaging of our wastes to meet Incineration criteria wilt be time consuming
, and cause unnecessary exposure of hazardous constituents to our employees who
handle the waste. Other areas of concern regarding repackaging include:
Several of our waste steams are molten whefl placed into appropriate
containers at the point of generation. Once cooled, these wastes *rx«be
dtffcumf not ImpotsiMe to repectoge for Indnerattoa
a ° ||°
n *"* **
a a >j- "
' § o-S"
g C 01
(0 O
o
00
to
71
o
.o
It is our understanding of the regulations regarding treatment that removing
waste from one container and placing it in an' other container could be
considered treatment, requiring a RCRA permit This permit would, in itself
require more than 90 days to obtain. :
uo
UQ
-------
3-15
.3.5 Comments of Availability of Treatment Technologies for Specific Wastes
As part of its capacity analysis. EPA examined the availability of treatment technologies
for specific wastes. This section presents comments on ihis issue.
3.5.1 Treatment Capacity for Metals Is Not Available
Summary: .
Several commenters stated that treatment cnpacity for metals is not available. One said
that UTSs for. metals do not take into account the lack of feasible treatment technologies (PMA,
102-5). . The same commenter said that there a at moil one facility in the country that will treat
incinerator ash to meet the UTS metal treatment Icvcli (PMA, 102-6). Another said that there is
no available method for HTMR of F035 wood preserving wastes, and stabilization to proposed
UTS levels may not be possible, especially for chrome (Koppcrs, 83-4). A third said that any
standard for mercury based on retorting is not supportable because there is insufficient retorting
capacity (Laidlaw, 50-5). A fourth commenter requeued that EPA include a temporary variance
for the metal constituents, to allow time to develop "recipes" for stabilization (FMC, ,73-4).
Response: \ ,
Metal wastes are not newly regulated under today's rule. For metals that were regulated
under a prior, rulemaking, EPA does not have the authority to grant a capacity variance under this
rulemaking. To the extent that wastes covered in this rule contain metal underlying constituents,
sufficient stabilization capacity exists to handle metal constituents in the ash residuals after '
combustion. :
EPA recognizes that many generators of wastes covered under this rule will be faced with
logistical issues in complying with the new regulations. Therefore, the Agency is extending the
effective date for compliance with treatment standards for all waste codes covered by today's rule
by granting a three-month national capacity variance. The Agency has determined that this is a
reasonable time period for addressing logistical issues rclntcd to compliance. (This extension does
not apply to mixed radioactive wastes, which are granted a two-year national capacity variance.)
If the UTS are is not appropriate for a waste stream, 40 CFR 268.44 allow the waste
generator to pursue a variance from the treatment standards. In addition, facilities generating
wastes may apply for extensions on a case-by-casc b.-uis for specific wastes (RCRA Section
3004(h)(3)). EPA may grant case-by-case extensions lo applicants who can demonstrate that: (1)
no capacity currently exists anywhere in the U_S. to (rent a specific waste, and (2) a binding
contractual commitment is in place to construct or otherwise. provide alternative capacity, but due
to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be
made available by the effective date. (40 CFR 268J). ' . ' -. -
One of the above commenters generates wastes from mineral processing wastes and
another generated wood preserving wastes. EPA notes that mineral processing wastes and the
wood preserving waste F035 are not covered by this rule, but will be addressed in a future LDR
rulemaking.. - .
' -o ~
c Ei
rf
-x sg a
.O S B
no,(r-o>
M
3 rr »
O
to
71
O
O
-------
3-16
Comment]:
The comments providing evidence that treatment capacity for metals is not available are
presented in the following order:
PMA(102);
Koppers (83);
Laidlaw (50); and .
FMC(73).
m
Isi
3 o s
' c.S°
iSfiS-
l«^-iS
c e 2
a 5 *
O
-------
3-17
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00102 Page Number: 5
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
EPA's proposed universal treatment levels for metals In
nonwastewaters do not take Into account the lack of feasible
'treatment technology to achieve these low levels for many
characteristic wastes affected by the rule.
By setting .universal .treatment standards at the lowest
treatment levels for hazardous constituents currently listed in
40 CFR Part: 208 the agency Imposes an unreasonable and
unnecessary burden on many low.volume hazardous waste .
generators, for example, ash produced from the Incineration of
non-hazardous solid waste (I.e.. garbage and refuse) may easily
contain over 9 mg/L lead- In the TCLP extract egualng the ash to
become a characteristic hazardous waste. Under the.proposed
rule, the ash must now comply with the new universal treatment
standard for lead of 0.37 mg/L before land disposal. In contrast;
the LOR,treatment standard for this waste Is currently set at. '
the TC love I or 9 mg/L. What data. If any. EPA reviewed before
proposing to reduce the standard for these waste's one order of
magnitude Is not clear from the preamble, but we question the '
feasibility of stabilizing this type of metal waste stream to meet
EPA's proposed treatment levels.
a a c- «
o " >
1 n *
c cZ
3 S "
5 rr a
o
00
O
O
CD
ULJ
-------
3-18
Capacity for TC Wastes
rr 3" !
fs;
SSI
Docket Number:
. Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-OOI02 Page Number: 6
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer! Association
S-rr-fS o
» * "2-W
a a >r S
o " »j
o »
c 9- n
a £ 01
» " o
It Is also not clear whether or hot EPA has considered If
treatment la actually .available for this type of low volume/low
metal concentration waste stream. For example, while generators
of,a wastewater treatment sludge from production of chrome
pigments (KOO2) may be able to meet a LDR treatment level of 0.37
mg/L for lead because of the high metal concentrations ana/or
large volumes of waste. EPA must verify that feasible treatment
options that can achieve these extremely low levels are also
available to parties thai generate only smalt volumes of low
concentration metal characteristic waste, such-aa /nclnerator
ash. and depend upon off-site treatment facilities for this
service, particularly since, as the agency has noted, treatment
options-for metals are limited. Our research indicates that
there may b* at the most one facility in the country that~wTn
.treat. Incinerator ash to meet EPA's proposed metal" treatment
levels. .
O
00
K>
71
o
o
-------
3-19
Capacity for TC Wastes
?f?
» S .S
jfli
2.'?^
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00083
Koppers Industrie*
Page Number: 4
3 S7 *
a o Sg-o
egfig
53 »J A *'
I » * H w
a a y- w
. o u K- .
O 'n (ft
3 (p'
fD O
3 PT S" .
?03S wood preserving wastes contain a mixture of copper, chrome,
.and arsenic compounds in a matrix of organic wood matter and
resins, dirt, and water. There is no available method Cor high
'temperature metals recovery for this waste and stabilization to the
proposed level may not be reliably possible, especially for cbroow.
Since these, levels are not risk justified, all metals levels should
be increased to at least the TCLP characteristic levels.
Considering that the waste will still be regulated hazardous waste,
levels 10 to 100 times higher than TCLP should be considered for
.the UTS land disposal restrictions. ~
O
&o
o
o
-------
3-20
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number
Commemer:
Comment:
CS2P-0050 Page Number: 5
LaidJaw Eoviromnenul Service*. Inc.
Withregcni to matnumg mrinmtmn readna from troting P065 aad ₯092 orgtao-
mercoiy wutes, Laidkw ooold *op9Crt the propped irqtiiruitat Oat the
residue meet the sauted for D009 aasarj to Jac» a it is caaccatntlaa Zwsed tad
not tecfanology based. ] Any ttindard bued oo retorting a not * soppoitable position
because there is simply oat enough accepcsbk rctoctinf capacity in die country to maraje
; waste stream, let alone the potential quantity of
tt should be known that iltfaoofh ti>ere
of firms conrtnctint retoninj, few have been found are acceptable to the genentan of
the waste when fKton »cn as future Sqwfund or other ouiective action liability are
considered.
Sg-c
ill
It!l,
.« « ° £- f
a a K- w
o » i-
'&
O
oo
I
O
o
-------
3-21
Capacity for TC Wastes
,
c 5 u
g: E» !
Docket Number
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00073
FMC Corporation
Page Number 4
FMC requests that EPA Include a temporary variance for the
metal constituents.~"'' ' '.
Pursuant to HSNA, new land di«poial restriction* are
applicable on the date/of promulgation unless a capacity
variance is granted. For the aetal.constituents'whose BOAT
is generally based upon stabilization (a'non-destructive
technology), adequate tiae mist be included to develop
"recipet" Cor the treatment of these wastes. Host large
generators (like r«C) and treaters will attempt to develop
the necessary recipes for-their individual wastes based upon
the proposed UTS. EPA, however, oust ensure that all
generators and troaters have adequate tine to develop the
necessary treatment for each waste stream. Therefore, FMC
requests that EPA include a temporary (180 day) variance.to
allow for the development ofnew or. revised treatment
recipes for wastes containing metal constituents requiring
treatment.
o
oo
to
71
o
o
-------
' ''''." .1-22 '
3.5.2 Availability of Innovative Technologies for Treating Cyanide Wastes
. Summary: . .
EPA solicited comments on requiring the use of incineration, alkaline chlorination,
electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline chlorination, or wet air oxidation to treat cyanide
wastes. EPA solicited comments that demonstrate how these chemical oxidation technologies can
destroy iron-cyanide complex wastes and not just shift.iron-cyanide complexes from one medium .
to another (58 FR 48106). Two comments were received on this issue. One commenter said that
inorganic cyanide wastes are amenable to treatment by alkaline chlorination, wet air oxidation,
and various, other non-combustion technologies, and more than enough capacity exists
(CyanoKEM, 127-9). Another said that oxidation technology has not successfully treated waste '
streams containing iron^cyanide complexes (CWM, 77-20).
, Response: . .-'.'
In the final rule, EPA established concentration-based standards for cyanide wastes, rather
than metbod-of-treatment standards. EPA believes that noncombustion technologies that destroy
cyanides are best employed for the purposes of complying with these treatment standards, and
encourages the use of innovative technologic!. However, EPA does" not preclude the use of any
technology that can meet the treatment standards. EPA docs not anticipate any changes in the
current demand or supply of off-site commercial treatment capacity as a result of this rule.
Comments:
- The comments discussing the availability of treatment capacity for cyanide wastes are
presented in the following order '''..'
CyanoKEM (127); and
-..- CWM(77).
' I'J
r
Is'g.
-------
3-23
Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number CS2P-00127
. Commenter: CyanoKem Inc.
Comment:
Page Number V-'
» S.
P-S'ff.i
.
-'
EPA ham stated an intent to encourage th* use of~"innovative
alternative" technologies other th&n incineration.
Inorgsmic cynnida wastes ar« aa«nnbl« to traataent by
alkalin* cblorination, vat air oxidation and various othar :
non-coabustion oxidative technologies. The capacity demand
for cyanide vast* va* based totally on non-combustion
technologies in the Second and Third Third LOR rule, and.
more than.adaguata capacity exists. Less cyanides' ar« uoed
today than when the second and third thirds rules were
promulgated in 1989 and 1990. Therefor*, less vast* i»
generated and'the demand for inorganic cyanide treatnent is
lover. Considering the negative environmental impact of
feeding inorganic aetal bearing vast* to incinerators., and
BIFs, and the recent technological requirements of the
national combustion strategy, EPA sust mandate th* us* of
a%-ailable alkaline chlorination and vet air oxidation
capacity for, .inorganic cyanide vasts, and not. allov the use
of incineration or BIF technologies. Such technologies do
not destroy the high s«tals content found in inorganic
cyanide vaste streams such as F007, F006, FO09, DO03, etc.
These metals, ar* emitted in the of f-gas.es fro* such
combustion devices. In contrast, »*tals are treated
properly in BOAT alkaline chlorination/ stabilization
processes.
o
GO
to
7?
o
o
UQ
-------
3-24
.Capacity for TC Wastes
Docket Number
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P;00077 Page Number 20
Chemical Waite Management, Inc.
CWM has bad difficulty using oxidation tecfaootogia to treat specific waste streams containing iron-
cyanide complexes such as leachata. Alkalln* cUorinatioo has been found in tome instances to actually
increase me amount of cyanide available for qoaatiudon. Attempts to use UV/HydrOgen peroxide
oxidation have also proven to be «ns«xeufal. T*«BM of oxidation technologies may be succen&l for
certain types of wastes, but not fat ottien. For 6w reaoos, CWM urga the Agency to promuigate
perfbnnancc-base treatment standard* for cytnidfwaste* aits final roJ«. PerfcrnuBceRzadanii promote
innovative scientific solutions for treating wane* and are needed to encourage farther solution* ftr
treating cyanid«-*»armg wntei. "
Sf 5
< § »
1-si
«~ <^»-
a O- !T *
o "> >-
2 Q-S
§!*
O
C^3
to
O
O
CD
-------
3-25
3.5.3 Qoantltles and Management of Used Oil
Summary: . - ' , . .
EPA requested comments on the quantities and management of the used oil that exhibits
the toxicity characteristic and that is subject to the LDRs (5K FR 48141). : The Agency received
one comment on this issue. This commemer said that it collected over 1 13 million gallons of used
oil for re-refining in 1992 (Safety-Kleen. 64-5).
Response:
EPA acknowledges this comment, and notes lhal the comment supports the Agency's
understanding that most used oil is reused as fuel or rc-rcfincd and is not subject to the LDRs.
Therefore, used oil was not included in the required capacity analysis.
Comments:
The Safety-Kleen comment (64) discussing used oil that exhibits the toxicity characteristic
is presented below.
. n. i to
O M *
rr Q.
O
on
to
O
O
-------
3-26
Capacity for TC Wutes
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00064
Safety-Kleen Corporation
Page Number: 5
-
-------
3-27
3.6 Comments of Facilities Generating TC Wastes
Summary: .
One commenter stated that EPA's estimate of the number of facilities that generate
organic TC wastes is flawed, and ignores facilities that generate TC wastes, especially facilities
that are conducting remedial actions (GE. 76-32 to 33).
. Response: . , . '
i
In the spring of 1992, EPA conducted a census of 139 facilities that disposed of newly
identified TC organic wastes in land disposal units or underground injection wells, since these
waste quantities will require alternative commercially available treatment capacity prior to land
disposal upon promulgation of the LDRs for these wastes. EPA did not attempt to identify all
generators of TC wastes. '
Not all of the sources of newly identified TC organic waste generation potentially
requiring alternative commercial treatment, however, were captured by the TC survey. The two '
most obvious sources of potential additional TC organic waste generation are corrective action
activities and Superfund site clean-ups. In spite of these limitations, EPA believes that the TC
Survey captured most of the TC organic waste generation due to corrective action and requiring
alternative treatment due to the LDRs. EPA believes these wastes would be included in the
quantity of TC organic wastes reported as land.disposed by the commercial facilities. The
commercial facilities would be the ultimate receivers for.most of these wastes, because if the
corrective action wastes are subject to the LDRs, generators of these wastes would need to-obtain
a RCRA permit to treat these wastes on-site. These permitting requirements could discourage
generators from treating their wastes on-site unless their corrective action would span several
years..
Comments:
o
-a
a a >
o
GO
o
o
below.
The GE comment (76) discussing facilities that generate organic TC wastes is presented
CD
Uj
-------
.V2S
Docket Number
Cominenten
Comment:
CS2P-00076
General Electric
Capacity for TC Wastes
Page Number 32 to 33
EPA's estimate of the number of facilities which could generate organic TC
hazardous soil (96) is also flawed. Pint. It suffers from the same error noted above: it
underestimates the number of organic TC nonwastewater generator*. Second, it completely
ignores another source of organic TC wastes which could spill onto soils: facilities which
manage organic TC wastewaters. These facUides, EPA notes, represent the great bulk of th«
organic TC waste generators. Third, EPA's, estimate.completely ignores historically .
contaminated soils, which are generated during remedial actions under the Comprehend?*
Earlronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and RCRA Corrective Actto»i,
aad during State-supervised and vohiatary rUanupi, . .
*te*Md,
i^ w EPA't RJA. tram el tk* orpak TC mm ******** m nuagBi oK^m *t oonnodal
S«*RlAat2-6. Appmndy, woo organic TC wuttwtttn m mvug«d to Oxm Vlatt
N
Act lyttsn* tnd in not fubjtct to DM projpoxd ml*.
VGE natm Oat thk otiauw i> tiyiiacantij MMOCT thu tte 850^00 »o 1 J lalfflo* iMtrk «oo» c
O n l» '
C B- W
g C u,
. S <» o
O
71
"o
o
CD I
CD |
-------
3-29
Docket Number CS2P-OOOT76
Commenter General Electric
Comment: (continued)
Capacity for TC Wastes
Page Number: 32 to 33
To begin. EPA's estimate that only 96 facilities generate the organic TC wastes
that will'be land disposed Is based on a faulty assumption and b inconsistent with EPA's
estimate of gmrratnri appearing in the Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") to the Toxidry
Characteristic Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. 11,79$,11350 (March 29,1990). EPA cites the "Survey of
FadUttes.that Land Dlspoac Newly Identified Organic TC Wastes" as the source of
information about the number of generators of the organic TC wastes. As b evident froa'
the RIA accompanying the proposed rule, however, this survey examined land disposal
facilities (Le. those that place the treated waste into land disposal units) not waste
generating facilities. If 96 facilities land dispose of these wastes, one can fairly assume that a
larger number of radlirlfs generate the wastes.2* Indeed, When one examines the volume of
organic TC nonwastewaieh EPA projects is generated each year (190,000 tons),27 tt 'a clear
that many more than 96 facilities must generate organic TC wastes. Furthermore, EPA's
RIA to * TC Rule estimated that ISJX30 and 17,000 generators would be affected by the TC
£3«
|2f
rt r^ ft
U3 0^5"°
fiPI
p-'&ffi
O ^v <*
°R
O
on
to
^Tj
I
O
o
'
un
-------
4. OTHER NEWLY LISTED WASTES
One commenler, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (Am. Coke & Coal,
31). addressed the treatment capacity for seven coke process wastes.
4.1 . Treatment Capacity for Coke Process Wastes Is Available
Summary: . ,
One commenter said that treatment capacity for seven coke process materials recently
listed as hazardous waste is likely to be available for those infrequent cases in which recycling is
inappropriate (Am. Coke &.Coal. 31-3).
Response: .
EPA acknowledges this comment, and notes that the comment supports the Agency's-
determination that sufficient treatment capacity exists for coke byproduct wastes. Please refer to
EPA's Background Document for the Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II
(Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of this analysis.
Comment: ' - ' .
The Am. Coke & Coal comment (31) addressing treatment capacity for coke process
wastes is presented below: . . . '-.
JI?
Q K.
3 ^*
71
o
CD
CD
an
-------
TtZatment Capacity for Other Newly Listed Wastes
Docket Number:
Commenten
Comment
CS2P-00031 ' Page Number 3
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
ACCCI believes that .the standards EPA has proposed are
technically feasible and appropriate for these seven materials
He also concur that, treatment capacity should b« available for
those infrequent cases in which recycling is inappropriate and
the materials actually become "wastes."
=
n f v-
a a r ra
o w >-.
O r, rt
O
C/)
K)
O
O
CD
CD
J
-------
. .' ".- 5. MIXED RADIOACTIVE WASTES
. '' \ ' - ': ' ' ' - ' ' ' ;
... '.. Eight commenters addressed issue* related to the proposed LDRs for newly identified
RCRA hazardous wastes that are mixed with radioactive wastes. .Comments were received from:
.Department of Energy (DOE, 43 and 161);. Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric,
Institute, American Public Power Association, and the National .Rural Electric Cooperative
(USWAGet alM 55); Jersey Centrai Power & Lfght CJICP&L, 88); Hazardous Waste
Implementation Task Force of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO, 91); Westinghousc Electric Corporation (Westinghouse, 115); State of
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NV DEP, 131); State of New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (NY DEC. 144); and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC, 150). : '. - . ; . '.'" ' ':''.
... The commenters listed above-include government agencies, hazardous waste generators,
and trade'associations. Seven commenters (DOE (43); USWAG.et al. (55); JCP&L (88);
Westinghoiise (115); NY DEC (144); NRC (150); and DOE (161)) agree with EPA's proposal to
grant a capacity variance for mixed radioactive-organic TC wastes. Six commenters (DOE (43),
ASTSWMO (91), Westinghouse (115). NV DEP (131), NRC (150), and DOE (161)) expressed
concern that there willbe logistical problems in treating mixed radioactive wastes.
Specifically, commenters addressed (wp''issues: . .. -.
.'. ' '''' -..'.. EPA Should Grant the Proposed Two-Year National Capacity Variance for TC
Organic Mixed Radioactive Wastes; and .. . . ',-.
. « . Radioactive Compounds in Mixed Radioactive Wastes. Present Difficulties jn
Handling, Analysis, and Compliance Monitoring. . .
.
o S- 5" o
rr
.= o re .
o
.
o
:o
C3
CQ
-------
.':'.-.'.' . ''. '5-2'
5.1 EPA Should Grant the Proposed Two-Yenr Notional Capacity Variance for TC Organic
Mixed Radioactive Wastes ;. .
Summary: '. . , ' -. .'
In determining the-effectivc date of the proposed treatment standards, EPA evaluated the
required and available treatment capacity for various types of wastes. EPA considered radioactive
mixed wastes separately .because treatment of these wastes requires special consideration due to
the radioactive nature of these wastes.. For example, treatment technologies that are suitable for
nonradioactK-e hazardous wastes may be less suitable or unsuitable for radioactive mixed wastes.
In the proposed rule, EPA noted that sufficient alternative treatment capacity is not
available for these wastes, and proposed to grant a two-year national capacity variance.- Several
commchters addressed this issue, and all agreed with EPA.on the need for a variance.
Several commenters favored the two-year capacity variance (DOE, 43-54; US WAG et al.,
55-18; JCP&L, 88-8; Westinghousc, 115-24; NY DEC, 144-2; NRC, 150-2). One of these
. commenter* also asserted that thermal destruction to treat cyanide in nonwastewaters will not be
available for mixed radioactive wastes (DOE, 43-13). One cited a shortage of treatment capacity .
for all .mixed wastes (JCP&L, 88-8). One said the variance may provide "limited relief to
generators where treatment capacity u currently lacking (NRC, 150-2)'..' '
One commenter added that EPA should amend the actual regulatory language to make
clear that the.capacity, variance applies to these wastes (USWAG'et al., 55-18). Another
. commenter pointed out that the preamble indicates a variance is being proposed for mixed
wastcwaters and nonwastewaters, while the rule language only mentions nonwastewaters
(Westinghquse, 115-24).
One commenter requested a. trcatability variance. This commenter said that in the
absence of alternative standards based on specific treatment technologies, some problematic waste
matrices (e.g.. certain RMW-contaminatcd soil) will continue to require treatability variances
(DOE, 161-21), - " '-'" .'.'.I.'. ' ! - '
Response: . . .
In its capacity analysis, EPA has determined that adequate treatment capacity does not
exist for Phase II mixed radioactive wastes. Therefore, the Agency is granting a two-year national
capacity variance for Phase II mixed radioactive wastes.
EPA is aware of limitations in combustion capacity for wastes that are hard to treat
because of their, physical or chemical characteristics, generating wastes may apply for .extensions
on a casc-.by-case basis for-specific wastes (RCRA Section 3004(h)(3)). EPA may grant case-by-
'case extensions to applicants who cab demonstrate that: (1) no capacity currently exists anywhere
in the US. to treat a specific waste, arid (2) a binding contractual commitment is in place to
constructor otherwise provide alternative capacity, but due to circumstances beyond the
applicant's control, such'alternative capacity cannot reasonablybc made available by the effective
date (40 CFR 268.5); ' . .
3 ?
-
a a -.<»
' S"S-
' c c S
O
(X3
to
C3
-------
EPA is aware of limitations in irc.ilmem capacity for wastes that drc hard to treat because
of their physical or chemical characteristics. If the treatment standards established by this rule are
not appropriate for a specific waste st.-e.im. 40 CFR 268.44 allows the waste generator to pursue a
variance from the treatment standards. In addition, facilities generating these wastes may apply
for extensions on a casc-by-casc basis for. specific wastes (RCRA Section j004(h)(3)). EPA may
grant case-by-case, extensions to applicants who can demonstrate that: (1) no capacity currently
exists anywhere in the U.S. to treat a spcvific waste, and (2) a binding contractual commitment is
in place to construct or otherwise provide alternative capacity, but due to circumstances beyond
the applicant's control, such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the
effective date (40 CFR 268.5). ' ' '
The language of the rule has been revised to spec::'y that the two-year national capacity
variance for mixed wastes applies to both mixed wastewalers and mixed nonwastcw-aters.
Comments: .
The comments discussing the proposed capacity variance for TC organic mixed radioactive
wastes are presented in the following order:
DOE (43);
USWAG et al. (55);
JCP&L(88) . -
Westinghouse (115);
MY DEC (144);,
NRC(150); . .
- DOE (43); ' - : . ' : '
Westinghousc (115); and
DOE (161). ' ,
3 - 1 « °
^ »;?. CT
C. 0. "
a '-
..fM
o
GO
to
o
o
-------
5-4
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number. CS2P-00043
Commenter: U.S. Department of Energy
Comment:
Page Number: 54
.0 O g. 3" O
2 2-S
3 S "1
DOE concurs with the Agency1! determination that sufficient ahernative treatroent
capacity is not currently available for RMW waitewiten and noowutewaters i;mt*n^n»trtt with
.newry listed and identified wastes whose standards are proposed in this notice. Therefore, DOE
supports EPA's proposal to pant a two-year national capacity variance fur these'RMW streams.
n
C/3
to
71
O
O
-------
5-5
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number CS2P-00055 Page Number: 18
Commentor: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Comment: .
USWAG strongly urges SPA co establish treatment
standards for mixed waste that are appropriate for the
hazardous component and simultaneously consistent with NRC
policies applicable to the radioactive components.of the mixed
waste. As an interim measure, USKAG strongly supports the
proposed two-year capacity variance for TC-organic aixed
wastes, 58 Fed. Reg. at 48142-43, and urges EPA to utilize that
time, to develop more appropriate treatment standards for mixed
wastes. However, USKAG is concerned that the language of the
proposed capacity variance, does not encompass all TC-organic
wastes that are being subjected to the LDRS. Specifically, the
proposed capacity variance is limited to.nonwaatewaters while
the LDRs are being imposed on both non-wastevatera and on
wastewaters that are not treated in. CKA or CKA-equivalent
system* or Class I Injection wells'. Therefore, OSWAG urges the
Agency to amend the proposed regulatory language to make clear-
that the capacity variance applies to all .TC-organic mixed
wastes on. which tn« U3JU are being imposed.
P!
|I|[.
xQ O S- ? O
- ~ n 5 .3
c c .» o ^r
a a »
O -3 h-
o ~ ,»
3 o
o
oo
to
-n
i
o
o
rU
-------
Docket Number:
Commenler:
Comment:
5-6
CS2P-OOOS8
Jersey Central Power
a a
. o _
o n n>
c °? *
3 S OT
3 ~.£
5- O .-5
W
n
O
c/)
to
o
CD
-------
5-7
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number: CS2P-00115 ' Page Number: 24
Conimenter: Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Comment:
*Mi.
M»°-*
>Q O S; 3" O
Q. a -
. o « .
Westinfboax suppora the coadtuiaa 6at»two year national capacity variance U
for ">'T"^f wtflft cootanunalBd with newly ii«*^ aod "
O
oo
to
^1
I
o
,CD
-------
5-K
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Dofckct Number:
Commcntcr
Comment:
CS2P-00144 Page Number: 2
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
p-g-ff-
2 a' S
III
EPA also proposes two-year,national capacity variances
for soil and mixed radioactive wastes, contaminated
with certain newly listed and identified wastes, and
for debris contaminated with newly listed and
identified wastes. This Department believes the
variances are appropriate, due to lacX of national
treatment and disposal capacity.. The variances cay
also be necessary if EPA fails to take final action on
the petition of New York State and other states to
defer the application of the Toxicity Characteristic
Rule to petroleua-contaainated environmental aedia froa
non-UST sites. If the deferral that was proposed in
the December 24, 1992 Federal Register is not finalized
bufore such a variance expires, petroleua spill
response program* will be even nore adversely affected
than at the present tiae, due to the universal
treatment standards that would have to be net for
.hazardous petroleua-contaainated soil.
O
"GO
K>
n
i
o
CD
un
i
-------
. 5-')
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00150 Page Number: 2
Nuclear Regulatory C j
° <~ =
f&fff
I'-? a 8. ;
vQ O (-r 3"' *
5 r- _ n
a a. t»
o w
o _, .>
c p* ta
The proposed rule includes a 2-year national capacity variance for mixed
RCRA/radloactive wastewaters and rxwrwastewaters contaminated with newly
listed and identified wastes. EPA indicated that this variance was
appropriate because of the lack of adequate alternative treatment
capacity for these newly listed and Identified wastes. NRC encourages
EPA to adopt this capacity variance In the final rule as it may provide
limited relief to generators faced with attempting to comply with
treatment standards for which treataent capacity is currently lacking.
In addition, NRC encourages EPA to extend the civil.enforcement policy
that was issued in August 1991, for nixed waste.for which their are no
available treatment or disposal-options (56 FR 42730). NRC believes
this extension 1s warranted because commercial treatment capacity for
some «1xed waste streams 1s still lacking, forcing sooe generators into
noncospllance.with the RCRA 3004(j) storage prohibitions,.without
prospects for cooing into compliance within the next several years. '
O:
on
to
i
o
o
-------
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Dc-ckcl Number:
Commcmer:
Comment:
CS2P-00043
U.S. Department cf Energy
P.igc Number: 13
1.
. EPA proposes wmstrwattr and Boeroslnraier UTS fa r
For cyanide in hazardous noriwastewjters. DOE recommends the UTS of J90 mg/kg for
total cyinide and 30 mg/lcg for anenaye cyanide o-/er the other wo options. DOE Agrees »ith
the EPA that a numerical itandard U preferable to specifying a technology. Ta« iaae
numerical treatmeat jtaadirds should be applied to raulti-socrcs Isadiate; pigmcctj, petroi«mi.
colcicg, ink soryects. and organo-nitrogcc >utei in order to rethus tmneceuary reg\Ji;ory
cbraplen^ (prxTvided these universal stiiiirdi we health prctccu-/e). Howe-ver, DOE has
concerts that thermal destruction to treat cyanide in QO3Wu£eTvzicrs.wi!l oot be avaibbje for
RI^W. WhOe DOE is proceeding to develop tcciinoiosiss to treit.this type of RMW. it is
recommended that for cyanide-containinj RMW, the EPA propoie a IrjrhaMe based siir.dtra
based on cyanide destruclion. other thaa ianncration (Le, clcco-otruc ocdztioo a:vd
chiorinaUOTj), followed by solidification or <
to
-------
5-11
Mixed.Radioactive Waste
Docket Number
Commenter:
Commenl:
CS2P-001I5
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Page Number: 24
a o R 3 o
'
a a - a
o « ,-
n n "
- M
The preamble language indicate* that EPA is proposing t two-yev national capacity
extension for mixed wutewaien iod nodwutewaten contaminated with newly identified
wastes. However, the applicable regulatory language at 40 CFR 268.38 (b) indicates that
a national capacity exteaaoa it only being proposed for mixed newly identified
oawastewaien. The regulatory language should be modified to include wastewatera.
O
on
to
CQ!
-------
5-12,
Docket Number CS2P-00161
Commeriter U.S. Department of Energy
Comment: '
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Page Number 21
a -. i-
c-C c
£» E. 3
?£« 1
o a 3.0
ra
a a'- "
. o w i
O fv **
c ^i* w
g W 0)
rt rt
SPA i
ittetwkac
b« trvtttf Ma
ttaEPAfera
71* Afttey should be twira dut a tbe »b«eace of therucfo uaadxrcta b«ed oa specific
at tirfanofcjyci xxne pmhtrmiric wwtc outrica (t*, cenu RMW-coouauoued icfl)
wiB eoodaut to rtquira DauabiKty
I
CD
o
-------
. 5-13 -
t
5.2 Radioactive Compounds la Mixed Radioactive Wastes Present Difficulties in Handling,
Analysis, and Compliance Monitoring
Summary:
Logistical issues, such as storage., packaging, handling, analysis, and monitoring of wastes
subject to the LDRs, occasionally create capacity problems. EPA considers such issues in
determining whether, or to w'hat extent, a capacity variance is necessary.
Two commcnters noted significant problems that would be encountered with compliance
monitoring; both mentioned the extent or amount of sampling and analysis required and the
ability to detect constituents (DOE, '43-41: Westinghouse, 115-17; and DOE. 161-1). Another
commen'.er said that not all mixed radioactive waste has low concentrations of radioactive
materials and thus care in handling "may well be required" (NV DEP, 131-1). One commenter
provided examples of the analytical, difficulties and costs associated with sampling and analysis of
RMW (DOE 161-13" to 14). Another comrncntcr felt strongly that handling was a significant
issue, and asked EPA to adopt multiple treatment standards for mixed waste depending on
whether the waste can be "contact handled' or 'remote handled" (ASTSWMO, 91-3). Similarly,
one commenter said EPA should expand the proposed regulatory scheme to include appropriate ,
specified technology treatment standards for certain hazardous soils as an alternative to the
proposed approaches (DOE. 161-11). , .
Several commenters pointed to the potential for radiation exposure and other difficulties
in analyzing the concentration of hazardous constituents in mixed radioactive waste. DOE stated
that analysis of mixed radioactive wastes for hazardous constituents, particularly at the low
concentrations required by the UTSs, can be very difficult due tp the radiological dose
. considerations that dictate the use. of special sample collection devices and alternative sample
sizes and constrain the ability to measure hazardous constituents at detection limits (DOE 43-8 to
9).. This commenter added that there are certain conditions and protocols with respect to
analyzing some mixed radioactive wastes that make it very difficult to measure the constituent
concentration levels proposed as UTSs (DOE 43-9 to 11). This same commenter said that in the
absence of specific technology standards for mixed radioactive wastes, further development of
sampling and analytical capabilities.is required if the increase in scope and sensitivities specified
by the proposed UTSs are to bc-achieved (DOE .43-11). The NRC raised the same issue, stating
that mixed waste generators.express concerns about radiation exposure if they must test their
high-activity mixed wastes (NRC,. 150-1).
One commenter made a somewhat different point, stating that sampling and analyzing
organics in certain highly radioactive mixed waste is very difficult primarily because of an inability
to obtain necessary sample sizes and thus adequate detection limits or UTS levels (Westinghouse,
115-5, 115-12, 115-15). One commenter further asserted that for some mixed waste streams,
sampling and analysis is impossible, although this commenter did not explain why (ASTSWMO,
91-3).
3-3-5
* s»
3 t-»
o-2-fa
3 =" 11 « '
3 ^ ^ i
i"P *^ h '
O, Q, w
o w >-
3 0.3
3 'S w
O
GO
to
"TJ
O
O
CD
-------
5-14
Response:
EPA recognizes that difficulties exist in handling, testing, analysis and compliance
monitoring for mixed radioactive wastes. Because of insufficient treatment capacity. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity variance for mixed radioactive wastes covered in this rule.
\
Comments:
The comments discussing logistical issues related to the treatment of mixed radioactive
wastes are presented in the following order:
DOE (43);
Westinghouse (115); .
. DOE (161); . ' .
NV DEP (131);
DOE (161);
ASTSWMO (91); .
DOE (161);
DOE (43);
NRC(150);
Westinghouse (115); and
ASTSWMO (91).
.???
5-< za.
o o £ 3 '
«. "" (7 .o '
i=?s
-------
5-15
Mixed Radioactive Waste
a D "
£ ? ir
CS2P-00043
U.S. Department of Energy
Page Number: 41
Docket Number:
Commemen
Comment:
EPA ft*** tfcat, far tht « p«t, Ik* tow CMmatnrtnii of ndloactlT* cotapoondj
sitooU Mt intcrfcn with tkt trtmtmfcflfcy of tfac haztrwaos rontttfomu ta the waste.
DOE conoin with this statement. DOE docs not contend that most RMW containing
lovcooceatntion* of radioactive compouadi are not treatable. The problems encountered are
uaociated with compliance monitoring (the extent of mnpling md analysis required and the
abitiqr to detect constituents) as opposed to those associated with the treatabiliry of >"+ wasto.
Only certain.RMW, typically those of high activity or of high nitrite/nitrate cooteac (e.^,
Hanford tank wastes), are problematic and require special cpnsidenaon as noted in this and
w- ;_. LW kfcj .
1 » ^ H'
aacr
*^ o, ?
g c w
o
GO
bo
71
o
CD
u
-------
5-16
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number CS2P-00115 Page Number: 17
Commenten Westimhome Electric Corporation
Comment; <
^ *T
sr.l*3
3 "" o
^ 2s ni 3~
j; ~ FT 01
3 jl10
a a
o
o
c
3
" .1 i
u ^_
EPA ttitn that, for the most put, low cnncmmrioni of radioactive compounds should not
interfere with the treatability of the hazardous constituents in the waste.
Westirighouse coocun with this statement. -Westinjhouse further contends thai moat RMWare
able to be appropriately treated. The problem encountered ire associated with compliance
monitoring (the imount of sarapiing and asalyas required and the ability to detect constituents)
u opposed to thoae ««r»^'«M with the tmuWity of the waste. Only certain RMW, typically
those of high activity or of high nitrite/nitrate content such u Hinford tank wastes,-are
probknatic and require special couidetatkn u noted in this aad previous comment padcifet.
o
00
K)
71
o
o
ru
uu
-------
5-17
Mfcced Radioactive Wast*
Docket Number CS2P-00161 Page Number: t
Commenten U.S. Depanment of Energy
Comment;
" 5 »
"_,-«
&£;
tr£
o. a r- w
o *"
8 c i
A* uftmut
O
oo
to
^
I
o
o
CD
ru
C
-------
5-18
Mixed Radioactive Waste
»
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-OOI31
State of Nevada
Page Number: 1
^ °. C. 3 °
C Z it
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter
Comment:
' 5-19
CS2P-00161
U.S., Department of Energy
Mixed Radioactive Waste
r* !Z
If
C
o-S.
Page Number:. 13 to 14
oa ipwafle m«pji»g jnd taclytictl rfimo,iK>,
nritud *» RMW. DOE bif nmuoiend liguBcuu difficuhja a oeeanf toe Tai Method
Cor Enhiunn Sail W«t» PbpjnLQcaical Methodi (SW-&W) uoptinf ud uulyu
ireaeaa far RMW, taitm rrprriiofoj tuaiUr difficuJcie* oneuusd «fth RMW.
.»^..»i K^ Tht diflSaiJtjr tad ooui ioriiied with umpKng ial aUya iaocMC Ute
'
'!* f-r ~
^< ao-a
l eooceatnaoo letck AM and to bt rtrtcrmi 'are bvcred tad
inrrma, SOOM of tbt iaaljrtieal *'**~fc;-* tad om tooriitcd
RMWndude . . - .
tad taiJyu of
5aipii eaflicttoa; SW^46 nqiarm ibi\m*ot ipcofle uapte eoOection equfpneat tod
oxtttinm (hit miy aoc b» tppropcuu fc» RMW-coausueued toO. Raeocia 01*7 to
to coflea uspta of lujh/r ndkMcbM «nia. ETA raqarad uapto whjBxm
caaot te ob5imed for hi(h daM RMW IMCUM tbcM itmpta «hane» wdd rt«*
ndUtna apown a pimmnil coUacaog the iMpla «4
bv tcoipwd 10 E7A pujtxuf IK 4
aanadf tnibbli. Oaoi dH htamory, rattfnud aonp of mpta tfao 7 profrtai potiqr to msaaia opoum A< Lov Ai
lUaoubKf Aeaienfate (AUUU). Not coif tri tben oppcttama far eoxaure duria«
, hodUaf tnd mopon of uaplo. but ta«n tn tto opporojBit«i far opowr*
10 O
a a
o
M ^
c ;r
3 5
o
00
O
o
en
-------
Mixed Radioactive Waste
rr f £
,& * -*
cr = «
Docket Number
Commemer
Comment:
CS2P-00091
Association of State A Territorial
Solid Waste Management Official!
P.igc Number: .V
a a «
o 'J> ~
The implementation of the proposed treatment standard for TC
aix*d vast* cr«at«» coapliahca and «nforc«m«nt problems. -For
son* mixed vast* streams, sampling and analysis is impossible,
which makes the certification to neet a certain treatment level
impossible. Th* U.S. EPA needs to address aixed vast* as a
unique vast* universe for which a unique approach is needed to
address th* specific characteristics of mixed waste. That is,
addressing mixed vast* in the saae vay as nonradioactiye waste as
part of the RCRA hazardous vast* is not practical. The U.S..EPA
should vprlc vith the Departaent of Energy (DOE) to com* up with a
rational solution to address the unique problems that mixed waste
streams pose froa want* management point of view and which can
only b« addressed in,a way which recognizes the "unique"
characteristics of "ai*ed vast*".
An alternative that may warrant investigation is to adopt
multiple treatment standards for mixed vast* depending on whether
the vast* can b« "contact handled* (CH) or "remotely handled"
(RH). Th* latter represents vast* streams that are difficult to
samp'l* and therefore difficult to treat vith conventional
hazardous vast* treatment systems. The critical issue under this
proposal is for the U.S. EPA (vith help from DOE) to determine a
definition for CH and RH vaste strea»s and define treatment
standards which vould be applicable and could be complied vith
without unnecessary endangerment of vaste handlers.
O
GO
NJ
o
CD
u
-------
5-21
Mixed Radioactive Waste
i
Docket Number
Cornmenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00161
U.S. Department of Energy
Page Number: 11
« ' - -
P-8-BTi
.23-3
= ~ a
3 f^
ItBunckar froa the rejuUttry
proposed ta |2£&47(b) wfaetbcr EPA
propoiinf-to maJx ifl three of cbeM ipproacfaet mdbbte for hmrdoua tat, or wfaed»r only OM
of then win be seieoed fix final promlptioa. Tte Afeacy1! ictrat vith retpcct to tit*
iaptearautioo of tboe three regulttory approaebM oeedi to be dariflcd.
EPA ttata tint the trutmcatmadatdi' propoted uatto the three ipprotcfaa 'ere baaed
on tevcb ttuinabte by viriety of t*ehaoiope», inrh>din& iaacwtav* >rrtetning>r»' (f3 Q 48122>
Ai «^p'»"<*H in the propoMd ruta, the pd**rr obyteth»e ia nyvli to de^cfcyiog a LDR '
far tuzankxa toi to Mt Owtaeat soadtrth that tre tpptooriue fixtoS. Eadsof th»
three pcopoed tppcoectet offBS t d«pM of flebbi% in fhoownt tuitibie treuoe&t methods
for tutarixa toflc. DO2 teSf wppora tbM primt*y objectiw tad \B$at the A^eacy to «dcot i
mbcipc thst bciBtstei IBS UM of (\\flttirt tpr?*nf>lnpg ad I&TH tbt trto.i.'uo of the
lod fll A
n
c/o
to
-n
i
CD
O
CQ
-------
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number: CS2P-OOO13 Page Number: 8 to 9
Commemer: U.S. Department of Energy
Comment:
c 5
5- < ss ^ '
& .o ft 3 '
:: IT <7 "
a a ^- M
o "> i
E7A solicits <
orpaic *o4 metal haaardoos
to4 tearfrutafcs of derdopiaf UTS for
DOE supports the development of .UTS in that they "provide comment and equiuble
standards* and simplify activities* related a monitoring compliance under the LDR program.
However, as expressed in previous oomaeaa regwdmf LDR-reiated ~*"^*.7 the Dqattiaent .
is concerned with the application of the prcpoted UTS (or similar treatment levels such u the
F039 jundarrfi) to ceruin RMW. As EPA expUins in tha section of the preamble. mo« of the
proposed organic UTS are based on (eveb at detection limits. However, analysis of RMW for
hazardous constituents, piniculiriy at the low concentrations required by the proposed UTS.
can be very difficult due to radiological dose considerations that dictate the use of special
. sample collection devices and alternative sample tart These problem* can constrain the ability
to measure the hazardous components of RMW at -detection Uraitt. DOE has also previously
raised some general concerns regarding UTS.* These concerns include: their rdaboo to
organics whose treatments are associated with specified technologies; the impart of applying
UTS based on multi-source leachate standards to RMW streams; and, issues associated with
application of the UTS. Notwithstanding these concerns, DOE reitera-tes its overall support for
the simplification that the proposed UTS approach affords the regulated community at large. .
There are ceruin .conditions and protocols that exist with respect to analyzing some .
RMW (e-g., RMW in tanks, RMW generated during environmental restoration activities; or
problematic RMW process streams) that make it very difficult to measure the constituent
concentration levels proposed as UTS. The conditions and protocols associated with the
handling of radioactive samples often preclude the use of standard non-nudear sampling and
analytical methods that use full-size samples. The following discussion in this section reviews
and elaborates on problems associated with the application of low concentration-based
standards, j~*^?«g the proposed UTS. to organic or metallic RMW streams.
O
.00
to
o
o
j
-------
5-2.1.
MLitd Radioactive Waste
Docket Number: CS2P-00043 Page Number: 9 to 11
Commenter U.S. Department of Energy
Comment
As EPA explains in this section of'ihc preamble, mow of the
proposed organic UTS are based on levels at detection limits. However, analysis of RMW for
hazardous constituents, particularly at the tow concentrations required by the proposed UTS.
can be very difficult due to radiological dose considerations that dictate the use of special
sample collection devices and alternative sample sizes. These problems can constrain the ability
to measure the hazardous components of RMW at detection limits. DOE has aUo previously
raised some general concerns regarding UTS.' The*: concerns include: their relation to
organks whose treatments are associated with specified technologies; the impact of applying
UTS based on multi-source leachate standards to RMW streams; and. issues associated with
application of the UTS. Notwithstanding these concerns. DOE reiterates its overall support for
the simplification that the proposed UTS approach affords the regulated community at large.
There are certain conditions and protocols that exist with respect to analyzing some
RMW (e-g, RMW in tanks, RMW generated during environmental restoration activities, or
problematic RMW p'«>>' streams) that make it very Hiffimh to measure the constituent
concentration levels proposed as UTS. The conditions and protocols associated with the
handling of radioactive samples often preclude the use of standard non-nuclear sampling and
. analytical methods that use full-size samples. The following discussion in .this section reviews
and elaborates on problems associated with the application of low concentration-based
standards, including the proposed UTS, to organic or metallic RMW streams.
The initial step* of the waste characterization process include sampling and delivering
samples to the analytical laboratories. In order for analytical results to withstand potential legal
or technical challenges, these initial step* must be conducted in accordance with standardized
protocols that have been tested and accepted by the »~^"i«i community. In the case of highly
radioactive samples (Le, RMW), many of the requirements specified in established protocols
are problematic, if not impossible, to ""ptf IIITTH (Lt, relative to m«mt«ming samples prior to
their arrival at the laboratory). For example, problems are experienced with specified sample
holding times, with nuinummg zero headspace in sample containers, and with the specified
temperatures for samples. .
-. Once at the analytical laboratory, additional handling difficulties are commonly
encountered. Sample size and sample reactivity are two major factors that make it difficult to
meet "normal1 detection limits. la order to meet normal* detection limits it is often necessary
to begin wfth a full-size standard sample (typically 30 gram* of solid or 1 liter of liquid).
However, in the case of high level RMW, the sample size is often limited by the amount of
sample that can be ukea given existing fMiph'ng technology (typically 1 gram of solid or a few
mfllfliten liquid). Experience with the analysis of full-size radioactive samples is limited (due to
radiation dose concerns) and therefore little information as to the effectiveness of extractions
using Urge samples is available.
- < -2. a- -z
2, °. §" °
o
.
8 "-sr
O
GO
to
71
o-
'o'
D
-------
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number. CS2P-OOCM3 Page Number: .<) to 11
Cqmmemer: . U.S. Department of Energy
Comment (continued):
.71 i
5 O S. 5' O
The amount of radioactivity in the sample extracts thit will be analyzed a also very
important. The extracts from most of the mull sainples tint are analyzed are usually relauveJv
low in radioactivity. However, it is not known if this would be the case for full-size samples.
Some samples contain complexarits that carry the radionudides into the organic solvent extract
to be analyzed. Such samples must be limited in size to prevent radioactive coau.-ninatioa at
laboratory'equipment and, more importantly, to ensure the safety of laboratory personnel
The inherent chemical and physical reactivity of certain large radioactive sarr.sles is also
. a concern. Such reactivity can result in chinges in the chemical composition of the sample over
.time and can also interfere with the performance of analytical instruments. For cxanipie, those
samples which contain high concentrations of nitrate and nitrite are quite reactive in thai the
sample matrix a chemically reactive with the sample ana-Vies. Such samples often cause
instrumentation' difficulties and quality control failures, even with small samples. The Analytical
Chemistry Laboratories-at Pacific Northwest Laboratories hare developed new sacple
preparation procedures that mmimtry some of the reactrviry problems for small samples.'
However, the effectiveness of these procedures with larger sample sizes is not known at this
time. Based on current instrument sensitivity, large sample sizes would be required to
successfully analyze certain RMW for constituent concentrations at the proposed UTS levels.
Worker safety is the paramount issue. Within the laboratory, the analyst's exposure to >
radioactivity is a «igpifi<-«r)t health and safety issue. The expected radiation dose to the analyst
is (he determining factor for the actual location where the sample analysis will be conducted.
The accumulated dose to the laboratory analyst is dependent upon the radioactivity and sire of
the sample and the duration of the extraction procedures. Highly radioactive samples must be
extracted remotely in hot cells. -Low level samples may be extracted in laboratory radiochemical
hoods. The solvent generated from sample extractions that have been performed in bo* cdh is
typically transferred to the radiocbemistry hoods for further processing.
Sampling and analytical difficulties also creatr; protons in vaifjiuj hazardous
constituent concentrations in RMW streams prior to vheir aggregation in centralized storage
systems, a common RMW tn'mgyq"!' practice. Without the ability to determine constituent
concentrations at the proposed UTS levels in certain RMW, compliance with' the dilution
prohibition canax be assured,. An <-"rr^ of the problems encountered in complying with the
dilution prafaiition is found at tbe Haaford Site where wastes from multiple points of
generation have been sent to one of M9 Slngie-Shefl Tanks or 28 DoubJe-Shefl Tantai for
centralized storage over the coarse of 50 years of operation. Today, each tank contains a
unique mixture of wastes from taese operations. Organic coostitueats as identified in the
n
00
to.
i
O
" O
CD
Uj
-------
MUcd Radioactive Waste
Page Number: 9 10 11
Docket Number CS2P-OOW3
Coramcnten U.S. Department cf Energy
Comment (continued):
proposed UTS have not been analyzed in it* majority of these tanks, however the tanks .are
known to have received small amounts of i suraber of the UTS organic ccrutiruests as
evidenced by a review of put inventory dau sheen. .AnaMicol information is available on only a
limited number of Haaford tanks. Waives tiat have txcn anaryzed asd problejni tsociited.
*-ith such analysis have besn presented 13 E?A In i prr/ioos DOE cccvaeat packige.10 in
the absence of acaJyticaJ infonnation for Lir siajority rrf the tanks, md ozxJer the lisurnpticn
that organic concentrations could exceed LDR treatment J'.andirds, any aggregation to the u^Jc
sj'jtem from individual generating points (or from the common practice of blending berweea
tanks) could be "diluting out' such orgacja w levels txlcw the trtaanent standard. This would
constitute impermissible dilution should tie r/ttem th4i is u'tiniittry designed and engineered
for treating the Hanford tank wastes not be tote to jpjnof^11"^ S"1*1 &* diluted form. .\cd.
in fact, whetner or not that systea will uisuteh/ be tble to treit the oSuJed form remains
undetermined for Haaford's Tank Waste Remediation, Syncm, given the current uncertainties in
what the final tank treatment technologies vill comprue. This situation places DOE into a
position of not being able ,to determine *ietber LDR compliance can be attained.
f)
CO
to
UI3
-------
??5
5-26
Mixed Radioactive Waste
cr t:
O r*
Docket Number:
Conunenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00043
U.S. Department of Energy
Page Number: II
mis
a a. r- w
o -"
In wmmary, DOE reitemta thai ocittinj analytical procedure] and op»bilitia will in
many instances be unable to make conceatntion determinatioos at the propoaed UTS leveto for
certain RMW wastes. Consequently, and u stated in previous comments, DOE recommeoch
that EPA ejubliib.specified technology treatment standards as alternatives for these RMW
streams." In the absence of «"rh speciSed tecnnolojy standards for RMW, further
development of sampling and tnalyticaJ ofibtljtiej is required if the increase in scope ind
seasitniuea specified by tn« prapoMd UTS art to be achieved. '
O
oo
to
Tl
i
CD
uu
-------
Mixed KudloHctlve Waste
^i
g 5 c
r i ri' 3
: u
Docket Number: CS2P-OOI50 Page Number: I
Commemer: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Comment:
Tht proposed rule discusses the demonstration «nd use of acceptable
knowledge in characterizing hazardous wastes. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff encourages the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
adopt the approach outlined in the proposed rule and to encourage the
use of acceptable knowledge for characterizing mixed wastes. Many mixed
waste generators have expressed concerns to NRC and EPA about the
potential for increased radiation exposures if they must test their
high-activity mixed wastes. Generators have pointed .to EPA's testing
requirements and NRC's requirements for maintaining radiation exposures
as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) as potential Inconsistencies
between the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Atomic
Energy Act. By allowing acceptable knowledge to be used in lieu of
testing, It may be possible for thisi generators to maintain their
occupational radiation exposure ALARA white still meeting the
requirements of RCRA. In addition. NRC encourages EPA to expand the
discussion of when acceptable knowledge night be used to include
situations where the hazardous component Is known and well
characterized, but testing would t* required nerely because the waste
contains a radioactive component. Finally, NRC believes that EPA should
encourage the use of nonradlologlcally contaminated surrogates for mixed
waste characterization, as long as the surrogate faithfully represents
the hazardous component of the Mixed waste.
S «' . n
? o "" H
2 a£
a *- 01
O
00
to
-n
i
o
o
uu
-------
5-2S
Mixed Radioactive Waste
3-=T5
Docket Number CS2P-00115 Page Number: 5
Commenter Westinghoutc Electric Corporation
Comment:
f §: 5T 1
- < 5S 2.
-. < z;
= « o ia ;
3 J - »
fl r^ 1 - '
a a w
o w »
O o '
c °- a
3 S w.
Westinghouse supports the development of UTS in order to simplify compliance with the
LDR program, however, there ire significant concerns regarding the ability to sample and
analyze organic! in certain highly RMW due to the inability to obtain necessary sample
sizes, and as a consequence, adequate detection limits. As EPA states in this lection, most
of the organic treatment standards that define the UTS are based on detection limit) from
nonradiologkal matrices. . . .
Sampling and analysis of organic RMW is very difficult to achieve, and this difficult is
increased as the organic concentration levels that need to be achieved are lowered and u
the potential radiological exposure is increased. EPA-required sample volumes cannot be
attained for certain high level RMW because these sample volumes would result in
excessive potential radiation exposure to the sampler. In addition, maintenance of zero
hcifltrarf cannot be achieved in many instances due to the problems in obtaining a fun
container of radioactive sample while assuring that no spillage occurs that would
contaminate personnel. Some RMW is thermally hot, which makes it impossible to obtain
a representative sample for the organic*.
This creates problems not only in verifying that proper treatment has ocoiiied, bat also
in verifying RMW constituent concentrations prior to aggregation in centralized storage
systems (common .to RMW management). Without the ability to determine UTS
concentrations in certain RMW, compliance with the LDR program cannot be assured.
o
GO
tO
-n
i
o
o
un
-------
5-:9
Mixed Radioacllvt Waste
?Sg
» § sf
c c B
D-§ll
rt ^ >?
Docket Number CS2P-001I5 Page Number: 12
Commenten Wettingbouse Electric Corporation
Comment:
: o-
S <*' ?? - I
a a K- t»
O W i-
0 o. **
Westinghouse support! providing a regulatory mechanism for obtaining compliance with
treatment standards when such standards are below detection limits for regulated constituents.
It may be impossible to meet detection limits'far certain RMW mjtrv^t due to the inability to
obtain adequate sample sizes. In order to keep worker exposure as low as reasonably
achievable, *m»n samples are often obtained which can lead to h'gfo**
-------
5-10
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number: CS2P-001I5 . Page Number: 15
Commemer Westinghouje Electric Corporation
Comment:
o S- 3 o
a a - "
o w >-
Westingbouse is reiterating that analysis of RMW for underlying hazardous constituents
at the low concentrations existing for FQ39 treatment standards, can be very difficult due
to radiological dose considerations. Westinghouse has stated in a previous comment
package on the Interim Final Rule for Tgtiitahle and Corrosive Wastes that as an alternative
to meeting concentration-based treatment standards for underlying constituents, and with
this rulemalting TC organic constituents as well, EPA should consider specifying
technologies for treatment of certain RMW. This is particularly true for the HanCord taak
waste where sampling and analysis complexities warrant such a doriskia
EPA states in Section IV.C.I. of this proposed rule that The Agency generally specifies
treatment technologies only for those situations where there are no analytical methods to
measure compliance with a concentration-based treatment standard.* This is exactly the
concern with certain RMW u stated previously. Westingbouse requests that EPA consider
regulations that accommodate concentration-based or technology-based standards in order
to allow maximum flexibility to address the diverse nature of TC organic wastes.
O
oo
K)
71
O
O
CI3
Uj
j
-------
5-.11
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Docket Number: ' CS2P-00091
Page Number: 3
Commenter:
Comment:
Association of State
I!
2 a -
IfS"^;
1 » ~ n <
P-Ssr"
' 1 o <»
c c S!
3 S "
3 rr I
2. o n>
o
C/3
to
o
CD
CQ
-------
6. HAZARDOUS SOIL CONTAMINATED \\TTH NEWLY LISTED
AND in.E.vriFii-.fj WASTES
In response to the proposed rule. EPA received 32 comments relating to the proposed
LDRs for hazardous soil contaminated with newly lilted and identified wastes. Comments were
received from: RETEC (RETEC. 26): The Boeing Company (Boeing, 29); American Coke and
Coal Chemical Institute (Am. Coke &. Coal. .11); Department of Energy (DOE. -43); American
Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI. 47); Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. Edison Electric
Institute. American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
(USWAG ci al., 55): Seaview Thermal Systems (Scavicw, 58); Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC, 60): Union Oil Company ci( California dba Unocal (Unocal. 74); Koppers
Industries. Inc, (Koppers, S3); Mercury Rcco\ery Services (Mercury Recov., 86); Jersey Central
Power & Light (JCP&L. 8S); Southwest Soil Remediation (S...'jihwest. 109); Rohm & Haas
Company (Rohm and Haas, 114); Westinghou.sc Electric Corporation (Westinghouse, 115);
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa. 133); Separation and Recovery Systems. Inc. (SRS, 138):
Union Caruide Corporation (Union Carbide, 142): State of New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (NY DEC. 144); Burlington Northern Railroad (Burlington North.,
148): BP Oil (BP Oil. 163); American Gas Ai.wci.Hion (AGA, 165): ASARCO Incorporated
(ASARCO. 166); USPCI. Inc. (USPCI.'l'I); William* Natural Gas Company (Williams Nat Gas'.
175); Conoco Inc. (Conoco. 177); Time Oi! Co. (Time Oil. 178): BioGehesis Enterprises, Inc.
(BioGenesis. ISO); Chevron Corporation (Chevron. 1*2); Rollins Environmental Services (Rollins.-
183): Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA. I.I): ;md DuPont Chemicals (DuPont Chem.,
L3).
The commcnters listed above include government agencies, hazardous waste generators,
hazardous waste trcatcrs, and trade associations. Four commcnters (Boeing (29), DOE (43);
Union Carbide (142), and Time Oil (178)) provided mTormation on the required treatment
capacity for soils. Ten commentcrs (Boeing (29). Arri. Coke & Coal (31), Mercury Recov. (86),
Rohm & Ha=i (114), Alcoa (133), AGA (165). ASARCO (166). Williams Nat. Gas (175), USPCI
(177), and Rollins (183)) provided information on the available treatment capacity for soils. Ten
commenters (Am. Coke &. Coal (31). USWAG ct al. (55). HWTC (60), Unocal (74), JCP&L
(88), Union Carbide (142), NY DEC (144). BP Oil (If.3). Conoco (177), and Chevron (182))
discussed a capacity variance for hazardous soils. Comrnentcrs disagreed about the effectiveness
of innovative technologies: 13 commcnters believe innovative technologies are effective in treating
soil (Seaview (58), Southwest (109), Rohm and Haa» (114). SRS (138), Burlington North. (148),
ASARCO (166). USPCI (171), Conoco (177). Time Oil (178). BioQencsis (ISO), Chevron (182),
CMA (LI), and DuPont Chem. (L3)) and 10 believe they are not effective (RETEC (26), AWPI
(47), Koppers (83), Rohm and Haas (114). Wcslinghousc (115). AGA (165), USPCI (171),
Conoco (177), CMA (LI), and DuPont Chem. (U)).
Specifically, commenters addressed five Lviiici:
Required Treatment Capacity for Soil.*;
Available Treatment Capacity for Soil*.
General Comments on a Capacity Variance:
rr
.->
.3
a-1
£?f
.:>
^.
M
a o g.
f ??'
1 ' ~
a a
. o - .
O -« i1>
C g- M
3 ii>
^?|
n
.C/J
r>J
O
CD
^S^BSEBhk
UQ-;
-------
.6-2
Innovative Technologies for Treating Soil are Effective; and
Innovative Technologies for Treating Soil are Not Effective.
iff
§ E i
srl»|
5-x: 2: a .
i3 O 8- rj <
*» "" rT <» '
j^ rr '$ £ >
3 "^ » "* (
a d ,- DT
o <«
" r> "»
c 9- M
g M
3 fT S"
O
C/3
O
o.
o3
CD
-
-------
6.1 Information on Required Treatment Capacity for Soils
Summary: . ,
EPA'must evaluate the treatment cjpacily required for newly listed and-idcntitled
hazardous soil and compare this to .the amount of treatment capacity lhat is available for these
newly regulated hazardous soils to determine whether sufficient capacity exists for these wastes.
The hazardous soil covered by this rule includes soil contaminated with the newly identified TC
wastes, coke by-product wastes, and chlorotoluene production wastes.
In the September 14, 1993 proposed rule. EPA estimated that approximately 3 million
tons of hazardous soil contaminated with previously regulated wastes are land disposed per year
(58 FR 48144). EPA requested comment cm this estimate. While no commcmers directly
addressed the accuracy of this estimate, several commcntcrs provided estimates of the volume of
soil they generate. For example, DOE said that it will generate large volumes of contaminated
soil as a result of continuing environmental restoration and waste management activities (DOE,
43-3). As a specific example, DOE stated that at the Hanf;,rd site, the amount of contaminated
soil and overburden is estimated to approach 110.000,000 metric tons [or approximately
120,000,000 tons) (DOE, 43-3). Similarly, i^e Boeing company reported generating approximately.
27.5 million pounds [or approximately 14.000 tons) of hazardous soil in 1992 (Boeing. 29-i).
EPA specifically requested updated information on the generation and management of
TC-contaminated soil and debris from manufactured gas plants and on whether there will be
sufficient commercial treatment services to treat these wastes on-sitc (58 FR 48144). In addition.
EPA requested comments on its estimate that a one-time generation of as much as 90.000 tons of
F037- and F03S-hazardous soil may be impacted by this rule (58 FR 4&144). No comments were
received on these issues.
On the issue of newly listed and identified hazardous soils, one commenler said that in
1994 it will generate 1,700 cubic yards [approximately 2,900 tons, assuming 1.69 tons per cubic
" yard] or more of contaminated soil that exhibits the TC and that would be subject to the TC
landban (Union Carbide, 142-5). One commcntcr expects to generate 3,000 cubic yards of.
contaminated soil [approximately 5,000 tons, assuming 1.69 tons per cubic yard] in cleaning up its
Portland terminal (this commentcr did not indicate w-hether or not the soil is contaminated with
Phase II wastes). (Time Oil, 178-2)
Response:
EPA acknowledges the information on required capacity provided by the commenters.
Where commenten provided verifiable data on ihe quantities of hazardous soil they generate or
manage, EPA has taken these data into account in its capacity analysis for the final rule.
Since preparing the capacity analysis for the Phase II proposed rule, EPA has re-contacted
owners and operators of surface impoundments, and has combined their projected soil generation
and disposal rates for 1994 and 1995. In cencral. EPA has learned that many owners and
operators of surface impoundments plan to either (I) "clean close" their impoundments and
generate hazardous soil prior to the effective date of the Land Disposal Restrictions for
hazardous soils contaminated with Phase II wastes, or (2) close their impoundments at some point
3 £
O
C/3
i
O
CD
CD
-.c
-------
d-4
sviih the wastes in place, so that no r.a/ardo-.i.-, soil will he generated at closure. 'Owners and
operators cf surface impoundments who take cither of these approaches will not cericrate
hazardous soils subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions. Based on this information, together
with updated -information on the available commercial, treatment capacity of incinerators and
cement kilns. EPA has determined that sufficient commercial treatment capacity exists for
hazardous soil contaminated with Phase II WILSICS. Thus, the Agency is not granting a national
capacity variance for these wastes. Ple:isc refer to EPA's Background Document for ike Capacity
Analysis for Land Disposal Restriction.': P/uir // (Final Rule) for a detailed explanation of this
analysis. .
Comments:
The comments providing information on required t-eaiment capacity for soils are
presented in the following order:
DOE (43);
Boeing (29); . .
. Union Carbide (142); und.
Time Oil (178).
si!L
a o §. 3 3
" o £> n!
' 5" -' ~
23-3
O
CO
zss*.
-------
Hazardous Soil
??»
a 3 "
S S'S
Docket Number CS2P-00043
Commenter U.S. Department of Energy
Comment:
Page Number 3
a a {- o>'
. o M
S 9-S
3 S «
Lorje votuzniei of coaouainatcd tod viO b« |eaerued within cb* DOE cotn^Ja u a
"t"«""«f eoviroamenuJ restonaoa tad wuu nuaajerDetU tctivitie*. At UM
Hinford th« aloae, ejtimitej of the UDOO&I of conumiatted tofl and overburden approach
110,000,000 metric tons. The propojed LDR for hazardous soil w{Q have a mhcintia] impart on
tae dexaup aad waste mamcemeat cffom. .
O
CO
o
CD
uu
-------
6-6
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number CS2P-00029
Commenter: The Boeing Company
Comment:
Page Number: i
?5g
,» 0) J
a 3"
S5£
r t= u 1
e 5 S o '
l»si!
P-g-ET^
S 2-5
3 g «
§ ^ a
3- o »
In 1992, The Boeing Company generated approximately 27,5 million pounds
of hazardous soil and 72 million pounds of hazardous waste. The Company
recognizes the importance of disposing hazardous wastes and soils in an
environmentally sound manner and appreciates EPA's attempt to interpret
and simplify the land disposal restriction process. However, the proposed
regulation, as written, tends to create, rather than resolve, many issues, such
as: 1) inconsistencies between treatment standards for listed metal and
organic toricity characteristic (TC) wastes; 2) uncertainty of when treatment
standards should be applied to hazardous soil, and failure to recognize that
treatment.of soils on-site requires approval by not only federal, but state and
local agencies; and 3) confusion with respect to the necessity of testing for
constituents subject to the universal treatment standards.
O
c/)
to
71
o
o
-C-
-------
6-7 .
Hazardous Soil
Docket Kumber
Coramentcn
Comment:
CS2P-00142
Unioa Carbide Corporation
. Page Number: 5
c: 2 '»
-------
6-8
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Oommemer:
Comment:
CS2P-00178
Time Oil Co.
Page Number 2
a a M
o <"' -
n ,, it
.- . .
r:
3
«"
Tim* Oil expects to generate in excess of 3000 cubic
yard* of contuin*t*d coil in cl«*ning up it« Portland terminal.
Tia« Oil «timat«« that incinaration of th« oil at _th« only
incinerator currantly p«raitt«d to accapt F027 vast**
(Coffayvilla, Kansas) will coat $30 million to $43 million,
including transportation cost*.1 Th«»« costs will significantly
delay Tin* Oil's r«a«diation of. thft. Portland .tarainal and impact
Tim* Oil's capacity to participate in ongoing remediation of
several other sites.
. By contrast, the proposed alternative hazardous soil
treatment standards will allow Tine Oil~to conduct a cost-
effective and, nore iaportantly, environmentally protective
cleanup. Tiae Oil has evaluated biological treatment options and
believes that even the most stringent of.the three proposed
approaches for hazardous soils potentially could be met with
these destructive treatment technologies. After treatment, the
soil could be replaced on sit* (if it no longer "contains" a
hazardous vasts) or disposed at a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. Time
Oil estimates total treatment and disposal costs under the
proposed hazardous treatment standards at $2 million to $4
million, roughly five to ten percent of the cost of incineration.
O
oo
o
.0
CD
cn
j
-------
6-9
6.2 Information on Available Treatment Capacity fur Soils
Summary:
In the proposed rule. EPA noted that one or more of the following general methods of
soil treatment may be capable of achieving the universal treatment standards: biological
treatment, chemical extraction, soij washing, dcchlorination, low-temperature thermal desorption.
high-temperature distillation, thermal destruction, stabilization, or vitrification. One commenter
said EPA should add in-situ treatment of soils, e.g. soil vapor extraction and bibrcmediaiion, to
this list (Rohm and Haas, 114-15 to 16, 114-21 to 22)'.
EPA's initial capacity assessment indicated that there would be a general lack of available
treatment capacity for soil contaminated witli organics and previously regulated organic wastes. In
support of this statement, one commenter slated that a shortfall irr treatment capacity is
anticipated (Am. Coke & Coal, 31-6). Two commenter; challenged this statement. One said that
EPA cites tb^ abundance of combustion. capacity in the proposed rule, and makes no suggestion
that matrix effects interfere with the treatment of hazardous soil in combustion units (USPCI,
171-14 to 15). Another said that there is sufficient capacity in the incineration industry to safely
handle all incinerable wistes including those presently with capacity variances (Rollins, 183-2).
This same commenter also added that it currently has .the capacity to process 69 million pounds of
soils per year and expects to increase this capacity to 233 million pounds of soils per year by the
year 1997 (Rollins. 1S3B-2).
/
EPA had anticipated that off-site commercial capacity to treat hazardous soil would be
limited to incineration end stabilization. One commenter sa7d it is in the process of building a
commercial mobile thermal mercury removal/recovery unit which was planned to be in operation
in February 1994; the unit will be capable of processing 12-18 tons/day of contaminated soil and
meeting proposed standards (Mercury Recov.. 86-1 (o 2). Two commenters said that retorting or
thermal desorption can consistently meet the .09 ppm TCLP level for mercury-contaminated soils
but retorting capacity is extremely limited and cost prohibitive (AGA. 165-3; Williams Nat. Gas,
175-1). One commeater added that HTMR processes could include other types of smelting
furnaces such as blast furnaces and flash smelting furnaces but current 'application of these
technologies for contaminated soils treatment is limited ( AS AR CO,. 166-9).
EPA requested information on constraints to Ihc use of innovative technologies for soil
treatment, both on- and off-site, including physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes, and
logistical constraints such as permitting, scheduling, etc. (58 FR 48144). One commenter noted
that to treat soil on-sitc requires permitting and approval by local, state, and federal agencies;
which may be a problem for some innovative technologies (Boeing. 29-3). Another said that the
chemical concentration to which a soil can be biotrcated is influenced by the particular chemical,
the soil type, the age of the contaminated media, and the biorcmediation process (Alcoa, 133-3).
At the time the rule was proposed, EPA had not received information that special-
handling problems may limit the quantity of hazardous soil that currently can be treated by
incineration. EPA requested information on special-handling concerns with managing hazardous
soil (58 FR 48145). No comments were received nn this issue.
g
O
a i
-J
-------
'6-10 .
EPA acknowledges the information on available c.ipacity prodded by'the commcnters.
Where commcnters provided verifiable data on the i)-jantilies of hazardous soil they manage. EPA
has taken these data into account in its capacity analysis lor the final rule.
Since preparing the capacity analysis for the Phase II proposed rule, EPA has re-contacted
owners and operators of surface impoundments, and has combined their projected soil generation
and disposal rates for 1994 and 1995. In general. EPA has learned that many owners and
operators of surface impoundments plan to either (U "cle.in close" their impoundments and
generate hazardous soil prior to the effective date of the Land Disposal Restrictions for
hazardous soils contaminated with Phase II wastes, or (2) close their impoundments at some point
with the wastes in place, so that no hazardous soil will be generated at closure. Owners and
operators of surface impoundments w'ho take either of these approaches will not generate
hazardous soils subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions. Based on this information, together
with updated information on the available commercial treatment capacity of incinerators and
cement kilns. EPA has determined that sufficient commercial treatment capacity exists for
hazardous so:I contaminated with Phase II w-astes. Thus, the Agency is not granting a national
capacity variance for these wastes. Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity
Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II i-"trail Rtilt) for a detailed explanation of this
analysts.
Any commercial treatment.capacity that is based on innovative technologies and that may
become available *ill reduce the required capaciry for combustion and other technologies
considered in EPA's capacity analysis. .
EPA also notes that several of the commcnters supporting the capacity variance for soils
represent manufactured gas plants (MOP) sites. EPAjbelicvcs that soils generated at MOP sites
are mineral processing wastes and are therefore not covered by this rule. These, soils will be
addressed in a future LDR rule.
3 S s !
a a S'
o w ,
rr O l5
O
i
o
O
Comments: -
The comments providing information on available treatment capacity for soils are
presented in the following order:
Rohm and Haas (114);
Am. Coke & Coal (31);
USPCI(171);
Rollins (183);
Mercury Recov. (86);
AGA(165);
Williams Nat. Gas (175);
ASARCO (166);
Boeing (29); and
Alcoa (133).
£3
CQ
-------
6-11
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number .CS2P-00114
Comm'enter: Rohm & Haas Company
Comment:
Page Number: 15 to 16
"i?r
|laS.z
ua o 8- g' o
!?-:!s
S rt S v- n
P-8-si
n o, »
3 g "
-°l ,
n
Rohm and Haas expects tht hazardous soils rule to have a significant
impact' s its plants become involved in corrective actions, recovery of
inadvertent .spills, and voluntary remediations. Since EPA has extended the
comment period for the hazardous soils portion of the proposed rule, Rohm
and Haas will furnish additional comment on that proposal at a later date.
However, several comments are appropriate at this point Rohm and Haas
notes that many innovative treatment technologies exist that can meet risk
based standards for soil, but those technologiM may not necessarily meet the
proposed UTS 10 levels as proposed. Therefore, EPA should cap soil
treatment levels by risk based standards, as,.for example, proposed in'CBEC.
Second, EPA should allow soils that are treated to risk-based levels to be
disposed in non-hazardous Subtitle D facilities. This is analogous to allowing
treated debris to be disposed in Subtitle D facilities. Finally, EPA shooki allow
in-situ treatment of soils, such as by soil vapor extraction or bioremediation.
to levels that pose no risk to human health or the environment Thereafter,
the treated soils would not be hazardous soils when managed (as by
excavation and disposal).
O
-N>
i
o
o
CD
UQ
-------
6-12
Hazardous Soil
.3
C
Docket Number CS2P-00114
Commcnter Rohm & Haas Company
Comment:
Page Number: 21 to 22
10 2. " i" °
J2 r. S" 5 M
a" ^ I °
a n " - n
a a >- «
o M K-
o n it>
e £ «
3 ^ "
3 * 2-
S O r»
EPA has overlooked uvsitu technologies for treating hazardous soils.
EPA should clarify that a person may use an in-siru technology to remove
contaminants from the soils so that, when the'soil is excavated and
"maraged,"17 it will not be a hazardous waste. That is, the excavated soil will
meet delisting levels, or will not exhibit a characteristic or contain
constituents from a listed waste. Often, in-situ technplogjes are the least
disruptive and most cost effective technologies available. They are
particularly appropriate is corrective measures at an operating facility,
because the plant does not have to suffer a shut-down or other major
disruption as would occur if the soil under or around the plant had to be
'excavated. In-siru technologies are also favored in, voluntary remediations.
One particularly useful in-5itu technology is soil vapor extraction.
However, EPA.did not list soil vapor extraction as an acceptable technology.
Soil vapor extraction is a well tested, cost effective technology for removing
certain constituents, particularly volatile organic compounds, from soils. Soil
vapor extraction can be used in-siru as well as ex-situ. Soil vapor extraction
may be capable of reducing contaminant levels below risk-based treatment
levels. Attached as Appendix A are reports of several studies, including
studies conducted on behalf of EPA." that document the effectiveness of soil
vapor extraction. -
O
C/3
to
T3
O
o
un
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter
Comment:
6-13
CS2P-00031 Page Number 6
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
Hazardous Soil
!M
-in
a a - "
o w i-
n ,, a>
c 9- oi
.'I5"
ACCCI agrees with EPA that the scop* of potential .oil
clean-ups is so
71'
o
o
un
-------
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment'
CS2P-00171
USPQ, Inc.
Page Number: [4 to 15
The Agency makes no suggestion that there exists
inadequate treatment capacity capable of achieving more protective standards.
Indeed, th:- Agency cites me abundance of combustion treatment capacity elsewhere
in me proposal to justify its decision to refrain from granting 'a national capacity
variance for certain toxicity characteristic waste*.0 There a so cigy^rin^ cnat
matrix effects interfere wim treatment in combustion units. Indeed, the 'low tod
moderately contaminated soil** thai the agency claims predominates would be
treated quite effectively to the lowest achievable and most protective standards
regardless of matrix interferences.24
a 3M Propo**!,. at 48,141-42.
a USPCI it uncertain what conacicute* low or moderate
concamination. tf« asvuzoa the concept im o£.iome importance,
hoviaver, given the Agency's ajiertion rhat [a] cocmon eenae
approach would indicate that incineration would be practical only
~r 3- f
Ȥ?.
° c~
?Mf
3. JJ _ a .
-J ^l *-! -
O O ^- a" f
I-H r* »
11'^1!!
^g-ETil
2 0-5
3 g "
O
o
o
un
ru
-------
6-15
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00183
Rollins Environmental Servica
Page Number 2
|Q O S :T O
~ " o 5 ^
c :± >t >a £
-
3 S
AttachMnt 2 addr*«»«« capacity iaru««. Th« capacity
information «nclo««d is for Rollins Knviron»«ntal services only
and do«s not include th« available ccpacity provided by other .
incinerators. The Hazardous Waste treataent Council (HWTC) ha»
conducted a survey of incineration capacity and the-results of
that survey are in Appendix F of their comments to this saae
docket, dated 11/15/93.
The management of Rollins Environmental Services strongly
urges the Agency to review this capacity information. There is
sufficient capacity in the incineration industry to safely handle
all incinerable wastes including those presently with capacity
variances. '
O
oo
to
Tl
l
O
o
un
uu
-------
6-16
Hazardous Soli
Docket Number: CS2P-00183B
Page Number 2
Commentcr:
Comment:
Rollins'Environmental Services
Rollins Rotary Reactor
Soil Treatment Capacity
^?3
»3?
I5I
?fc« 1
-3
t= 5 ;» .u3 i~i
' 1 " S H en
a o. i- w
o ^" ,' -
n « rt
c 01
3 S ".
l"f '
1 .'
Millions of Pounds/Year
1994
1995-6 1996-7
RES(LA) g§]
RES(NJ)D
«ES(TX) S
" 69
82 .
. 69
82
82
69
O
C/3
K)
o
o
CD
un
-------
6-17 Hazardous Soil
Docket Number CS2P-OOOS6 ' pagc Number: 1 to 2
Commenter Nfercury Recovery Services
Comment:
In response to the concern expressed by the Roundtable
regarding the lack of treatment capacity for
mercury-contaminated wastes, thii is to advise that Morcury
Recovery Services (MRS) is in the process of building its
first commercial mobile Thermal Mercury Removal/Recovery
unit. This equipment, which is scheduled to be in operation
"treating mercury-contaminated soil* on a commercial :basis
during February, 1994, is the .first" of three such units
planned .during 1994. Mobiie units of this type will be
capaole of:
processing, 12-18 tons/day of contaminated soil,
reducing the total contained residual mercury in the
treated soil to <1 ppa regardlesj of the character of
the soil or elemental mercury or mercury compounds
present in the soil.
recovering the mercury
suitable for recycling,
in salable metallic form
meeting all state and federal Clean Air Standards,
liberate mercury from-compound! (such as mercury oxide,
mercury sulfide, and mercury chloride) while retaining
the sulfur and chlorine in the treated soil . and
eliminating gaseous sulfur and chlorine compounda from
the process exhaust gas, and
operate without producing any secondary solid or liquid.
wast* such that clean soil, clean air, and metallic
mercury ar« the only things exiting the equipment,
This process, which meets the criteria established by the
EPA for Resource Recovery, Recycling, and Reuse, has been
successfully piloted as part of a project supported by the
Gaa Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy. A
brief overview of the process and the results obtained in
treating mercury-contaminated soils are given in the
attached brochure..
" 5 -f
' III
§§?
£ = a =
C E± r» \2 *±
3J ra O
U l~~ M
,» '" rr _ n
P-g-ff^
S 2-3 '
IH.
O
GO
K).
i
O
O .
U1
un
-------
6-18
Hazardous Soil
c
Docket Number . CS2P-00165
Commenten American Gas Association
"Comment:
Page Number: 3
neither so« washing, gravimetric separation, nor add leaching have been demonstrated
in the field, this leaves retorting or thermal desorptfon as the only technologies that wil
consistently meet the 0.09 ppm TCLP level as proposed in Options A and B.
Unfortunately, as recognized by EPA, retorting capacity is extremely limited and cost
prohibitive. The estimated cost for prototype thermal desorption equipment is 5800/cubic
yard, with a minimum of a 1000 cubic yards treated at one location. Typically, onty 2-3
cubic yards are generated at a mercury contaminated meter site. These meter sites are
usually scattered over a wide geographic area "Thus a central treatrneottocatton is often
not a viable option. .
m
o. a-
Q. P. - ""
O » H-
O
o
o
un
Cn
-------
6-19
Hazardous Soil
m
\ " 3 a,
Docket Number:
Commented
Comment:
CS2P-00175
Williams Natural Gas Co.
Page Number: 1
J-* £j- 'f. »* f-\
1 B r? .^ W
a a - o
o " H-
o n n
Bl"sl,
Williams Natural Gas Company (WNG) is conc«rn«d with th«
separation of Land Disposal Regulations (LOR) and Hazardous Waste
Identification Regulations. (HWIR) and with the continual delay
associated with the treatment, : handling., disposal and
identification of.characteristic hazardous soils, especially-as it
relates to mercury contaminated soils. The continued deferral of
action o,\ the mercury contaminated soil issue by.EPA has resulted,
and is resulting, in a delayed cleanup effort.by industry. This.
delay is due to industry's lack of a cost effective and EPA
approved treatment technologies for soils contaminated with
.mercury.. Presently, the only acceptable treatmentmethod for high
mercury contaminated soil which fails TCLP is retorting, which has
a very United capacity and is extremely expensive.
O
I
O
o
un
-------
6-20
. Hazardous Soil
: 3j?S
> -?5 «
Docket Number: CS2P-00166 . . .Page Number: 9
Coirmenter: . ASARCO Incorporated
Comment: "
EPA stated that high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR) processes include rotary kiln, the plasma are reactor, the nxaiy hearth electric
furnace system, tot; molten slag reactor, and the flame reactor. However, oorjr one of
these technologies (rotary kiln) is on the list of treatment technologies for winch EPA
has data; EPA lacks data for the others. EPA should note that HTMR processes could
include other types of smelting furnaces such as blast furnaces, flash smelting furnaces.
and so forth, eyed though to date application of these technologies to contaminated soOs
treatment is limited. -|
While Asarco undertakes metals recovery where feasible, in the company's experience
there are limited circumstances in which HTMR technologies are feasible for soils due
to low metals concentrations, unless the soil matrix can serve as a replacement for flux
materials. Metals recovery becomes less economically feasible with lower metals
concentrations. Below a certain conceotratioa, metals recovery is not technically
feasible due to v^nnody^an^i^ coosctunts.' ' ' * ~
g-Sg^a'
.a o S fo
EsHs
§»"«.
a a jr w
o w ^-
O « rt
| | 8
. t°|
.' H y
C/5
O
o
un
CQ
-------
6,21
Hazardous Soil
c "P
- e
Docket Number CS2P-00029
. Commenter: . The Boeing Company
Comment:
Page Number. 3
IT* f* »_ '
a a f- 'w
o » w
n « rt
a C yj .
<» 2. '1
3 ? BT
- Two of the proposed alternate treatment standards use a "ceiling" of one order of
magnitude above the universal standard. The majority of universal treatment
standards for organ!cs are based on incineration and are as a result very low. An
order of magnitude is not sufficient to provide'significant relief especially
considering the additional costs of treating soil on-site or to use rionthermal off-site
treatment. As a result, a great deal of hazardous soil will continue to go to RCRA
incinerators. EPA has failed to recognize to treat soil on-site requires permitting
and approval by local, state and federal agencies. In addition, off-site commercial
treatment facilities for hazardous soils besides incinerators are rare, my not be
suitable for a particular waste or may be too far away, making transportation costs
prohibitive. ! ' " .
n
w
to
o.
.0
un
-------
6-22
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00133
Alcoa
. Page Number: 3
«.*l£S
a a K- »
Ss-
O A fD
C g" B
1S0
Eo sr
Alcoa is concerned that the treatment standards (or hazardous soil as proposed
may discourage use of bioremediation at remediation sites in favor of more
energy intensive, more costly and less environmentally sound processes such
as incineration or thermal desorptibn. . :
Bioremediation of contaminated soil reduces both concentration and mobility of
organic constituents. Figure 1 illustrates the response of organics-contaminated
soil subjected to bioremediation. As bioremediation proceeds, the organic
chemical concentration is reduced until a plateau Is reached. This plateau
represents the condition organic chemicals are lightly bound and incorporated
into the soil matrix such that they are no longer water teachable and therefore *
susceptible to biological oxidation. Thus, bioremediation serves to reduce the
concentration of teachable (i.e. btoaccessaWe) organics leaving behind
immobile chemicals tightly bound to the soil matrix. Once treated to the plateau
level, the soil can be considered biostabilized and risk to human health and the
environment from the constituents is minimized. ;
The chemical concentration to which a soil can be biotreated Is also influenced
by th« particular chemical, th« soH type, th« ag« of the contaminated media, and
the bioremediation process.
O
GO
bo
71
o
o
CD
cn
-------
63 General Comments on a Capacity. Variance
Summary:' . '..'.
Several commenters supported Ihe proposed two-year extension of the effective date for
treatment standards (Am. Coke & Coal, 31-6 and NY DEC 144-2); one of these anticipated a :
shortfall in treatment capacity. (Am. Coke & Coal, 31-6); In particular, several commenters
supported the proposed capacity variance for newly regulated TC organic soils (USWAG et'al.,
55-27; Unocal, 74-2; JCP&L, 88-8; BP Oil, 163-2), and one supported the proposed national
capacity variance for U359 soil (Union Carbide,. 142-5). One commcnter favored an organic TC
deferral or a nation-wide capacity variance for non-UST petroleum contaminated media (Conoco,
177-6). .More broadly, another commenter said that petroleum contaminated media should be
exempted from RCHA hazardous waste requirements (Chevron, 182-2)i
One commenter opposed EPA's proposed capacity variance for soils (HWTC, 60-4 to 5,
60-55). This commenter argued that EPA should not simultaneously argue that a capacity
variance is needed for soil due to insufficient combustion capacity and then state that there is so
much combustion capacity that no more should be permitted for two years (HWTC, 60-55). This
commenter added that if EPA believes that there is insufficient capacity to treat all newly
regulated soils, the Agency should at least require treatment of "hot' spots" (HWTC, 60-57).
Response: ...
Since preparing the draft capacity analysis for this ruleniaking, EPA has re-contacted
owners and operators of surface impoundments, and has reviewed their projected soil generation
and disposal rates for 1994 and' 1995. In general, EPA has learned that many owners and
operators of surface impoundments plan to either (1) "clean close" their impoundments and
generate hazardous soil prior to the effective date of the Land Disposal Restrictions for
hazardous soils, or (2) close their impoundments at some point with the wastes in place, so that
no hazardous soil will be generated at closure. Owners and operators of surface impoundments
who take .either of these approaches will not generate hazardous soils subject to the Land
Disposal Restrictions. Based on this information, together with updated information oh the
available.commercial, treatment capacity of incinerators and cement kilns, EPA has determined .
that sufficient commercial treatment capacity exists for hazardous soil. Thus, the Agency is not
granting a national capacity variance for these wastes.
'. . ' > ' -
EPA also notes that several of the commenters supporting the capacity variance for soils
represent manufactured gas plants (MGP) sites. EPA .believes that soils generated at MOP sites
are mineral processing wastes and are therefore not covered by this rule. These soils will be
addressed in a future LDR rule. '.-''. . '
o
00
to
o
o
en
-------
6-24
Comments:
The comments discussing a capacity variance for hazardous soils are presented in the
following order x . :
Am. Coke & Coal (31);
NY DEC (144);
USWAG et all (55); - '"..
Unocal (74); L ' '
JCP&L (88);
BP Oil (163); v . .
Union Carbide (142);
Conoco (in);
Chevron (182); and
:HWTC(60V . .":''-' '
.o-g.
.o-.-0
. 3 J
S » ??
O
GO
to
o
O
en
hj
-------
6-25
Hazardous Soli
Docket Number
v
. Commenler:
Comment:
CS2P-00031 Page Number: 6
American Coke, and Coal Chemicals Institute
o i
a a f °
8u _
rt A
ACCCI ?gr«c» with EPA that th« «cop« of potential moil
claan-ups is *o great that it easily ju*tifi«* a two-year
extension of the effective date for treatment standards, based
on a short-fall of treatment capacity.
O
oo
to
Tl
i
O
O
CD
Uj
-------
6-26
Hazardous Soil
?5?
I Si
.Docket Number CS2P-00144 Page Number: 2
Commenten New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
'Comment:
(B fT > '
o. a - <
O M H-
S g-S
3 A
ft __ O
S°l
EPA also proposes two-year national capacity variances
for soil and mixed radioactive vast**, contaminated '
with certain newly listed and identified wastes, and
for debris contaminated with newly listed .and
identified wastes. This Department believes,the
variances are appropriate, due to lack of national
treatment and disposal capacity. The variances may
also be necessary if EPA fails to take final action on
the petition of New York State and other states to
defer the application of the Toxicity Characteristic
Rule to petroleua-contaainated environmental media fron
non-UST sites; If the deferral that was proposed in
the December 24, 1992 Federal Register is not finalized
before such a variance expires, p~etroleum spill
response programs will be even more adversely affected
than at the present time, due to the universal
.treatment standards that would have to be met for
hazardous petroleum-contaminated .soil. :
o
.CO
is)
o
o
cn
-------
6-27
Hazardous Soil
S'Stt
«s?
Docket Number CS2P^00055 . Page Number 27
Commented Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Comment:
OSWAQ supports the proposed capacity variance for TC
organic mixed wastes and newly regulated TC organic soils. ja.
at 4£X39. AM the Agency 1m well aware, there Is a critical
shortfall in treatment capacity for; ail mixed wastes and a
capacity variance im necessary .to develop appropriate
technologies and bring them on-line. Although OSKAG will
address the treatment standards for hazardous soils at a later
date.'' we .note that a treatment variance for newly regulated
oils is also necessary, particularly i£ they become subject to
the proposed universal treatment standards . The Agency has
recognized that soils are particularly difficult to treat and
that sufficient capacity is not available even to treat them to
the less stringent standards included in the original '
proposal. Ifl7_at 48143-46. Therefore, a capacity variance is
required for TC- organic soils.
tr< Z '
.3 o ft!
B = :
P-g-ET^.
° o. 2
3 S
(0 O
S° ss
O
e/3
to
O
o
C3.
cn
-------
6-28
Hazardous Soli
. » -
c "P
3* FT
Docket Number:
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00074
Unocal Corporatioa
Page Number 2
t, rr " ,5 o
S-»-s:L.n
a a K- "
.
1st-
Unocal supports the two year
National Capacity Variance proposed for hazardous soila and debris contaminated with
Phac-s II wastes to coordinate LDRs for these waste with the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) development efforts. In addition we urge, as discussed
below, the extension of this coordination of HWIR to universal treatment standards
(UTSs) and to treatment standards at levets below the characteristic.
o
00
K)
o
o
CD
en
en
-------
. Docket Number:
Commenten
Comment:
6-29
CS2P-OQOSS
Jersey Central Power & Light
Hazardous Soli
Page Number: 8
JCP&L supports the proposed capacity variances for TC organic
mixed wastes and newry regulated TC organic sofa (Page 48139). There is a
critical shortage in treatment capacity for all mixed wastes and a capacity
variance is necessary to develop appropriate technologies and bring them
, on-line. A treatment variance for newiy regulated soils is also necessary,
.oartjcularty if they are subject to the proposed universal treatment standards.
The EPA has recognized that soils are particularly difficult to treat arid that :
sufficient capacity is not available even to treat them to the less stringent
standards original proposal (Pages 48143-48); Therefore, a capacity
variance is required for TC-organic soSs.
A !£
*m
ffs'll'S o
g » S n
o. a [r »
§|g
iga
*gt>
O
GO
to
^TJ
i
O
O
CD
ch
I
s
-------
6-30
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
. Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00163
BP Oil Company
Page Number: 2
ss
o
EPA notes in the March 8, 1994 clarification dm trealability variances from waste-specific LOR
standuds remain in effect and ire generally appropriate for contaminated soil and debris because
of the distinct difference between nunagement of ccctaminated soils and waste. We thinV that use.
of the treatabiloy variance provisions will be tnne^consuming and burdensome and will delay on-
going remediation e£Ebtt3. ' - ' - '
BP Oil is ic the process of closing refinery sur&cs irapoundments which have been impacted by the
TC and primary sludge rules. In the case of one impoundment, closure is almost complete, but
contaminated soil continues to be gcEcrated u required wtnitmrnt cleanup levels are attained. In
other CISCT, closure plans were submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies by the required
due (totisi, but approval of the closure plans has not beta received. Many closure activities cannot
begin until the impoundment closure plan has been approved by the regulatory agency. Therefore,
F037/F038 and TC contaminated soils will likely anndmj? to be generated after the anticipated
effective date of soil LDR requirements .and before the HWIR rules are promulgated. ,
Relief is critically needed for '"""»fl'"g '
toils during ^"'' time period in order '
closure of the impoundments can proceed in aoccrdaac* with the closure plans which have been
submitted. National capacity variances (NCVs) for TC and F037/F038 contaminated soil, as
were proposed on September 14, 199 J, are tfatf ptefaied approach and the approach that we
anticipated. If NCVs or similar relief is not avaflabto for soils, impoundment dosare plans nay
have to be revised foit requiring AfiKiyui ctgulatnry approvals. Treatabilhy variance
applications nary h*y« to be prepared, subnriatd. tad approved, and «ifi *<«"* ddayi are lidy.
o
c/)
10
o
o
cn
CQ
-------
6-31
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00142
Union Carbide Corporation
Page Number: 5
sg-s '
« C a
Union Cartkfe supports th« proposstf Mtton«l capacity variant* for U359
SOIL - -: -:" - -- ' ' - - -. .
A Union Carbide location has substantial quantities (estimated 600.000 pounds)
of U359 soil contaminated by an underground pipeline leak.
O
GO
ts>
O
O
;Si
CD
cn
-------
6-32
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00177
Conoco Inc.
Page Number 8
'' ill
tfira I
2-5 a a
« a &S"
» " rr M.' I
0,0. -J- «
' Sg-S
1s"
3 R sr
EPA is currently working with a focus group including federal regulators, state
regulicors, environmemalists and industry to develop a more -appropriate regulatory
scheme for all contaminated media. Meanwhile rules which would provide some relief,
like the proposed OTC deferral for non-USTs (Docket No. F-92-STPP-FFFFF)
and the RCRA Corrective Action rule are virtually in political limbo. ,
In light of these deveiopments, Conoco applauds EPA's decision to merge the soil LDRs
with the HWIR proposal.. However, in July 1994, EPA is expected to promulgate land
disposal restrictions for OTC wastes. The land disposal restrictions will take effect
immediately unless a capacity variance or deferral of the OTC rule is granted.
Petroleum contaminated soil from both current and historical releases, may be hazardous
due to leachable levels of benzene. While only a fraction of the media impacted will fail
TCLP for benzene, LDRs could have a detrimental impact on these remedial actions,
increasing analytical costs, extending delays in implementation, and requiring treatment,
for treatment's sake without regard to.risk to human health and the environment.
Ongoing and future remediation programs like the cases described aboveV could be
impacted severely. .
Conoco strongly urges EPA to consider finiliring the OTC deferral for non-USTs or a
capacity variance for contaminated soils, when the OTC LDRs are finalized later this
year. " . ' . '".'
O
71
o
o
-------
6-33
Hazardous Sol)
ir.i
Docket Number CS2P-00182
Commenter: Chevron Companies
Comment:
Page Number: 2
5-^ z " a
^a'liS
E c '8 S "
I-»iS.
P-g-ET^.
S°-g
3 g» '
The Subtitle X program has demonstrated that cleanups happen sore
efficiently, when their is flexibility in the decision making
. process. Many state authorities are far along in setting cleanup
standards. Flexibility should remain with state authorities as
they are in the best position to evaluate site specific
considerations and make decisions which are timely, protective, and
cost effective. This has been a relatively successful model and
should be broadened to all contaminated soils.
We agree with EPA's assessment of the risks and costs of applying
RCRA standards to the Subtitle I program. EPA concluded that the
increase in cost that RCRA hazardous waste requirements bring are
unnecessary in achieving adequate protection of .human health and
the environment '.and -that if .hazardous waste -permitting of UST
cleanups occurred, there would likely be a decrease in the
. protection currently provided under the-Subtitle I UST program.
In summary, we urge EPA to exempt petroleum contaminated media from
RCRA'hazardous waste requirements. It is in the public's interest
to make site cleanup as easy, 'inexpensive, and as predictable as
possible while still .providing -reasonable protection of human
health and the environment. -.
f...
o
OQ
K)
^
i
O
2
-------
" *
.1
6-34
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number.
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00060
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Page Number: 4 to 5
51M
o
TheHWTC strongly .opposes any blanket capacity variance for soil
, contaminated with wastes that wtfl receive treatment standards in this rule, as
proposed by EPA. The variance is based on EPA's assertion that there are 3 million
tons o; hazardous sbfl previously regulated that are being landfflted annually without
treatment, and that those wastes first need treatment capacity before the nevrfy
regulated soa is treated. However, as EPA also expScitfy notes, these pupbrted 3
million tons have required treatment before landfilling since May 8,1993. Thus, there.
is not any 3 miton ton barrier to requiring treatment for the sofls receiving treatment
standards in this regulation.
Even if there were such a barrier, EPA would not be justified h a blanket
capacity variance. Rather, EPA should immediately require treatment of the most
highly contaminated waste. Our comments proposed specific approach along these
Hnes.
O
-.(/I
K>
71
o
o
-------
6-35
Hazardous Soil
Pocket Number: CS2P-00060 . Page Number: 55
Commenter: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Comment:
D. a ,_ a
o w >-
O n l»
-
6PAestimates that 252,000 tonso*0018-43 wastes wa require treatment
capacity, together with much smafler quantities of the other wastes being regulated
under this rule.
Against this need, EPA states that approximateJy 334,000 tons of sludge/solids
capacity is available, more than enough to meet the new requirements; And, in
issuing its draft National Combustion Strategy in May 1993, EPA strongly.took the
position that there is so much excess combustion capacity that no more capacity
should be permitted (even a existing facffitfes) for at toast the next two years.
Thus, the data clearly supports EPA's determination not to issue a capacity
: variance for as-generated wastes newly receiving treatment standards in this
regulation. -
However, the proposal to grant a capacity variance for hazardous soil newfy
receiving treatment standards in this regulation is totally unjustified.
To begin with, it is unconscionable to argue, at one and the same time, that (1)
a capacity variance is needed for soB, because of Insufficient combustioq capacity.
and (2) there is so mucti excess combustioh capacity that no more should be
permitted for two years and that such permitting should receive very low (i.e., zero);
priority. .
Either the BJ-advtsed combustion strategy moratorium on combustion capacity
shouW be dropped, or - if EPA befieves the strategy's premise of greatty excess
capacity is correct - the proposed capacity variance tor sol is unwarranted. -
O
00
to
o
o
CD
uu
-------
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
6-36
CS2P-00060 Page Number 57
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Hazardous Soil
c "
Spodflcafy, If EPA befieves there b insufficient capacity to treat afl newty
regulated sois, it should-at the very least- require treatment of "hot spots.
sofa, which would not be subject to the variance, would be:
o Sofl contaminated wfth acutafy toidc wastes, such as P-coded waste
constituents, or cyarride, at a level .of 100 parts per miTOon (ppm) or
:" . 'greater;' . '.-.-. ' '-.'.- ; ;'''
o , Sol containing 1,000 ppm or more of rmtoflifloMcJ oiyatic compounds
. (HOCa), as defined in the final CaBfomia UsTrute (52 Fed. Reg. 25780
(July 8,1987),cooUted at 40 C.F.R. Part 268, Appendix 111); or
o Sol containing 10,000 ppm or more of ttJtal organic constituents/as
measured by EPA's Oi and Grease Extraction Method (Method 9071,
SW-846). ;-.... ; . ~^:
We befleveitnis subset woukj constitute 5-10% of afl of the universe of
contaminated sods. As a subset of the newty regulated soils, of course, this subset
woufcl represent a very much smafler number than suggested byEPAinthe
September .14,1903 Preamble. ' '
ft a
" I '
"-< 55 a2:
o 8- 5"o
"
a a - »
. o " >-
n -. n
c e 2
3 n
t& ' p
"°R,
O
o
o
-------
-6-37
6.4 Commenters Disagreed About Whether Innovative Technologies Could Be Used to Treat
Hazardous Soil . ...'. ". ' '
EPA believes that innovative technologies will be available to treat hazardous soil. EPA
requested comments on the practicality and current availability of these technologies' (58 FR
8145). EPA received comments on both sides of this issue. Summarized below are comments
arguing (hat innovative technologies are effective and comments challenging the effectiveness of
these technologies. . .
6.4.1 innovative Technologies for Treating Soil Are Effective
Summary:
Several commenters suggested that innovative technologies could be used to treat
hazardous soil. For example, two commenters said that while there is no concrete data that
supports EPA's view that highly contaminated soil can.be treated by combustion, many innovative
technologies can treat highly contaminated soils and remediation wastes (CMA, Ll-4 to 5;
Dupont Chem., IJ^4). Two other commenters noted several advantages of on-site innovative
treatment, including a substantially lower .burden oh industry with almost the same environmental .
beneGts, and less risk of exposure due to spillage during transportation (Time Oil, 178-3;
BioGenesis, 180-1).
Regarding specific technologies, one commenter said that the technology HT-6 has
demonstrated the ability to treat wastes and soils (Seaview, 5S-6). Another said that thermal
desorption is capable of treating soils containing high contaminant concentrations (Southwest,
109-4). . One said that soil vapor extraction is alscr effective for treating soils (Rohm and Haas,
1 14-21 to 22). One said that stabilization can provide an effective means to treat organic .
constituents in soils (USPCI, 171-30 to 31), while another said more broadly that stabilization,
immobilization, and solidification are effective for soils (ASARCO, 166-11). One commenter said
simply that their soil washing technology is "effective" (BioGenesis, 180-1).
. Several commenters discussed biological treatment One said that biological treatment and
low temperature thermal desorption can operate within the range of 90 percent removal on many
contaminants and in many media (Burlington North., 148-3). Another concluded that even the
most stringent of the three proposed approaches for contaminated soil could be met with
biological treatment (Time Oil, 178-2). One said broadly'that biological treatment is "efficient" in
treating petroleum contaminated media (Chevron, 182-2).
Finally, two commenters described innovative technologies. One commenter provided a
description and process analysis for a thermal processor for the treatment of petroleum refining,
wastes and contaminated soils (SRS, 138-App.A). Another commenter described a biotreatment
technology that involves wrapping soils in plastic and containing them on concrete pads (Conoco,
177-4 to 5).
fli,
>Q O ft g-O
O W H-
O *v
O
00
I
O
O
CD
un
-------
6-38.
. Response:
. In its capacity analysis for hazardous soil contaminated with Phase II wastes, EPA assigned
all hazardous soil requiring off-site treatment to combustion facilities, and determined that
sufficient combustion capacity exists for these soils. To the extent that commercially available
innovative technologies are capable of meeting the treatment standards for hazardous soil covered
by.this rule, additional capacity may be available for these wastes. Please refer to EPA's
BackgroundDocument'for'the Capacity Analysis forLand Disposal Restrictions Phase II (Final
Rule) for a detailed explanation of this analysis.
Comments:
The comments indicating that innovative technologies are effective in treating soil are
presented in the following order: x
. CMA(Ll); . . '.-. .-'..' .
DuPont Chem. (L3); .
: .Tune Oil (178); .
BibGenesis (180); .
. Seaview (58);
Southwest (109); '''''''.
Rohm and Haas (114); ~
USPCI(17i);
ASARCO(166); .
. BioGenesis (180);
Burlington North. (148);
Time Oil (178); .
Chevron (182); .
. SRS(138);and
. Conoco (177).
(Tt D> ?
3 ft
c ~ E
w'|lg-
eSf £ «
O
00
Is)
O
O
C3
or
-------
6-39
Hazardous Soil
' -V D* i
> ss
. c £f
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-OOOL1 Page Number: 4 to 5
Chemical Manufacturers Association
E
5
8 '
-
(4) miUpropa^ soils rule, EPA nuJtea repeated reference s to
low, medium, and high lerels of contamination without d«fi'ng what
it means by these terms. EPA.thensuggest* that innovative
technologies are appropriate for the treatment of low to niirfmn levels
of contanaiaation, implying that only incineration is appropriate for
high levela of contamination. The« conclusions are not supported by
any data. EPAs contaminated media rule, when it is proposed, should
only include recommendations on treatment technology requirements
that can be supported by data.
O
o
o
--J
-------
6-40
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number: CS2P-OOOL3
Commenter Dupbnt Chemicals
Comment:
Page Number 4
n> *r ^ i
O. Q, ^ W
o » »
O rt **
c ft »
We note with some concern that EPA hu nude several unsupported assertions in
the proposed rule to the effect that most hazardous soils are contaminate at "low"
and "medium*' levels, and that combustion is the most appropriate technology for
many highly contaminated hazardous soils. No data is provided to support this
assertion. In fact, many innovative technologies can treat highly contaminated soils
and remediation wastes. We encourage the Agency to avoid unsupported
pronouncements about the role of incineration that appear* to be at odds with their
yft^j combustion strategy. ' - .
O
.
O
O
CD
--J-
CQ
-------
6-41
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commemer
Comment:
CS2P-00178
. Time Oil Co.
Page Number: 3
g--< a Q-a
>Q o ft & o
. . EPA's risk model* assume a
residential exposure, *n extreaely conservative exposure
assuaption given th» strictly industrial area in which Tima oil's
Portland terminal is located. Even with the exaggerated risk
hypothesized by EPA's risk xodels, then, .treatsent of tha
contaainated soil at Tine oil's Portland, terminal to the proposed
hazardous soil treatment standards would result in soil that
would b* acceptable for placeaent in a residential setting,
without subsequent disposal at a Subtitle C facility.
Alternatively, Time Oil estimates that the volume of . '
contaminated soil it expects to generate during cleanup would.
fill at least 150 trucks. The risk of a fatal accident during
transportation of this volume of moil to Coffeyyille, Kansas for
incineration is approximately 1.635 x ICrl, nearly 20.0OO times
than the risk associated with on-site .treatment and
o
on
to
O
O
replacement of. the .contaminated soil.4
Time Oil supports EPA's proposal to implement '
alternative hazardous soil standards that reflect the inherent
differences between traditional hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents contained in soil.
CO
-------
6:42 Hazardous Sol)
Docket Number: CS2P-00180 Page Number 1
Commented BioGenesis Enterprises. Inc.
Comment:
Moving away from thermal technologies as the BOAT for all
wastes encourages the development and use of other technologies for remediation.
' Innovative technologies, such as our soil and sediment washing units, are developed
and enhanced due to a market that encourages such development Combustion, as
the sole source BOAT, discourages the refinement of potential technologies that
presently achieve safe and effective reduction of contamination to levels that pose no.
threat to human health or the environment
y a '
" 3 <
§51
fflfr
o
10 8, & 3
l?Sl2 '
S "» S H, «
P-8-ff"
. o Q^ rt*
c ,- w
3U. (JJ
f> _^ O
.**!
o
GO
K)
hrj
i
O
O
CD
CD
-------
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number: CS2P-00058
Commenter: Seaview Thermal Systems
Comment:
Page Number: 6
n ^.
a a >r- B>
. o " .
S-S
HT-6 has demonstrated the ability to
significantly treat wastes and soil*. This ability i» "matrix-
ind«p*nd«nt" and-is achi«v«d irresp«ctiva of whether or not th«
waste is homogeneous or heterogeneous. Additionally, the HT-6
process is recognized by the hazardous waste industry to bo an
extremely well operated and well designed treatment process.
Included in Attachment "A" is pilot scale data on the processing of,
Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) wastes. " HOP wastes are extremely
heterogeneous and "contain significant concentration of poly-nuclear-
aromatic hydrocarbon* existing in a tar-liXe natrix. The tar-like
wastes are typically mixed with soils, and are analogous to other
regulated waste such as K087, K141-14V K147, and K148. As
docuaented in Attachment "A", the HT-6 process removed all the
regulated organic constituents from the contaminated soil to non-
detectable, concentrations while concurrently .recovering the
hydrocarbons in the recyclable form of oil. This demonstrated
ability is an additional example of the capabilities of innovative
technologies to achieve treatment levels which are significantly
lower than the proposed universal standards and more protective 'of
human health and the environment.
oo
to
71
o
o
-Pv
C3
CD
-------
6-4-4
Docket Number: CS2P-00109 Page Number 4
Commenten Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc.
Comment: , '
ss^
Hazardous Soil
; in
illl
I*H:
11"«:
8 " S M.
P-&S-"
- SQ-S
. ' |g-
M
o
CO
to
CQ
-------
6-45
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number . CS2P-00114
Commenter: Rohm & Haas .Company
Comment (continued):
Page Number: 21 to 22
n 5«»
** ^ sT
-§'E
Sri"
t-< g D- g
.« O g.g-0
t5 _ o I" 3
C >T (p (Q *^-
rt " »» H M
a o. ^-.B
O " t- . .
O o m
C 91 M
g (- tn
Q O
One particularly useful in-siru technology is soil vapor extraction.
However, EPA did hot list soil vapor extraction as an acceptable technology.
Soil vapor extraction is a well tested, cost effective technology for removing
certain constituents, particularly volatile organic compounds, from soils. Soil
vapor extraction can be used in-siru as well as ex-situ. Soil vapor extraction
mry be capable of reducing contaminant levels below, risk-based treatment
levels. Attached as Appendix A are reports of several studies, including
studies'conducted on behalf of EPA. that document the effectiveness of soil
vapor extraction. : .
O
oo
to
71
o
o
cd
-------
6-J6
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00171
USPCI. Inc.
Page Number: 30 to 31
USPa betiavea that t broad range of organic comtitneatt cam be effectively
treated utilising specialized clays mat can bind organics in the interstices between
individual clay piatelettes. We have included a summary (Appendix B) of a study
prepared by USPCI evaluating the effectiveness of stabilization of K.048-52 oil : .
refilling wastes with atapulgite clays. As the. summary document shows,
' concentrated process wastes (some containing several thousand ppm petroleum
organics) were effectively treated to levels at or Iwar currently effective treatment
standards. Accordingly, we believe mat specialized stabilization reagents can be
used to effectively treat organics in soils, which typically exhibit lower contaminant
levels. However, we do not believe mat organic stabilization is appropriate unless
coupled with disposal in a subtitle C minit^ufq technology landfill. RCRA section
3004(m)(2) clearly requires mis result Moreover, such a conclusion is consistent
with existing EPA policy concerning hazardous debris subjected to immobilization
technology treatment.
In addition to the summary document, we are providing n«A*r separate cover
' ' i
a foil set of supporting analyse* including quality control data.
c <-
«n o g. g" o
£ 5 S S « ''
g ^ fTt O
1 » S" «
P-8-tr"
O r, n
d 9- ra
g C n
S " o
O
c/>
to
>TJ
O
o
CD
CQ
-------
6-47
Hazardous Soil
firs
* *~
sr|t|
Docket Number:
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00166
ASARCO Incorporated
Page Number 11
?
3 S !='
a a KT »
e " f
«» " a
3 rf (-
£ ° s
The most appropriate treatment technologies for soil, if treatment is necessary, generally
involve ^hilJTarioo. immobilization, and/or aolidifkaiioh. In ftct, EPA's soil
treatment database contains very sparse treatment data on other kinds of technologies
(i.e., other than immobilization or stabilization) for metal-bearing soils. Based on tbe
Agency's proposed regulatory language, it appears that EPA b proposing to apply the
90-perc-uJt treatment standard to whole waste concentrations.11^ However, the
treatment benefits achieved by stabilization, immobilizatioh, and solidification generally'
are not measurable by a reduction in total waste concentration. Therefore, any whole
waste concentration treatment standard for soils containing metals or metallic
compounds would be virtually meaninglesa. (Tbe 90-percem treatment standard would
still be arbitiiry and inappropriate as d'unmod above if appikd to leachate instead of
total waste.)
o
on
K)
hcj
O
O
CD
GO
un
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
6-4S
GS2P-00180
BioGenesis Enterprises. Inc. '
Hazardous Soil
a, 3-
> = "
Page Number: 1
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc., is a leading, innovative soil washing firm that offers
ecologically sound and effective solutions to industrial contamination problems. Our
soil and sediment washing processes have been successfully demonstrated at a
refinery under the U.S. EPA SITE Demonstration Program in November, 1992 and
under Environment Canada's Great Lakes Cleanup Program at.Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Our remediation technology is able to treat a broad spectrum of petroleum products,
PCP, PAHs, dioxin/furan, creosote, and wood treating wastes. We feel pur comments'
will be useful because our technology is an excellent example of state of the art -
remediation mat should b« reflected in the promulgation.
r-< z OTZ
GO
i
O
o
CD
CD
cn
-------
6-49
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number: CS2P-00148 Page Number 3.
Commenter . Burlington Northern Railroad
Comment:
. Biological treatment and low
temperature thermal desorgtion can operate within the range of 90% removal
oa many contaminants and in many media. There are al*o many instances and
rite* that will not achieve 90% removal due to complex contaminant and sods
matrices. Evan unhazardous petroleum product! are not treatable to 90%
removal in days. There should be some provisions in the regulations that would
allow Cor the application of appropriate technology and ehmmaie quantitative
pflfuiin*1""' inter** Tht« tppftfXjl 1"il *!?*»» In tnet dehrfa tr»>jHTtv>nt ttgrvrfarflc
and has proven to be effective and implementabto.
lO
o
*3
g.5 5°
a a K-
l:a
Ror
O
oo
to
>TJ
O
o
C3'
GO
t
-------
5-50
Hazardous Soil
-Is
» § ?:
Docket Number
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-00178
Time Oil
Page Number: 2
J-. Wl (0
&!'?
By contra** *« proposed alternative hazardous soil
treatment standard*' will allow Time Oil to conduct a coet-
effective and, more importantly, anvirormantally protective
cleanup. Tina Oil has avaluatad biological traataant options and
baliavas that avan tha moat atrihgant of tha thraa proposed
approach** for hazardous soils potentially could b« aat with
thasa dastructiv* traatnent tachnologias. Aftar treatment, the
ooin. could b« replaced on site .(if it no longer "contains" a -
hazardous waste) or disposed at a RCRA Subtitle C landfill; Time
Oil estinateu total treataent and disposal cos*«- under -the
proposed hazardous treatment standards at $2.million to $4
ai11ion,roughly fiv« to ten percent of .the cost of incineration.
O. Q, f- W
O <" >-
O 0 (»
C C S
rt>. . o.
3- O rt>
o
C/5
bo
o
o
CD
cd
CQ
-------
6-51
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number CS2P-00182 . Page Number: 2
Commenter: , . Chevron Companies
Comment:
If it is EPA's intent to requir* th« application of LDRm to
,petroleuji contaainated media, than v« b«li«v« biological treatment
is an ideal site clean-up technology. This is because it is easily
deployed, cost effective, and efficient at removing any potential
risk associated with petroleum contamination. When properly
applied, organic coapounds are digested leaving only those
compounds.deep in the soil pores that are unaccessible to bacteria
or any other living thing. We recommend that biological'treatment.
'be defined as a BOAT technology provided that when applied; the
technology achieves a 90* reduction in the leachability of organic
coiapounds or meets- a specific leachata standard to be developed
specifically for this technology.: This standard would be ah
indicator of a well operated biological treatment process and would
not be applicable to.other technologies.-
id O 2- ff'O
o. a >- i
o " ,
, o rt i
e £ i
O
oo
to
71
o
o
CQ
UQ
-------
6-52
Hazardous Soli
, tfy
' eSE
Docket Number: ' ! CS2P-00138 Page Number: App. A
Commenter: Separatipa and Recovery Systems, Inc.
Comment:
MX-2500 Thermal Processor for the Treatment of
Petroleum Refining Wastes and Contaminated
Soils
Christopher Swanberg
Separation and Recovery Systems Inc., Irvine. CA 92714
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc. (SRS) of Irvine, California is the market
leader in supplying hazardous wane and secondary material dewatering and
drying services to the petroleum refining industry. In late 1991, SRS introduced
the new generation of dryer technology, the MX-2500. The MX-2500 is an e(ec-
tricaliy heated dryer system that recovers virtually~all of the hydrocarbon value of .
refinery wastes and secondary materials, while producing a solid residue meeting
EPA Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment levels which allows the refinery
to land dispose of the solids, thereby realizing two objectives: waste minimization
and oil recovery /recycling.
^ n
P1 a CT '
§ g-S
3 m W
,O O
3 rT' h^
3 « «
8
o
K)
71
o
.o
SRS developed the MX-I300 u u etteuioa of hj two
od recortry procmet; I) MX-l300Ctnmiu»t Syitem. uri I)
MX-ZOOO Th«nnil Dorr Syuctn. The MX- 1500 ctntm'ug
lyBcm ""*"* of cither two-pluic or ibrtc-t>hue crotnfa-
taaoa Um rcsalu in ntpenor oil tod wucr rccovcn-. «hilt
limrium t dnrucnd solid which mtcu IDC Paiat Filter Ten.
Tlw ectnhfntt proeeu nu diiuoct advutata OVCT cotntxtint
No oert of body f«h thu inereuc volume:
The iteKry to be doje4.therrby complying with btnaat
NESHAP JUndJrti.
Th»MX-ZX»k» tempenittrt dryer u ui indirect beaicd »~m.rri.i efftetiTtMti or the MX-2300 in metnaj
LOR uumt« uadardi ho roulud in SRS markcont lit
thn» man IMX-I300. MX-2000. and MX-13001 u UM
SAUXProcaa.
C3
-------
6-53
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number CS2P-00177
Commenten Conoco Inc.
Comment:
-' Page Number: 4 to 5
: 'So *
\ " 3 n>
C "g
? *lf.
£*»£»
s!
» *
a a {- °>
o " -
S 0-8'
I S w
» o
At our Ponca City Refinery, (unhazardous contaminated soils are treated using an
innovative technology that combines soil vapor extraction and bioreraediation. The soils
are wrapped in p!istic sheeting and contained on cpncrete pads. This innovative
bioremediation technology, known as "burrito* remediation, is also a feasible and -
practical treatment alternative for hazardous soils; however, RCRA Subtitle C
management standards and permitting requirements would prohibit use of the burritos.
The LDR» could prohibit the use of treated soils in on-site construction 'projects.
Although the: burritos' do not meet RCRA Subpart J Tank Standards, they are fully
contained units that are designed to minimize spills, control air emissions and collect
leachate. Vent gas from (he burritos is treated by carbon adsorption. The moisture
content of the soil is controlled at optimum conditions for bioremediatibn. There are no
free liquids in the borrittw other than water used for moisture control. Excess moisture is
drained and collected for treatment in the plant's NPDES permitted wastewater treatment
system. ': "
Currently hazardous contaminated soils are disposed at the on-site Subtitle C landfarm or .
an off-site Subtitle C landfill. These disposal methods, which are not as practical or
protective as in-sitn treatment, would bejjrohibited once the organic TC LDRs take
effect We would be forced to treat the soils using more costly technologies such as
incineration.
Today it costs $300-40Q/ton for disposal in a Subtitle C Undfili. Disposal in a hazardous
. waste incinerator would cost $1300-1700/ton~ In contrast, treatment as a nonhazardous
material would be less costly. Conoco's "burrito' technology, in-situ biodegradation or
ex-situ thermal treatment could effectively treat the petroleum contaminated soils on-site
for J4O-$70/ton depending on the soil' matrix. In addition, these technologies would
facilitate resource recovery through on-site reuse of soil.
O
oo
o
o
C3
-------
6-54
"
6.4.2 Innovative Technologies for Treating Soil Arc Not Effective
Summary: .
Several commenters believe the soil standards will discourage- the use of innovative
technologies. Five commenters said that the hazardous soil standards are too low to encourage
most innovative technologies (Koppcrs, 83-4; Wesliiighousc, 1 15-2;v Conoco, 177-2; CMA, Ll-3 to
4; Dupont Chem. L3-5 to 6). Three of these noted lhat eighty-five percent of the data in EPA's
soil database is from bench (49%) or pilot (36%) scale tests of thermal treatment technologies,
and argued that this limited database results in overly conservative standards that discourage
innovative technologies such as biotreatment, soil venting, and soil washing (Conoco, 177-2; CMA,
Ll-3 to 4; Dupont Chem. L3-5 to 6). One commenter said broadly that EPA. is only guessing that
the innovative treatment technologies can actually treat ihe potentially hard-to-treat soil matrices
(USPCI, 171-15 to 16). One cbmmenter said that the hazardous soil treatment standards will
limit the use of bioremediation at many sites (RETEC, 26-2), adding lhat the standards for
. herbicid.s and pesticides in soil can only be met by incineration, not bioremediation (RETEC, 26-
10). 'One. commenter said that innovative treatment technologies that can meet risk-based
standards for soil may be 'unable to meet "UTS x 10" levels (Rohm and Haas, 1 14-15 to 16).
One commenter had specific comments on (he elfectivcncss of innovative technologies in
treating mercury-contaminated soils. This commenlcr said lhat it may be difficult to treat
merciiryrcontaminaied soils, below the .20 ppm'TCLP level using only soil washing or gravimetric
separation (AGA, 165-2). This commenter added lhat acid leaching may reduce the total mercury
below the proposed 90 percent target but its ability to consistently reduce the TCLP below .20 .
ppm for all soil types has not yet been demonstrated (AGA, 165-2 to 3).
Several commenters suggested that the soil standards should be changed to encourage
innovative technologies:- For example, EPA could raise Ihe incineration-based UTS levels to
levels achievable by other, methods such as biological treatment (AWPI, 47-7). To encourage
innovative technologies for soil treatment, one commenter stated that UTS should be based on
teachable constituents (Koppers, 83-4). One commenter disagreed with this approach, saying that
the proposed eased and unprotective standards reflect little more than-a politically motivated bias
in favor of unproven and uncertain technologies that cannot perform as well the best >
demonstrated technology i.e., combustion in properly engineered, stringently regulated
hazardous waste incinerators (USPCI, 171>4). . .
Response:
In its capacity analysis for hazardous soil contaminated with Phase II wastes, EPA assigned
all hazardous soil requiring off-site treatment to combustion facilities, and determined that
sufficient combustion capacity exists for these soils. .Soils lhat will be treated on site were not
included in the estimate of the quantity requiring combustion capacity. EPA encourages the
development of innovative technologies for treating soils. However, for capacity analysis
purposes, EPA regards these technologies as reducing the demand for off-site treatment capacity
which is primarily combustion.
The Agency recognizes that much soil generation is discretionary and may depend on the
costs of the technologies available for treating soils. The Agency is separately addressing issues of
<»;?.
0.0. f- 01
o "> *~
2 O- m
n
TJ
I
o
o
CD
uo
-------
6-55 .
entry and exit of hazardous soil in its hazardous waste management programs under the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) currently under development.
Comments: .'.'."''.
The comments indicating that innovative technologies arc not effective in treating soil are
presented in the following order: - :
..Koppers (83); . .
Westinghouse (115);
Conoco (177);
CMA(Ll); '.
DuPont Chem. (L3);
Conoco (177);
CMA (LI);
DuPont Chem. (L3); -
USPCI(171); .
RETEC(26);
Rohm and Haas (114);
AGA (165); .
AWPI(47); .....'
Koppers (83); and
USPCI(171). ....
m " rr t±i
Q« O- t-*- w
o <* »-
? 'o« M
§ c 5
O
c/o
o
o
C3
Up
UU
-------
6-56 Hazardous Soil
Docket Number CS2P-00083 Page Number: 4
Commentcr: Koppers Industries' .
Comment:
The hazardous' soil standards proponed are too low to encourage
moat innovative technoloqiea and will, instead, require
incineration.. " .. . ' : . - ' '. '
Proposed OTS levels for organics.are baaed on incineration. EPA
proposes that any technology which removes'constituents £rom soil-
at least one tenth as well as incineration does may be used.
However, such treated or incinerated soil will still be presumed to
be hazardous, unless specifically'determined otherwise by EPA.
To really encourage innovative technologies for soil treatment, UTS
or other standards should be based on leachable constituents as
measured by TCLP testing. Biological treatment, among other
technologies, relies on .constituents being somewhat soluble in
order to be biologically available. Thus, biological treatment
preferentially removes constituents which present the greatest
threat because they are most likely to leach. Constituents
strongly bound to the soil matrix are least subject to biological
treatment, yet are also least likely to leach to ground water to
present a substantial risk. For these reasons, biological
treatment of soil containing creosote constituents will probably
not reach the proposed levels for low solubility PAH constituents.
Koppers strongly supports the .concept of establishing hazardous
soil treatment standards which* encourage treatment technologies
other than incineration. To do this, EPA mat establish risk base
standard* for TCLP leachable constituents for hazardous soil.
fit
Q _ i-k
c 5 £
r £ ET g
o ft
:R
O
00
to
o
o
CD
to
-------
6,57
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number: CS2P-00115 ' Page Number 2
Commenten Westinghouse Electric Corporation .
Comment:
ilifi
a * ~. o °
g o f?" n
o. a >- w ,
° s-
O o <*
c e 2
3 S "
3 «. a
^- n A
It appears tfae UTS are based on the performance of incineration technologies.
Westinghbuse is concerned that basing soil treatment standards on concentrations arrived
at via incineration data will deter the use of other appropriate technologies for treating
, hazardous sofl. Incineration, in most cases, results in nearly complete destruction of the
contamiionts, except for radioactive materials and metals. Many other technologies that
are being used to reduce contamination to acceptable levels cannot compete or reach the
same levels as incineration.
O
71
o
o
UQ
un
-------
A O*
>' «'i
6-58
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Connnenten
Comment:
CS2P-00177
Conoco Inc.
Page Number: 2
n
. M
.
-
EPA is proposing to apply incinerarioo-Uxd suodards uniUtenUy to
jionwastewaterj including contaminated soil regardless of the matrix and the risk
ultimately presented by management of that waste/media. This will result in a
system that is totally inflexible and in standards that are for many wastes/media,
impossible to meet. More importantly, many innovative treatment technologies
will be eliminated because they cannot achieve the overly restrictive standards.
Eighty five percent of the data in EPA's soil database is from bench (49%) or
pilot (36%) scale tests of thermal treatment technologies. This limited database
results in overly conservative standards that dUcounge innovative techooiogiej
such as bkxreatment, soil venting and soil wishing. -.
o
oo
to
'
o
o
UQ
cn
-------
6-59
Hazardous Soil
iQ ..
Docket Number: , CS2P-OOOL1
Page Number 3 to 4
Commenter:
Comment:
Chemical Manufacturers Association
CMA questions whether the soil LOR* proposed earlier by the Agency
would provide any meaningful relief from the existing LDR standards that :
apply to soils. In its proposed rule, EPA proposed soil LDR standards based
on treatment levels close to those achievable by incineration. EPA then
compared these limits to an extremely limited database of innovative
technology information in order to attempt to validate its-claim that
innovative technologies will be able to achieve the ineineration-baBed
treatment standards. . . ., .
Unfortunately, the soil treatabQity database is far too limited to support
egtahlinhrrmnt of innovative technology-baaed treatment hnrita. EPA'i
database is almost wholly composed of very small-scale experiments
conducted on laboratory benchtopt. EPA recommends a minimum. ^
treatabiHty sample size of 1000 to 6000 kg, recognizing that soil is a
heterogeneous medium. Yet 86% of the teat* in EPA's database were
conducted on less than 1000 kg of soil, and 40% on less than 1 kg. Thus, the
soil treatability database is not representative of full-scale site performance.
Moreorer. the database indudtt teat rt«ulU oa only 80 of the 232
constituenti subject to regaUtJon. Thus, althcngfa any ghren treatment'
technology wifl produce varying treatment efficiencies for different
constituents, EPA has proposed to extrapolate the retulu from the 80
constituents to generate treatment standards for all 232. ~
These limitations create significant doubt about the ability of
innovative technologies to consistently achieve the treatment standards that
EPA proposed. CMA believes that the proposed standards would continue to
force the use of incineration for the. treatment of hazardous remediation
wastes, an outcome which is at great odds wi th the innovative technology
focus of UWLK. , ;
n
'
LJO
-------
6-tt)
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-OOOL3
Dupont Chemicals
Page Number: 5 to 6
Less thta 15% of the technology din in the STD (including incineration) is "full
scale." Le., from tests involving more than 1000 kg of soil (or approximately five
drums). It is unclear how much of this limiifd data set comes from actual full scale,
J , . - . ^ .
in-field remedial activities. More than 85% of the data in the STD is derived from
small scale tests Involving less than 1000 kg of soil, and fully 40% of the data
derives from tests performed on less thin 1 kg (roughly one quart) of soiL Actual.
remediations typically involve tens of thousands of kilograms of soiL .Further.
much of the data in the STD has been provided by technology vendors. While we
recognize that such vendors are one of the few sources for data, vendor data must
be viewed with some caution. In our experience vendors often report their very
best, rather then their average, performance data. Often, the best constituent
specific performance data from a number of tests where performance on differing
constituents varied widely are accumulated into a single data table. This can
suggest thai the technology is capable of a certain level of performance on all
' Bench scale data is plainly not
safficiently representative of full scale performance to serve as the basis for
estaWshinj treatment goals.
Tests performed on small sample volumes simply cannot reflect
* wide variation in physJochenrical properties of hazardous soils and remediation
wtsaes, aad therefore cannot reflect acnui full scak performance potebtiaL
We also sots tk*t the STD contains dan od only 80 of the 211 constituents of
interest. This limited data was broadly extrapolated to the full list of 211
constituents ia me proposed rule. Thus, the proposed standards for over 60% of
the constituents was based not upon data but upon extrapolations from incineration
performance on other constituents.. This raises serious concerns about the validity
of those standards as representative of innovative technology peiforuiaoce.
55:
tgf
f I" «
. PI
1 °" 5" "
§?8
1*5 .
**;!-.
O
GO
O
o
C3
CQ
-------
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Commenten
Comment:
CS2P-00177
Conoco Inc.
Page Number 2
o
a
I
Eighty five percent of the dua in EPA's soil duibue is from bench (499) or
pilot (36%) scale tests of tfaennal treatraeat technologies. This limited database
rcr.ilts in overly, conservative standards that discourage innovative technologies
such as biotreatroent. soil venting and soil Washing.
o
oo
to
'71
o
o
C3
UO
-------
6-62
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Coramenter:
Comment;
CS2P-OOOL1 . Page Number: 3
Chemical Manufacturers Association
' 55
1 O
3
M
O
PI
«
O 'x «
r- P" en
s?:-
1
y^ th« teal trftsttbflity dtfihiM is ^Vr too limitod to mpport
rpfyi>fl( j»f tfrhTM^ftQT-baM^d >T»>«ltm«HTt Ktnffai. EPA'f
databaM is almoct wfaoQy compOMd of v«ry «mall-«cak experimenta
conducted on Iflboratoiy boocbtopc. EPA r*>fnrnrn'rr"^
.
heterogeneous ^*'m« Yet 85% of th« tut* in EPA'i database ere
conducted on leu than 1000 Itg of toil, and 40% on less than 1 kf. Thus, the
soil treatability database is not rvpresontatiTe of fuQ-scals site per&zmanca.
o
71
o
o.
-------
6-63
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
CS2P-OOL3
Dupont Chemicals
Page Number 5 to 6
The STD Contaiiu Primarily Unrepresentative Small Scale Test Data
-.-.
Leu than 15%of the technology data in the STD (including incineradon) is "full
scale," i.e.. from tests involving more thin 1000 kg of soil (or approximately five
dnnri). It is unclear how much of this limited data set comes from actual full scale.
in-field remedial activities. More than 85% of the data in the STD is derived from
small scale tests involving less than 1000 kg of soil, and fully 40% of the data
derives from tests performed on less than 1 kg (roughly one quart) of soiL Actual
remediation* typically involve tens of thousands of kilograms of soiL Further,
much of the data in the STD has been provided by technology vendors. While we
recognize that such vendors are one of the few sources for dam, vendor data must
be viewed with some caution.. In our experience vendors often report their very
best, rather then their average, performance data. Often, the best constituent
specific performance data from a number of tests.where performance on differing
constituents varied widely are accumulated into a single data table. This can
suggest that the technology is capable of a certain level of performance on all
constituents simultaneously which has not been demonstrated
.--.''';,- - ' ' I
Small Seal* Innovative Technology Performance Data Is Unsuitable
For Establishing Treatment Goals . .
Small scale data, such as dominates the STD, must be viewed with considerable
caution and judgement. Almost half of EPA's STD data is from bench scale tests
involving one kilogram or less of soiL A laboratory benchiop test performed in a
beaker simply is not an accurate gauge of potential performance of a large
physiochemical process, whether a-soil treatment or a.chemical manufacturing
operation. Rather, it is a cocao* of gathering basic data whicfc can be used » define
.
a a - w
8 ST
8:0-8
lie
*
o
00
o
o
-------
6-64
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number: CS2P-OOL3
Commemer: . Dupont Chemicals
Comment: (continued)
Page Number: 5 to 6
r
presentative testing. Additionally, soil is a highly heterogeneous matrix and
the size of a test must adequately represent such heterogeneity by employing
sufficient sample volumes to generate meaningful data. The order of magnitude
adjustment EPA suggested from the incineration based UTS to derive soil standards
is likely in "the noise" of the accuracy of a bench scale test, which is intended »
identify if the technology has a chance of working on the..manu/oontaminaox.notio
identify treatment performance in any detail. Bench scale data is plainly not
sufficiently representative of full scale performance,to serve as the basis for
establishing treatment goals. ,
Small Scale Tests Cannot Reflect The Heterogeneity Of Hazardous
SoU and Remediation Wastes
the significant heterogeneity in soil and other remediation wastes includes wide
. variations in soil contaminant concentrations (related to differing physiochemical
properties of clays/silts/sands and varying proportions of each in the soil). This
heterogeneity results in widely varying mutability of soils with greater or lesser
amounts of silt/clay particles, as well as affecting mechanical aspects of treating
sandy vs. clayey soils. These all must be taken account of in setting practical
treatment goals. Tests performed on small sample volumes simply cannot reflect
the wide variation in physiochemical properties of hazardous soils and remediation
wastes, and therefore cannot reflect actual full scale performance potential. Thus,
on-site pilot scale studies reflective of actual treatment unit processes on
representative volumes of soU/rcmediatioai wastes are almost universally required to
reasonably project technology performance.
n
c CP
£s;i$o
n rr ._ ra
a a tr n
O <» i-
o ,v
-------
fi-65
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number . CS2P-00171
Commenter: USPO, Inc.
Comment:
Page Number: 15 to 16
As discussed immediately above, the proposed lenient standards for soli seem
not to be grounded in concerns about treatment capacity or legitimate environmental
or public health concerns. A careful reading of the Proposal reveals that the
standards are grounded principally on an Agency desire to reduce the use of
incineration as a technology and to favor other technologies that the agency has
-.. '. '. . . \ . .
determined are innovative. The arbitrary24 standards proposed will, according to
the Agency, be 'attainable by a variety of technologies, including innovative
technologies* and 'provide an additional assurance as to the achievability of meeting
the treatment standards for potentially hard-to-treat matrices."24 This motive is
simply insufficient to justify an arbitrary.departure from the accepted BDAT
methodology embodied by standards that are based on little more than a guess about
creatability of actual soil matrices using so-called innovative technologies.27
" The proposed standards would require, in the.
alternative, soils to b« treated to a level within one order of
magnitude of the proposed universal.standard or to reduce the
initial constituent concentration for each constituent, subject to
treatment by at least 90 percent. These numbers appear to based
on nothing other than the BPA's assumption that eta resulting
regulatory level is relaxed enough to b« .achievable using
evidently inferior innovative technologies. .
IK a . a
P-g-ff-i
O
c/)
to
O
O
-------
6-66
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number.
Cbmmenter
Comment:
CS2P-00026
RETEC '
Page Number 2
'Mil
5 if a <"J
a ' » rr g. M
& "".- .";
. ' O f\ (0
Biaremedixioo hu (tanoaftratcd in PT«TT*T ta j»i-o.-ting human t^*'^ tnd the
eoviromnaU at many Superfund and RCRA ritea. Therefore we are pleued by EPA's desire
to encour»te tfae use of alternative treatment technologies to xtaMich treatment standards for
hazardous soils.
O
However, it appeal i that the hazardoos tofl trealx
future use o/ btuicnvxtiation at-taa&y sties.
a standards i
win-limit the
o
o
CD
-------
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number.
Commented
Comment:
CS2P-00026
RETEC
Page Number: 10
>' 5j?
>:1|
s-i1!
»-* »^ 2 Q*
s a 11
(» I
a a!
|ss
3 « a
"°fi
RETEC bu serious coocenu over the data bajed employed by EPA to formulate the
proposed Universal Standard! and the order of nu^nltude "ceflinj* for hazardoos »fli. Key
kxu of our analysu are as follows: '
1)
2)
3)
Treatment levels are based on very little hill scale data.
It does not appear that biotf mediation was considered an
appropriate technology for any herbicides and pesticides. The
RBTfC's faD and pilot
tOSt tDC UlUVftfT^l
fu too low. la
tn
ale bi
£fid ZCSQluZXC
riiatinn data hue iadieata
the proposal win limit the use of
O
oq
K>
'V1
O
O
,"'/!-^;
GD
un
-------
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number:
Commenter
Comment:
CS2P-00114, ;
Rohm & Haas Company
Page Number 15 to 16
a a
However, several comments are appropriate at this point Rohm and Haas
notes that many innovative treatment technologies exist that can meet risk -
based standards for soil, but those technologies may not necessarily meet the
proposed UTS * 10 levels &s proposed, therefore, EPA should cap soil
treatment levels by risk based standards, as, for example; proposed in CBEC.
Second, EPA should allow soils that are treated to risk-based levels to be
disposed in non-hazardous Subtitle D facilities. This is analogous to allowing
treated debris to be disposed in Subtitle D facilities. Finally, EPA should allow
in-situ treatment of soils, such as by soil vapor extraction or bioremediabon,
to levels that pose no risk to human health or the environment. Thereafter,
the treated soils would not be hazardous soils when managed (as by
excavation and disposal). '. .
.o
cn
-------
6-69
Iliurdnu* Noll
Docket Number CS2P-00165
Commenten American Gas Association .
Comment:
.Page Number: 2
: m
-------
6-70
Hazardous Soil
s'fs
Docket Numben CS2P-00165
Commenter: American Gas Association
Comment:
- Page Number: it. to 3
Recognizing thatthore were not viable treatment technologies available in 1992 to
achieve the level of 0.20 ppm TCLP, EPA granted a one year national capacity variance
until May 8,1993. In a letter to INGAA vice Preident Ted Wnne (attached), EPA denied
an additional one year national capacity variance claiming that there are in fact *a variety
of technologies for extracting and recovering mercury from sod which are either currently
aralaito or urcto development* EPA identifies sol washing, gravimetric separation and
actileaxttngMviitotottcrnioiotfeg^ :
Prelrrincry Q» research, primariy in the bench tcato and plot scale stages.
indicetes that, depending on the type of sofl. it may be difficult to treat below the 0.20
ppm TCLP level using only soil washing or. gravimetric separation. Acid leaching may
reduce the total mercury below the proposed 90% target, but Its abfflty to consisterrtfy
reduce the TCLP betow 0.20 ppm for aisoi types rwanc*y*beien Demonstrated. Since
neither soil washing, gravimetric separation, nor acid leaching have been demonstrated
in the field, this teavBTTBtorting "or thermal desorption as the onry technologies that will
cbnsistentty meet the 0.09 ppm TCLP level aa proposed in Options A and B.
O
I
O
o
:Q
-------
6-7J
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Commentcr:
Comment:
GS2P-00047 Page Number 7
American Wood PrcJcrvcrs Institute
If the Agency truly wisno to foster alternative innovative technologies. AWP1
recommends that EPA raise the incineration-based UTS levels, which were based on bench
tests and pilot tests, to levels achievable by other methods such as biological treatment.
. 5 » 5 " M.
p- § s- E
« n »
1 * B
» " a
3 r* t
."°R>
o-
oo
to
'
o
o
CD
UO.
-------
6-72
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number.
Commenten
Comment;
CS2P-00083
Koppers Industries
Page Number: 4
; £»?
> III
-O* - & tO A
p \L to »Q ^
3 ? ^. " 2
» «* K-
o. a tr
' I a S
' g C CD
-°L
To really encourage innovative technologies for soil treatment, UTS
or other standards should be based on leachable constituents as
measured by TCLP testing. Biological treatment, among other
techncfiogies, relies on constituents being somewhat soluble in
order fj be biologically available. Thus, biological treatment
preferentially removes! constituents which present the greatest
threat because they are vmost likely to leach. Constituents
strongly-bound to the soil matrix are. least subject to biological
treatment, yet are also least likely to leach to ground water to
present a substantial risk. For these reasons, biological
treatment of soil containing creosote constituents will probably
not reach the proposed levels Cor low solubility PAH constituents.
Koppers strongly supports the concept of establishing hazardous
soil treatment standards which encourage*treatment technologies
other than incineration. To do this, EPA mist establish risk base
standards for TCLP l*acbabl* constituents for hazardous soil.
O
o
o
-------
6-73
Hazardous Soil
Docket Number
Coramenten
Comment:
CS2P-00171
USPCI. Inc.
Page Number: 4
.
o S
ll
In our viewy the proposed eased and unprotective standards reflect little more
than a politically motivated bias in favor of unproven and uncertain technologies that
cannot perform as well as the best demonstrated technology combustion in properly
engineered, stringently regulated hazardous waste incinerators. Stringent,
incineration-based treatment standards will continue to force operators of other
technologies to adapt their processes to keep pace wi& the performance goals set by
incineration-based standards. Stringent standards that actually minimize threats to
human health and the environment will continue to encourage advancement. Relaxed
standards such,as those suggested in the proposal will, of course, achieve the
objective that undergirds them. But when that objective U to permit and encourage
mediocre public health and environmental protection through standards that reflect
less than the best protection achievable using currently available technologies, the
Agency has crowed the line drawn by the HSWA.
o
oo.
K)
hcj-
o
o
-------
7. HAZARDOUS DEBRIS CONTAMINATED WITH NEWLY LISTED
, AND IDENTIFIED WASTES
In response to the proposed rule, EPA received 2 comments relating to: the proposed
LDRs for hazardous debris contaminated with newly listed and identified wastes. Comments were
received from: Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide, 142) and State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC, 144). ' .
7.1 General Comments on Treatment Capacity for Debris , .
Summary .
In the proposed rule, EPA noted that debris and soil are usually regenerated; therefore .
EPA proposed granting a two-year national capacity variance to debris contaminated with wastes
covered by the proposed rule. EPA requested comments on this approach (Seaview, 58 FR:
48145). The only commenter on the issue of a variance for debris supported the proposed . ,
variance (NY DEC, 144-2). ,
Another commenter noted two distinct concerns related to capacity for debris: First, the
commenter contended that proposed debris standards cannot be considered to be .BOAT because
EPA has not shown that capacity exists or can be made readily available (Union Carbide, 142
Att.A-5 to 142 AtLA-6). Second, the commenter said that a lack of capacity capable of meeting
. the proposed debris standards will stall corrective action and impede manufacturing
construction/rehbvatio'n projects (Union Carbide, 142 Att.A-5 to 142 Att.A-6).. '. .
Response: .
','-.. - .' " -
EPA has determined that the quantities of debris contaminated with Phase II wastes are
relatively small. In its capacity analysis for hazardous debris contaminated with Phase II wastes;
EPA assigned all hazardous debris covered by this rule and requiring off-site treatment to '
combustion facilities/and determined that sufficient combustion capacity exists for this debris.
Please refer to EPA's Background Document for the Capacity'Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase II (Final Rule) for a further explanation of^ this analysis.
EPA recognizes that generators of debris contaminated by wastes Covered under this rule
may be faced with logistical issues in complying with the now regulations. Therefore, the Agency
is extending the effective date for compliance with treatment standards for debris contaminated by
Phase II wastes by granting a three-month national capacity variance. The Agency has
determined that this is a reasonable time period for addressing logistical issues, related to
compliance. .... . ' .
Comments: ..
The comments discussing'treatment capacity for hazardous debris are presented in the
following order: '
NY DEC (144); and . .
Union Carbide (142). , '.
3
m o 2.
"
Q. CL W
O w »
O Q^ rt>
rt>
.»!
O
00
o
o
Xl
-------
7-2
Hazardous Debris
Docket Number -
Commenter:
Comment
CS2P-00144 ..'.-'. Page Number 2
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
II. National Capacity Variances
'. . EPA also proposes two-year national capacity variances
for soil and mixed radioactive wastes, contaminated
with certain newly listed and-identified wastes, and
for debris contaminated with newly listed and
identified wastes. This Department believes the
.variances are appropriate, due to lack of national
treatment and disposal capacity. The variances may
also be necessary if EPA fails to take final action on
the petition of New York State and other states to
defer the application of the Toxicity Characteristic
Rule to petroleum-contaminated environmental aedia from
non-UST sites. If the deferral that was proposed in
the December 24, 1992 Federal Raoister is not finalized
before *uch a variance expires, petroleum spill
response programs will, be even .more.adversely'affected
than at the present time, due to the universal
treatment standards .that would .have to be met for
hazardous petroleum-contaminated soil.
.^jf
a tt p
O* E: ta* ? '
re £7 *" ft
5">< 2! 0-g
g1 5 * "8 o .
re » r»v'M
o. a f- ».
O « H-
O rt rt
(D . O
S°s ,
O
00
to
o
o
-------
7-3
Docket Number CS2P-00142
.Commenter Union Carbide Corporation
Comment:
Hazardous Debris
Page Number: Alt. A-5 to 6
3 re
!£i
?iw»
&a.i
»
S 3 "
_ re
to
71
o
o
-------
APPENDIX
This appendix summarizes the comments received in response to the proposed rule that
are indirectly related to capacity. Each comment is represented here in the form of a synopsis
only. These synopses are shown in italics to emphasize that the issues they raise are only
indirectly related to capacity. -. '.';''.
This appendix is organized into sections, each, of which addresses a particular aspect of the
, capacity issues. The sections are as fellow's: . :
Section 1: . Available Commercial Treatment Capacity;
Section 2: Toxicity.Characteristic Wastes; ' .
Section 3: Mixed Radioactive Wastes;
Section 4: Hazardous Soil Contaminated with Organic Toxicity Characteristic Wastes
and Newly Listed Wastes; and
Section 5: Hazardous Debris Contaminated with Organic Toxicity Characteristic
Wastes and Newly Listed Wastes. . . .
01. J
g a
g "'Sill
O. O. f~ 0>
o <« <-
O n re
re' O
^°l
O
(/>
K)
o
o
-------
A-2
SECTION 1: AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT CAPACITY
Many commenters addressed issues that could affect the availability of commercial
treatment capacity, but did not directly address the amount of available treatment capacity.
Comments are grouped by issue. For each issue, we provide u brief explanation of the potential
capacity impacts. EPA will continue to monitor these issue* arid adjust its future capacity analyses
"as necessary. '
I.I Treatment Standards for Incinerator Residues from Incineration of Lab Packs
Containing D009 Mercury '
EPA specifically solicited comments on whether incinerator residues from incineration of
lab packs should be required to comply with the D009 mercury standards (58 FR 48107). A
change in the treatment standards for these wastes could affect the required treatment capacity -
for these wastes. . .
Comments s . .
If incineration residues are in the low mercury subcategory, there is no real need for EPA to specify -
that these must meet the treatment standard because they would be subject to 268.9(c) which ensures
that characteristic wastes are properly treated prior to. disposal. If incineration residues are in the
high mercury subcategory, the treatment standard should be mercury recovery. If the incineration
residues are mixed radioactive wastes, stabilization technology should be designated as the treatment -.
standard (OOE, 43-14).
The treatment standard for incinerator residues from treating lab packs containing D009 mercury
should be concentration-based, not technology-based (Laidlaw, 50:5). ' .
Incinerator residues derived from labpacks should not be required to comply with the D009 mercury
standard*, unless organo-mercury wastes are burned in the labpacks (CWM, 77-20). . .
1.2 Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies in Central
. ' . *
This subsection provides synopses of the comments on innovative treatment technologies .
in general. If innovative technologies are effective in treating hazardous waste, then they may
reduce the required capacity for combustion and stabilization technologies. .
General Coinments on the Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies ,
The commenter provides tables summarizing the performance of innovative technologies based on
information obtained from EPA's BDA T Background Document for Soil (HWTC, 60-App. C).
Numerical standards for solvents based on combustion can be met by establishing a treatment train
such as solvent recovery followed by fuel substitution or incineration of the distillation bottoms
Safety-Kleen, 64-4). ,
The commenter provides articles and reports that give description.'!, as well as effectiveness and cost
data, an alternative treatment technologies (Rohm anil tliius, I I-l-App. A).
S-
,
o
oo
O
O
-------
A-3
Comments Arguing that innovative Technologies arc Not Effective
Disagrees with EPA's contention that innovative technologies can generally achieve UTS (RETEC,
26-9, 27-3.4).
Combustion is the technology on which 'many BDA t itandards are based; EPA cannot assume that
other treatment technologies, especially recycling technologic*- fan achieve these I combustion-based I
limits' (Monsanto, 34-5). .
Oppose the assertion that 'there exists a certain degret of flexibility with most treatment technologies'
to achieve lower treatment levels (Monsanto, 34-9).
'EPA should not require recovery for organics because in some industries such as the pharmaceutical
industry, there may be no use for the required organic* (Lilly, 39-5,6).. ' .
The development of innovative technologies has not progrrssrd to a point that they can consistently '
meet the proposed treatment standards (Laidld*. $0-4). :
Commenterprovides a report prepared by ENSR Consultants that details the limitations and
environmental disadvantages of "innovative", technologist (//1KTC, 60-App. E).
EPA's innovative technologies have generally not been demonstrated^ are not regulated as stringently
as combustion technologies, and are extremely limited in their capabilities (fffVTC, 60-4).
Many constraints and limitations exist in innovative technologies (H]VTC, 60-15 to 22).
.Challenges EPA's conclusion that non-combustion technologies can meet UTSs (API, 61-6 to 61-8,
61-11 to 61-13), ''' -.'.-. -,
UTSs will discourage technologies other than incineration (API, 61-28, 114-3). . '
If EPA makes combustion unavailable for treatment, the LDR standards must be revised accordingly
(JCP&L, 88-2). '; ';..''
Few alternative technologies can achieve the same treatment levels as combustion (JCP&L, 88-2).
EPA should not depart from standards based on performance of BOAT simply to encourage the.use
of alternative technologies that do not perform its Mil (USPCI^ 89-12). :
In many cases, existing non-wastewater standards, ihougfi numerical,.can only be met by combiistion
or other high-temperature technologies (DuPont Engineering, 117-3).
The proposed approach eliminates many innovative technologies (Conoco, 126-4).
" - > . '
EPA based its assumption that noncombustion technologies can meet the incineration-based
treatment standards using bench-scale data that may not be representative of actual field
performance (Conoco, 126-5). .
9- &£ E
O Q, g
1 *:"'.
o
00
to
71
o
o
-------
A-4
Proposed standards would require incineration of *aste Mrrams (ISK-Biotech, 146-1).
Considering that the. UTS function as the base standanii and ihauhe UTS of organic ; . .
nohwastewaters are based on the performance of infinerafion, the approach may encourage
incineration and discourage-the use of other technologies ('DOE, 161-19).
The limited database availableoh performance of innmative technologies suggests that few, if any,
could consistently:meet the proposed standards (RCR.4 C.4P, 164-13).
Commenter expresses concern that innovative technotogits will seldom meet the proposed BDATs for
allof the different tonstitoents in soil (RCRA CAP. I64D).
1_3 Effectiveness of Bioremediation
Several commeriters addressed the issue of the effectiveness of bibremediation iri meeting
the propc-ied universal treatment standards. If bioremcjiation is effective in treating hazardous...
waste, then it may reduce the required capacity for combustion and stabilization technologies.
General Comments on the Effectiveness of Bloremcdlmlon . -
Commenter provides: an excerpt from a report by the National Research Council on .in situ
bioremedidtion (HWTC, 60-App. D).. ..-.-'
Commenter discusses one study in which 88 percent of applied .MMA .was degraded within 28 days in
an aerobic wastewater biodegradation test (Rohm arjj I fan f, U 4-7).
Commenter provides papers that discuss effectivenea of bioremediation (Alcoa, 133-App.A,B,C).
Commenter provides data on.the treatment of petroleum-rtlated compounds in bioslurry reactors.
(OHM, 124-3, 124-Attachmenis A to E)
Commenter presents performance data on the commitnler'x bio-slurry reaction process (Valero, 152-
Attachments A to I). . . '
Comments Arguing that Bioremediation is ElTectbt
Biological treatment is best demonstrated available mhnnkt^/ for biodegradable U and P wastes, i
and performs betterthanthe prescribed BDAT treatment mtthods (data provided) (122-AppA).
TCLP leachate results frdrn the biotreated matrix ere likely to be below the UTS for wastewaters
(Alcoa, 133-4).
Comments Arguing that Bioremediation is Not Eff«:tlvr ' .
UTSs forpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are too U>»: tiiulpreclude the use of biotreatment of
organic waste Valero, 23-1,3,4). .
*
f_ O »
£1 rc *Q
S*. _ o
<» S ^
aa
O
rjo
to
O
O
GO
-------
. A-5
Afany innovative treatment technologies require longer periods of time than ihe regulations allow -'-
for example, the requirement to close a Subtitle C facility within 180 days precludes the technologies
mentioned at 58 FR 48128-29, especially in situ bioremeiliation (BFf, 46-9). ' ' '
. Imposition of UTS as proposed could eliminate bioremediation as a treatment option (data are
provided) (51^3).
Standards based on combustion preclude industry from using emerging technologies such as
biotreatment (APf, 61-8). .
Biotreatment cannot meet the UTS particularly with respect to semivolatile organics (Amoco,. 97-4).
Biological treatment may require several weeks, possibly jeopardizing a generator's less-than-90-day
status (Rohm and Haas, 114-11). . .
The current treatment standards for F037 and. F038 should be maintained so that slurry-phase
. biological treatment, a destructive, non-combustion technology, could then be applied (OHM, 124A-
2). ' ' ^ '..; ''. ' '. ' " . ' ; ' : ' .
Bioremediation of a particular soil/sludge type containing a specific chemical may not be able to
achieve .the UTS as proposed (Alcoa, 133-4).
Commenter's bio-slurry reaction process would be unable to meet UTS for se\'eral high molecular
weight hydrocarbons (Valero, 152-2).
1.4 Effectiveness of High Temperature Metals Recovery .'._'.
EPA is proposing to develop universal treatment standards for 13 of the BOAT list metals
based on the performance of high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) or stabilization. The
Agency solicited data on whether any specific waste matrices will not be able to achieve the
- universal treatment standards (58 FR 48102). If HTMR is effective in treating hazardous waste,
then may reduce the required capacity for stabilization technologies. .
General Comments "on the Use of High temperature Metals Recovery . ' '
Opposes EPA's conclusion that HTMR is a more acceptable treatment option than stabilization
.(AFS, 42-2). -.- ' '
Metals recovery (extraction) is not necessarily matrix independent .(ASARCO, 44-5 to 6; BF1, 46-7).
Use of HTMR in setting UTS for metals is another eiample of how the standards do not reflect the
performance of BOAT for the constituents in question (H\VTC, 60-28 to 30).
Treatment of metals using existing (available) technolotfies may not be able to achieve levels based
on HTMR (which is not available) (USPCI, 89-20).
HTMR recovers 98 percent of nickel and 86 percent of chromium (Inco, 90-3).
sr r *?
f6 Qj j*
*Q »-H
C g't:
£< 55 Q-ss
3 o > «
lQ O rr a O
*+** & W ^
C S rt (O ^
3 ^ _ fl> P
S <« rr _ n
a a fr «»
o " H-
rt O* m
51!,
O
oo
to
hrj
i
O
O
-------
A-6 .
HTMR is matrix specific, contrary to what is stated in llie preamble (Chem-Met, 106-2).
The waste matrix arid the other contaminants present tlirinte the feasibility of recycling, not the base
recoverable load of constituent, metal or otherwise (Dul'ont Engineering, '117-2; CMA, 122-21).
Disagrees with the Agency's approach to adopt UTS for metals 'based on high temperature metals
recovery (HTMR) (DuPotit Engineering, 117-2; CMA, 122-21).
The viability of HTMR technology is, highly dependent not-only on the concentration of metals in the
waste, but also on the waste matrix and the presence of oilier constituents (Conoco, 126-6).
HTMR should not be BOAT for lead removal and recovery from soils and industrial wastes (PMET,
96-1). . ' ''''
Comments Arguing that High Temperature Metals Krcovcry.'is Effective
- ' - . ' . . *»'
Agrees with EPA that recovery technologies such as IITMR tire the best treatment for metal-bearing
wastes.(BRC, 36-1 to 2). .. . '
HTMR is not suitable for metals recovery from wood prf.ten'ing wastes (A IVPf, 47-5).
Non-energy-intensive, technologies are not available to men the proposed UTS for metals based on
HTMR (DuPont Engineering, 117-3).
Comments Arguing that High Temperature Metajt Ktfovtry is Not Effective
UTS levels for metals may be unachieveable for some mrlal waste matrices (e:g. F035) (Koppers, 83-
4). .. . ... - - -;'/.
HTMR is inappropriate for many common waste matrices Including latex paint waste with trace
amounts of lead, metallic constituents in an aluminum matrix, nonwastewater streams with low BT.U
and/or high water content, slag from HTMR furnace], miles and baghouse dusts (Chem-Met, 106-
2,3)./..: -. . ' . > '
1.5 Effectiveness of Stabilization
. EPA is proposing to develop universal treatment .\lundards for 13 of the BOAT list metals
based on the performance of high temperature metal* recovery (HTMR) or stabilization: The
Agency solicited data on. whether these technologies will, not be able to achieve the universal
treatment standards for any specific waste matrices (5K Fit 48102). If stabilization is effective in
treating hazardous waste, then its inclusion .in the allotment of the available commercial capacity
is appropriate. If stabilization cannot meet UTS, then in inclusion in the assessment is not
appropriate. Comments received on this and other is»uc» regarding stabilization are synopsized
below. '.
General Information on the Effectiveness of Stabilization
?f?
lO u.
re 5 s
tj-xs.s a a
lQ O' r* 5" O
_ « ? s -^
a a tr.
o « »-
O f\ tv
O
GO
K)
^Tl
i
O
O
1 U
CD.
-------
A-7 .'.'..
Generators must be allowed the option of utilizing non-recovery technologies, such as stabilization, to
meet LDR standards for metals (AJSt, 54-18). , .:.
Matrix attributes affect the performance of stabilization (USPCI, 89-29 to 31).
Stabilization is appropriate for wastes with high metal and low organic concentrations
(Westinghouse, 115-19). '
Treatment by stabilization to meet UTS for metals in hazardous waste will result in substantial
additional disposed volumes of treatment residuals (USPCI, 89-26 tt> 29).
Comments Arguing that Stabilization is Effective *
EPA is proposing more lenient universal HTMR LDR standards for lead than can routinely be .
achieved using stabilization (HWTC, 60-30).
EPA is proposing more lenient universal HTMR LDR standards for silver than, can routinely be
achieved using stabilization (HWTC, 60:30). .'.'
UTS metal treatment standards can be met by stabilization by tripling the amount'of reagent typically
used (Chem-Met, 106-5). . . . '
Stabilization technology can achieve the nickel and chromium.levels (Shell, 62-4).
Adequate chemical type stabilization methods exist for decreasing the teachability of lead and other
potentially toxic metals (SSPC, 112-1). ' ' '
~ Data are'available from vendors and other published sources which indicate that
solidificationlsiabilizaiion technologies can immobilize many organics without their destruction or
removal (DOE, 161-15). .,'.'.'
Stabilization can provide an effective means to treat organic constituents in wastes (USPCI, 171-30).
Comments Arguing that Stabilization is Not Effective
The barium UTS cannot be met in stabilized media because stabilization agents routinely contain
barium (Rollins, 27-3). ., .
The UTSs cannot be achieved by the immobilization process (Envirosafe, 70-1).
The Agency should carefully consider the impacts of setting treatment standards not routinely
achievable by a widely used technology such as stabilization (Envirosafe, 70-2).
UTS are unduly restrictive to TSD stabilization facilities (Chem-Met, 106-1).
1.6 Effectiveness of Solvent Extraction
J Q. »- W '
O . " i-
O
C/5
to
o
o
Xi
-------
A-8 . .
Regarding universal treatment standards, EPA has concluded that proposed levels would
not be technology forcing since available data indicate that, depending on the concentration of
the constituent, other technologies besides incineration, including innovative technologies such as
solvent extraction, can achieve the proposed universal treatment standards in the wide variety of
nonwastewater matrices. The Agency specifically solicited comment on this point (58 FR 48099).
If solvent extraction is effective in treating, hazardous waste, then it may reduce the required .
capacity for combustion and stabilization technologies. Comments received with regard to solvent
extraction are synopsized below. . '
General Information on Solvent Extraction ' . < : .
The use of solvent extraction and thermal desorption to meet UTS is based on theoretical-bench-
scale data (NPRA, 52-2).
DP kas developed a waterless solvent extraction process for petroleum-contaminated wastes (BP Oil;
71-Attachment A).
EPA should consider the performance capabilities of technologies such as solvent extraction and
thermal desorption in setting UTS {Phillips, 100-2). . .
Resource recovery technologies are frequently matrix dependent (URD &. ZCA, 132-3).
Comments Arguing that Solvent Extraction is Not Effective :
A review of treatment data in the docket suggests that solvent extraction and thermal desorption
cannot meet UTS for petroleum industry wastes (Exxon, 41-4).
The proposed levels for some SVOCs (e.g., anthracene in F037) have.been reduced substantially. At
these lower levels, several technologies likely will not be practicable, including solvent extraction,
biodegradation in slurry reactors, and low temperature thermal desorption. (Shell, 62-4)
1.7 Effectiveness of Thermal Distillation
. . . . / .
One commenter provided numerous comments regarding ihe effectiveness of thermal
distillation. If thermal distillation is effective in treating hazardous waste, then it may reduce the
required capacity for combustion and stabilization technologies.
Comments Arguing that Thermal Distillation is Effective
The HT-6 thermal distillation process can treat both as-generated wastes and soils to the equivalent
capability of incineration without burning the wastes while concurrently recovering reusable and
recyclable oil (Seaview, 58-3): ,- ' .
The HT-6 thermal distillation process has successfully demonstrated the ability to remove PCBs,
dioxins, pentachlorophenol, and all volatUe/semivolatile organic constituents to non-detectable
concentrations. The ability"to process-these constituents is matrix independent and is achieved
irrespective of whether the waste is homogeneous or heterogeneous (Seaview, 58-3).
a a. f- n
o w ,-
n rt (*
c IT o*
3. t-' OI
(9
n
', o a
n
C/)'
10
'Tj
I
O
o
1 U
ru
-------
A-9
EPA should re-evaluate-the capability of innovative technologies'anil propose treatment standards
which are based on the current capabilities of these technologies. The HT-6 process can treat wastes
to much lower levels than the proposed standards, and clearly the HT-6 process is a non-
combustion, innovative technology (Seaview, 58-4). ' .
The HT-6 process has demonstrated the ability to treat Manufactured Gas Plant tars to the same
capability as incineration (Seaview, 58~f).
Cqmmenter provides HT-6 thermal distillation performance data (Seaview, 58-App. A).
1.8 Effectiveness of Other Specific Innovative Technologies
.EPA '.Iso received several comments on the effectiveness of other innovative technologies.
If technologies are effective; they may reduce the required capacity for combustion and
stabilization technologies. Synopses of these comments arc provided below.
General Information on the Effectiveness of Other Specific Innovative Technologies
The cbmmenter provides data on the effectiveness of the commenter's proprietary Catalytic
Extraction Process (MMT, 121-23 to 35, Ill-Appendix). .:'.< :
Environmental Restoration programs for particular DOE sites and DOE Office of Technology
Development have been preparing treatability test'reports and technology status reports on various
technologies (e.g., heat enhanced soil vapor extraction, bioremediation, in-situ vitrification (DOE,
161-24). . ; ~ "';
Comments Arguing that Other Specific Innovative Technologies are Effective
.Calcium pofysulfide treatment meets the Agency's performance-based BDAT requirements for
cyanide-bearing wastes .(CWM,-. 77-15 to 19). . '
The commenlers's proprietary Catalytic Extraction Process (CEP) can achieve or surpass current
BDAT standards for organic constituents;'(MMT,121-4^ .121-23 to 35). .
Electrokinetics should be included as a demonstrated in-situ technology (DOE, 161-23).
Comments Argiiing that Other Specific Innovative Technologies ure Not Effective
The Coastal Corporation has a demetaUizanon process that has. treated 7,700 tons of solid waste
and that cannot meet some UTSs (Coastal, 25-2). ' .
Certain precipitation technologies for metals in wasteH-altn? which are used to establish BDAT
concentrations may reduce the ability ofaeration-stahilUalioh. basins to treat the organics in pulp
and paper wastewaters (AFPA, 79-2). .
The efficacy of slag vitrification for arsenic in soils is unpmvcn (ASARCO, 166-10).
1.9 Storage Capacity May Not Be Available '
3 *
9 rf . n
*~ < Z O* 2
5 o ^ *-i
iQ O Fr 5 O
..-*?' 5 ' rt
rt . rr >-
a a t?u
. o w H-
8 &S
3 g ."
I'of
o
on
o
g
ru
Ujl
-------
A:10
One commenter raised a potential logistical problem, lack of sufficient storage capacity.
Some wastes currently may be stored prior to treatment, so that a shortfall in storage capacity
could affect the timing of demand for treatment capacity. This commenter's concern is synopsized
.here. . ' ,
Reliance on off-site testing may cause storage capacity shortfalls (SOCMA. SS-S).
10 8.S
E £f re *
re A <"*
P-g-ET
3C- 01
fit
2 <* Q.
n
00
to
71
o
CD
-------
A-ll
SECTION 2: TOMCITY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
EPA received numerous comments on the effectiveness of various technologies for
treating specific wastes. These comments could be related lo capacity to.the extent that the
specific treatment technologies were considered in the cupndiy analysis: (The capacity analysis
considers only available combustion and stabilization capacity. ,
2.1. Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies for TrtallrittTC Wastes..
One commenter addressed the effectiveness of innovnllve technologies in meeting the
UTS for TC wastes. This comment is synopsized here.
Treatment stc, iidards cannot be met for all wastes exhibiting lite TC, particularly if the wastes are
treated by a method other than combustion (JCP&L, 88-3),
2.2 Effectiveness of Innovative Technologies for Treating Petroleum Refining Wastes
Regarding universal treatment standards for pclrolcunr refining wastes, EPA noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule that the petroleum industry U using combustion and thermal
desorption, both of which should be capable of meeting the universal treatment standards. The
Agency,solicited comments on whether the industry has invested in other technologies that cannot
meet the universal standards. In particular, EPA requeued Information on the type of treatment,
performance data, and an explanation as to why operational factors could not be adjusted to
comply with the universal standards (58 FR 48106). _ - .'
Comments . '
With regard to EPA's solicitation of comments on the applicability of UTS to refinery wastes and the
possibility of increasing these standards, EPA should not to Increase the standards because EPA has
a significant volume of demonstrated performance data for the treatment of these wastes by non-
combustion technologies (Seaview, 58-5). . .
.Data show that biotreatment meets or nearly meets petrqleum refining treatment standards for PNAs
(API;61-3to9;API61-AppendixB). .-..'; .
Data show that biotreatment would be unable to meet proposed UTS for pplynuclear aromatics
(PNAs)(API,61-Sto9,API,61-AppendixB). : .
Alternative technologies currently being evaluated by Shell tonnot meet the UTSsfor many regulated
constituents in petroleum refinery wastes; Shell will make in ilnta available to EPA (Shell, 62-2).
HTMR is not a viable options for treating most wastes from lilt petroleum refining industry (Amoco, :
97-5).
Bench-scale remediation for petroleum refining wastes uiinif l>if>.\lurry technology has indicated that
the current F037/38 values are achievable but that the lechnvltw may be unable to achieve the
proposed UTS (OHM, 124-2).
55-
V !!*
o g. g-o
H. P- S ^
p, a g-"
o
GO
to
71
o
o
Oj"
LTl
-------
D-3-;
A-12
The commenter's biosluny reactors for remediation of petroleum refining waste have an operating
volume of 180,000 gallons and process 160 to 180 cubic yanh of material per batch; the typical
batch process.time is 16 days (OHM, 124-AppA, p.ll
23 Effectiveness-of Treatment Technologies for Treating Metals - Bearing Wastes
EPA received four comments.on the effectiveness of Irealmenl technologies for metals.
These comments are synopsized below.
Comments
.Many forms of mercury waste are not amenable to retorting; rm alternative standard of chemical
treatment prov:des a protective and practical alternative (H\VTC, 60-37).
There is no available method for HTMR of F035 wood prtier\'ing wastes, and stabilization to
proposed UTS levels may not be possible, especially for chrome (Koppers, 83-4).
The stabilization processes may have several difficulties in meeting the current standards for barium
and chromium in nonwastewaters (USPCI, 89-21, 89-24).
Contrary to EPA's assertion, the waste matrix variability in mftal-bearing wastes can be a significant
factor in establishing treatment effectiveness (USPCI. 89-29 la JO).
2A Effectiveness of Treatment Technologies for \Vasles That Exhibit Arsenic
' One commenter provided comments on treatment of wastes that exhibit arsenic. These
comments are synopsized below. '.. '
Comments
Stabilization appears to be the most effective treatment for arsenic-containing soils (ASARCO, 166-
10). -...-.;.. . . ;
The proposed UTS for arsenic (and even an order, of magnitude ff-eater than the proposed UTS)' may
not be achievable by available technologies for soils in some situations (ASARCO, 166-10).
The efficacy of slag vitrification for arsenic in soils is unproven (ASARCO, 166-10).
2.5 Treatment for Underlying Constituents Should Not He Required
In the proposed rule, EPA presented LDR Roundtiiblu recommendations to solicit further
'comments on treatment standards that may.be set bolow detection limits (58 FR 48112). The
Agency received two comments relevant to this topic, as synopsizcd below.
Comments ..'.'
EPA should identify the constituents in each of the 13 organic nimwastewaler treatability groups for
assessing compliance with LDR treatment standards for non-dcinclubte constituents (INEL, 18-3).
a ^'" »
tr ? z o-
O. CL » W
. o < ^>
. n
c
3 - rt
. 3 - °
°1,
O
.OQ
I
O
o
ru
en
-------
A-13
wastes are commingled for treatment, regulated underlying hazardous constituents -may be
commingled with non-regulated underlying hazardous constituents (i.e., from non-RCRA regulated
sources) (Heritage, 103-4). ' ,
[> III
2 c i
3 g «
o
GO
O
CD
r
-------
' ' '' AT14 ;. , .. '
SECTION 3: MIXED RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Many commenters addressed issues which could affect the' availability of treatment
capacity for mixed radioactive waste, but did not directly address the amount of available
treatment capacity for these wastes. For each issue area, we provide a brief explanation of the
potential capacity impacts.
> '**
5
*Q ~ M*
*- ** t=
3.1
Comiiienters Disagreed About Proposed Treatment Standards for Mixed Radioactive
: Hazardous Soil
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that mixed radioactive hazardous soil would be /
subject to the proposed treatment standards for hazardous soil (in addition to any regulation of
that material under AEA), rather than to the treatment standards for the contaminating waste (.58
FR 48133). This isiue is related to capacity to the extent that (1) the standards are different for
hazardous soil and for the contaminating waste, and (2) different technologies may be used to
meet the different standards. Comments received on this issue are synopsized below. '
/ - - - i ' '
'Comments supporting proposed treatment standards ,
Commented agrees with EPA's proposed approach, Le.,. that mixed radioactive hazardous soil be
treated to proposed alternative treatment standards for soil, rather than standards for the
contaminating waste (HIVAC, 20-4, Wesiinghouse, 115-22). .
Comments favoring alternative treatment standards ~ ..
EPA should adopt a flexible regulatory approach for mixed radioactive hazardous soil that
. accommodates both concentration-based standards and alternative treatment standards established
as specific technologies (DOE, 161-1, 161-12, 161-14,. 161-26). ,- . . '
Comments favoring further evaluation of proposed treatment standards '
. Further evaluation is needed regarding whether proposed hazardous soil treatment criteria are
sufficiently flexible to address radioactive mixed waste (1NEL,'18-1). . '
Insufficient data exist at present to identify all potential,problems that may arise in treating RMIV to
the proposed soil standards (INEL, 18-9 to 10).
3.2 Disagree that Radioactive Compounds in Mixed Radioactive Wastes Will Not Interfere
with the Treatability of the RCRA Hazardous Constituents In the Waste
In the proposed rule, EPA stated that, for iho most part, the low concentrations of
radioactive compounds should not interfere with Ihc trcatability of the RCRA hazardous
constituents in the waste. The Agency requested data where this is not the case (58 FR 48118).
This issue is related to the capacity determination because,the commercial capacity for a given
technology is only available for mixed radioactive wastes'if the technology is capable of treating
the wastes to the LDR standards. .
Comments . .
n r?
--i- '
(9 rr wfc '
a a E- »
- o w *
^* o*"
3. ^"
? r» n>
O
GO
o
o
ru
CQ
-------
Although commenters generally agree with EPA concerning the lack of interference from radioactive
constituents (see next section), mixed radioactive wastes of high activity or of high nitrite/nitrate
content (e.g., Hanford tank wastes) are problematic and require, special consideration (DOE, 43-41;
Westinghouse, 115-17).
The incineration technology on which EPA has based the proposed UTSs is not suitable for use with
many mixed wastes (USWAG el at, 55-15 to 18).
High temperature metals recovery typically is not feasible for mixed radioactive waste with a high
metallic content.and that stabilization may continue to be the most appropriate treatment
(Westinghouse, 115-6).
Treatment (ie., incineration) "may concentrate the radioactive components of the treated mixed
wastes," thereby generating a radioactive waste stream "requiring care in handling" (NV DEP, 131-1).
33 Agree that Radioactive Compounds in Mixed Radioactive Wastes Will Not Interfere with
. the Treatabillty of the RCRA Hazardous Constituents in the Waste
As discussed in Section 3.2, EPA requested comments on its belief that radioactive
constituents in mixed wastes generally will not interfere with the treatability of the RCRA
hazardous constituents. The potential capacity implication are the same as for Section 3.2.
Comments
Commenters agree with EPA's position (DOE, 43-41; Laidlaw, 50-10; Westinghouse, 115-17; MMT,
121-30). . . . '-..
Commenter clarifies that the commenter does not contend that most mixed radioactive waste
containing low concentrations of radioactive compounds are not treatable (DOE, 43r41).
. Commenter states that "within the limits of operator exposure and safety, the presence of radioactive
compounds should not interfere with the treatment of hazardous constituents in waste" (Laidlaw, 50-
10). , " ' ... ^ - . .
Most mixed radioactive wastes "are able to be appropriately.treated" (Westinghouse, 115-17).
A manufacturer of treatment equipment said that.it has ah agreement with DOE to construct one or
more of its proprietary Catalytic Extraction Process units to. "process" mixed waste (MMT, 121-30).
3.4 Wide-Ranging Issues Exist Regarding Treatment Standards and Treatment Technologies
- Comments related to treatment standards for mixed radioactive wastes which may be
indirectly related to the available capacity for these wastes are synopsized below. The potential
capacity implications are as diverse as the comments themselves.
Comments ,
. P- g- ET i
O
00
10
o
O
ru
UQ
-------
A-I6
for cyanide-containing mixed radioactive wastes, DOE asked that EPA propose a, teachable
standard based on cyanide destruction, other than incineration, followed by solidification or
encapsulation (DOE, 43-12).
EPA should recognize that.HTMR is not feasible for the mixed radioactive .waste solids and that
stabilization will continue to be the most appropriate treatment technology for such radioactive metal
wastes (DOE, 43-13). ,
EPA should identify vitrification (HLVTT) as an acceptable treatment method for (1) D018-
containing mixed radioactive wastes generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods and exhibiting the
characteristic of corrosivity and toxicity for metals and (2) DO 18 "Radioactive High Lever mixed.
radioactive wastes when it is subject to treatment in CWA systems (DOE, 43-38, 43-49).
EPA should identify both vitrification (HLVTT) and UTS .as appropriate alternatives for D018 in the '
"radioactive high level wastes generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods" subcategory
(Westinghouse, 115-14). . . -
Technology-based standards for certain RMW should be adopted as alternative standards (DOE, 43-
40,43-53). . . .-
Supports the proposal that TC mixed radioacin-e wnttes would have to meet the promulgated .
treatment standards for TC wastes if they are managed in :non-CWAInon-class / SDWAInon-CWA
equivalent (CWM, 77-37). ';';'
.,'..- ^ r
Stabilization is appropriate for wastes with high metal and law organic concentrations (Westinghouse,
115-19).
Stainless steel is an excellent encapsulant for mixed radioactive wastes; varying thicknesses of
stainless steel can offer a wide range of protection from the environment (DOE, 43-50;
Westinghouse, 115-23). ', . .
I ss« !
a a - K"
o » .-
' O o,'"
. C Jr co
I? I
O
C/3
I
O
O
CD
-------
A-17
SECTION 4. COMMENTS ON HAZARDOUS SOIL CONTAMINATED WITH ORGANIC
TOJaCITY CHARACTERISTIC WASTES AND NEWLY LISTED WASTES
4.1 Data Relevant to the Hazardous Soil Treatment Standards
EPA solicited treatability data and other information relevant to (he proposed hazardous
soil treatment standards (58 FR 48130). To the extent that non-combustion technologies are
capable of treating hazardous soil, they may reduce the required capacity for combustion
technologies. Comments on this issue are synopsizcd below,
Comments ..''
HT-6 has demonstrated the ability to significantly treat wastes and soils (Seaview, 58-6).
Soil vapor extraction may be capable of reducing contaminant levels below risk-based treatment
levels (Rohm and Haas, 114-22).
Based on contaminant data collected, nonanafyzable constituents would be adequately treated by
using a treatment technology for anafyzable constituents, provided the same class of compounds (e.g..,.
.organic*, metals) were being treated (DOE, 161-11).
Large volumes of information regarding treatabUity of contaminated soils should be available from
the CERCLA program (DOE, 161-19).
The commenter presents potential release and exposure data for soils before and after, treatment in a
soil-water slurry reactor (INEL, 182-22). ~ ' .
Extensive technical and cost data were presented on several soil washing technologies supporting soil
washing as an innovative technology for remediating contaminated soil (Dupont Chem., L3-
dttachments).
CBI data on stabilization of soils contaminated with organic* was presented (USPCI, L5-1).
4.2 The Proposed Soil Standards Will Hinder Cleanups .
: EPA requested comments regarding the proposed soil treatment standard options and 'the-
effect the approaches, if promulgated, may have on voluntary cleanups (58 FR 48131). Several
commenters stated that the proposed soil standards will hinder voluntary cleanup efforts. Since
much hazardous soil generation is discretionary, to the extent that voluntary cleanups decline, the
quantities of soil requiring treatment may decrease. Specific comments on this, issue are
synopsized below.
Comments on the Effect on Voluntary Cleanups
The proposed rule will create more disincentives to voluntary cleanup than it removes (Boeing, 29-5):
Requiring a generator to petition the Agency through the Kefflohal Administrator when soils cannot
be treated to meet UTSs is overfy burdensome and will hinder remediation efforts (A WP1, 47-10).
3
Si
5 o §. ffo
P^^S 2
p: 2 ft tQ A .
? o ».
sg-s.
3 S "
3 "S1
O
MJ
-------
A-18
Voluntary cleanups will be severely impacted if the pro/xixcd soil standards are implemented (Mill .
Service. 98-5). '..
Extend the 'CMW concept to voluntary corrective actions (Rohm and Haas, 114-21).
Comments on the Effect on RCRA and CERCLA Clrtinups
Reducing or limiting combustion capacity will push comfitelion ofCERCLA cleanup and RCRA
correction action into the future (CRWl, 65-3). '
. Comments on the Effect on Cleanups in General '
Regulating wastes from remedial activity as if they wrre newly generated wastes is contrary to the goal
. of efficient and effective cleanups (GE,.76-23).
The structure and rigidity of RCRA Subtitle C management standards and LDRs are not intended '
nor suitable for remedial actions (Merck, 176-1; 1NEL, 1X2-1; CMA, Ll-2).
The LDRs could make treatment of petroleum contaminated groundwater (with processes using .
state- or federally-approved reinjection of contaminated groundwaler for hydrocarbon recovery)
impractical (Conoco, 177-5).
Alternative treatment should be permitted to avoid prohibitively high remediation costs and
significant delays in clean up (Time Oil, 178-1).
Requiring ffeaiment of soils at remediation sites to mett LBRs, and then disposal in a RCRA
landfill, rather than on-site treatment, is a disincentive to undertaking any remedial action (Dupont
Chem., L3-8), . .
sfs '
» § »
g^e
rl*!
r< =!aa
'alls
n f* ^ '
a a -r'w
- o " »-
O n O'
C 91 tn
a C en
2 _
« ^ o
O
on
K>
n.
i
o
o
-------
A-1'J
SECTION 5: HAZARDOUS DEBRIS CONTAMINATED WITH ORGANIC TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTIC WASTES AND NEWLY LISTED WASTES
Commenters addressed other issues thai m:iy be indirectly related to the available and
required capacity for debris. These issues include the definition of debris and treatment standards
for debris. The potential capacity implications arc..'is diverse as the comments themselves.
Synopses of these comments are provided below.
Comments
Comthenter opposes any new contained-in determination for hazardous debris (HWTC, 60-53).
The "clean debris surface" standard Ls totally impractical and unworkable (fffl'TC, 60-53 to 54).
EPA should adopt the existing NESHAP requirements as BOAT for asbestos Containing debris
(Union Carbide, 142A1-6). '....
Proposed definition of debris is far too broad and will result in significant disruptions to maintenance
activities, demolition/renovation projects, and excavations (Union Carbide, 142A1-7).
EPA should use the Shell Oil Co. v. EPA decision as an opportunity to exclude minimally
contaminated debris from hazardous waste LDR requirements (Union Carbide, 142A1-7).
Ifi
g«
E|
tn ~
5 o a s-o
.« ? S rf
o. d t- »
-
- c
.» " P.
O
C/3.
to
^Tj
I
O
o
Uj
LU
-------
|