United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-97-040
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB97-177 513
Agency (5305W) May 1993
&EPA Background Document
for the Capacity
Analysis to Support 40
CFR 268 Land Disposal
Restrictions for
Ignitable and Corrosive
Wastes Whose
Treatment Standards
Were Vacated (Interim
Final Rule)
Printed on paper that contains at lest 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
Background Document for the Capacity Analysis to
Support 40 CFR 268 Land Disposal Restrictions
for Ignitable and Corrosive Wastes Whose Treatment
Standards Were Vacated (Interim Final Rule)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20460
May 1993
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND . . . ...
2. DATA SOURCES 2
2.1 1989 Biennial Report .,..2
2.2 Contacts with Regional and State Officials 4
2.3 Comments to the Notice of Data Availability ... 4
2.4 Other Data Sources ... 5
3. DATA LIMITATIONS ........ ... 5
4. CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .,:...................... 7
4.1 Residuals from Treatment 7
4.2 Deactivated 1C wastes in Non-CWA/SDWA Systems ......... 8
4.3 Deactivated 1C Wastes in Underground Injection Wells Other
than Class I 9
4.4 Deactivated Ignitable Reactive Wastes .... ^.............. 10
5. REQUIRED CAPACITY ESTIMATES ........:.. 10
5.1 .Quantities of 1C wastes currently deactivated .............. 10
5.2 Treatment Residuals ...' 11
5.3 Deactivated Wastes in CWA-Equivalent Systems ........... 14
5.4 Deactivated Wastes in Class V Wells .....:.........:.... 17
5.5 Affected Facilities ... . 17
5.5.1 Facilities Treating 1C Wastes '....-.,.-: 17
5.5.2 Facilities Managing Deactivated 1C Wastes in Class V
Wells /;.: >..;• .. ... .........1 19
6. AVAILABLE CAPACITY ESTIMATES ................. ...... 21
6.1 Commercial Combustion Capacity Summary .............. 21
6.2 Commercial Incineration Capacity 22
6.2.1 Analysis for the Phase 1 Rule ... ............. 22
6.2.2 Revisions to the Analysis Since the Phase 1 Rule for
Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris ......... 26
6.3 Commercial Cement Kiln Hazardous Waste Capacity ........ 26
6.4 Other Treatment System Capacities 28
7. VARIANCE DETERMINATION . 30
Appendix A: CAPACITY COMMENTS SUMMARIES AND RESPONSE ...... A-l
Appendix B: ESTIMATION OF AFFECTED CLASS V INJECTION WELLS ... B-l
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. Report No.
PAGE |
| EPA530-R-97-040
I
1 2.
4. Title and Subtitle
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR CAPACITY ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT 40 CFR PART 268 LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS FOR IGNTTABLE AND CORROSIVE WASTES WHOSE TREATMENT STANDARDS WERE
VACATED (INTERIM FINAL RULE)
15. Report Date
| May 1993
1
7. Authors)
| 8. Performing Organization RepL No.
1
1
1
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
| 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
1
|11. Contract © or Grant (G) No.
I(G)
1
1
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
1 13. Type of Report & Period Covered
1
TECHNICAL REPORT
1
13. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR IGNTTABLE AND CORROSIVE WASTES. PRESENTS THE KEY DATA SOURCES USED IN THE ANALYSIS; DISCUSSES THE
MAJOR DATA LIMITATIONS; PRESENTS THE ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY; CONTAINS THE REQUIRED CAPACITY ESTIMATES; ADDRESSES AVAILABLE
CAPACITY FOR THE WASTES COVERED BY THE RULE; INCLUDES THE VARIANCE DETERMINATIONS. APPENDICES INCLUDE CAPACITY COMMENTS
SUMMARIES AND RESPONSE AND ESTIMATION OF AFFECTED CLASS V INJECTION WELLS.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field Group
18. Availability Statement
RELEASE UNLIMITED
119. Security Class (This Report) 121. No. of Pages
157
| UNCLASSIFIED |
I I ""
120. Security Class (This Page) 122. Price
| UNCLASSIFIED |
(SeeANSI-Z39.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
-------
CAPACITY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
This document presents the data sources and methodology used in the capacity
analysis for this rule, discusses the data limitations of the analysis, and provides the
results of the analysis. Section 1 provides general background on this rule. Section 2
presents the key data sources used in the analysis: Section 3 discusses the major data
limitations; Section 4 presents the analytical methodology; Section 5 presents the
required capacity estimates; Section 6 discusses available capacity for the wastes covered
in this rule; and Section 7 contains the variance determinations.
1. BACKGROUND
Several petitions for judicial review were brought to challenge the Third Third
final rule (55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990). Several environmental organizations, as'well as
the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, raised numerous-objections to the Third Third
rule. In part, they asserted that the rule's deaetivation standard impermissibly allowed
dilution in some cases, rather than treatment with specific technologies; that the rule
allowed placement of untreated formerly characteristic wastes into Clean Water Act
surface impoundments or underground injection wells, violating the intent of RCRA; that
the rule created treatment standards for chromium and lead waste that were not
supported by the available data; and that the rule provided an exemption to treatment
standards for wastes burned along with wastes exempted by the Bevill Amendment in
industrial furnaces.
On September 25, 1992; The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit delivered its decision to these challenges (Chemical Waste
Management. Incl, et al. v. EPA. 976 F. 2d 2), granting some and denying some. The .
court held that dilution of characteristic wastes may constitute treatment only for those
characteristic wastes that do riot contain hazardous constituents in sufficient
concentrations to pose a threat to human health and the environment. The opinion
further stated that EPA conceded that dilution could not attain this result for certain
ignitable and corrosive characteristic wastes. For others, the court stated that the Agency
had not made clear that dilution could meet the requirements for treatment. The court,
therefore, vacated the treatment standards for those wastes. The court further stated
that the dilution of characteristic hazardous wastes in Clean Water Act facilities was
acceptable so long as the hazardous constituents of the waste were minimized or
eliminated consistent with otherwise applicable RCRA treatment standards. Similarly,
the court stated that disposal of wastes in underground injection wells may occur as long
as the hazardous characteristics are eliminated and any health and environmental dangers
posed by the hazardous constituents of the wastes are minimized consistent with
otherwise applicable RCRA treatment standards.
-------
In the Third Third rule, EPA set treatment standards for wastes exhibiting the
characteristics of ignitnbility (D001), corrosivity (D002), reactivity (D003). and toxicity
(D004-17). D004-11 wastes exhibit toxicity for metals, DO 12-17 exhibit toxicity for
pesticides. In this emergency rule, EPA is setting new treatment standards for ignitable
wastes (D001), except in the high TOC subcategory, and corrosive wastes (D002) that are
not managed in Clean Water Act (CWA), CWA-equivalent, or Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)-regulated systems. Because the court remanded to EPA issues concerning
regulatory overlap, EPA is deferring setting new treatment standards for ignitable and
corrosive (1C) wastes managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SD\VA systems until a
future rulemaking.
2. DATA SOURCES
In'this capacity analysis, EPA has relied on a variety of data sources including the
1989 Biennial Reporting System (BRS), contacts with regional and state officials,
comments to the Notice of Data Availability, and other data sources. EPA relied
primarily on the BRS to estimate the quantities of 1C wastes undergoing treatment (i.e.,
incineration, fuel substitution, solvent recovery, stabilization, or evaporation). However,
the BRS contains limited information on deactivated 1C wastes managed in non-
CWA/SDWA systems. Therefore, EPA used contacts with regional and state officials
and other data sources (e.g., data on Class V wells from EPA's Office of Water) to
estimate the number of facilities and quantities of wastes potentially affected by this rule.
The remainder of this section describes the use of key data sources in the capacity
analysis.
2.1 1989 Biennial Report
The Hazardous Waste Report, conducted at least every two years by EPA, is
authorized by Sections 3002, 3004 and 3007 of RCRA, as amended by HSWA. RCRA
requires hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage and disposal facilities to
report to EPA or authorized states (1) the quantities, nature and disposition of generated
hazardous wastes, and (2) the efforts taken to reduce the volume and toxicity of
hazardous waste since the last hazardous waste report. EPA compiles the information in
a database, the Biennial Reporting System (BRS), and uses it to facilitate waste
treatment capacity studies and waste tracking, assess waste minimization activities, and -
support State hazardous waste programs. Facilities are required to file the report if they
meet the definition of a RCRA Large Quantity Generator or if the facility treated, stored
or disposed of RCRA hazardous wastes on-site in units subject to RCRA permitting
requirements. EPA does not require Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) to submit the
report; however, states may set requirements different than those of EPA.
-------
The Hazardous Waste Report consists of different forms. Form 1C (identification
and certification) must he completed by all facilities required to submit a Hazardous
Waste report. Form GM (waste generation and management) is completed by facilities
which generated or shipped any quantity of RCRA hazardous waste. Form WR (waste
received from off-site) is completed by facilities which received wastes from off-site.
Form PS (waste treatment, disposal or recycling process systems) is completed by
facilities which treat, dispose or recycle RCRA hazardous waste on-site. Form OI (off-
site identification) is completed by facilities which received hazardous wastes from off-site
or shipped hazardous wastes off-site.
KMost of EPA's analysis for this rule was based on data extracted from Form GM
because this form reports the widest range of information (waste description including
waste codes, system in which the waste was generated, on-site and off-site treatment
systems and quantity). Form GM is also completed by the widest range of facilities, thus
giving EPA the highest probability of identifying all wastes that may be affected by this
rule. EPA used form PS in selected cases, because this form contains information on the
treatment units themselves (such as regulatory' status), that is of interest and cannot be
ascertained from Form GM. EPA did not rely extensively on information extracted from
Form PS, because this form was not required by all states:-thus its coverage would be
incomplete. : ;• • • . .
Initially, EPA used the BRS to analyze capacity-related information for three
groups of wastes that were vacated by the court decision:
(1) 1C wastes that are treated and whose residuals contain hazardous
constituents above F039 levels;
(2) 1C wastes that are deactivated in systems whose discharges are not
regulated under CWA or SDWA; and
(3) Deactivated 1C wastes managed in Class V underground injection wells.
The BRS was most useful in analyzing wastes that are treated in incinerators.
reuse as fuel, solvent recovery, stabilization, and evaporation systems. There are major
limitations to using the BRS data to identify deactivated 1C wastes in \vaste\vater systems
because significant quantities of these wastes have never been reported in the BRS.
EPA also examined the BRS for additional information such as developing
proportionality constants used in estimating affected quantities for Class V wells (see
Appendix B).
-------
4
2.2 Contacts with Regional and State Officials
Because of the general lack of information on deactivated 1C wastes managed in
systems that are not regulated under CWA, CWA-equivalent. or SDWA. EPA contacted
regional and state officials from environmental and water regulator)' agencies to assess
the number of potentially affected facilities and quantities of deactivated 1C wastes that
may he managed in non-CWA/SDWA systems.
For facilities with zero discharge permits and Class V wells. EPA estimated on a
regional basis the potential number of affected facilities. These estimates reflect the best
professional judgement of state and regional officials that regulate the management of
non-hazardous industrial wastes.
2.3 Comments to the Notice of Data Availability
EPA received 64 comments dealing with issues raised in the Notice of Data
Availability (NODA). Many of the comments were capacity-related. While the NODA
requested comments on both vacated and remanded issues raised in the Court decision.
this emergency rule only deals with wastes whose treatment standards were vacated by
the Court. As a result, many of the comments received by EPA that deal with remanded
wastes and issues will be addressed and responded to in upcoming rules. Because the
NODA did not specifically distinguish between vacated and remanded wastes, many
commenters addressed capacity issues that could apply to both groups of wastes. These
comments have been addressed in the capacity analysis.
Few comments provided data on the generation and management of the vacated
wastes addressed in ;his rule. However, some comments were useful in confirming
assumptions used in the capacity analysis methodology. Most comments addressed
concerns related to remanded wastes. However, commenters also expressed concern on
the potential impact of the Court decision on the residuals from the treatment of 1C .
wastes, deactivated 1C wastes managed in Class V wells and in zero-discharge systems.
Many commenters discussed the need for a capacity variance or case-by-case
extension to the effective date of new treatment standards because they believe the
regulatory revisions promulgated in this rule may have significant compliance and cost
impacts. Most of the requests for capacity variances were for remanded wastes.
Appendix A presents the summary and responses to capacity-related comments for
vacated wastes covered in this rule.
-------
2.4 Other Data Sources
In addition to the BRS and contacts with regional and stale officials, EPA
evaluated other data sources for this capacity analysis. To supplement information
provided in the Notice of Data Availability, EPA examined overlapping data from the
TSDR Capacity Data Set.
One of the primary limitations to the Biennial Report is that it does not contain
concentration information for the waste streams reported. EPA is interested in
constituent concentrations because they can help determine underlying constituents in 1C
wastes and whether they already meet F039 levels. EPA explored using the Generator
Survey because it contains waste stream and concentration data. However, EPA did not
use the Generator Survey because the concentrations reported for hazardous constituents
in 1C wastes were prior to deactivation. Furthermore, these data are from 1986 and
significant changes in waste generation and management practices have occurred since
then.
EPA used the 1991' Questionnaire for Facilities that Land Dispose Newly-
Identified Organic TC Wastes as a supplementary source to confirm the existence of
CWA and SDWA-regulated systems at selected facilities that manage both 1C wastes and
newly identified TC wastes. This data source was of limited use, however, because 1C
wastes were not the focus of this survey, and are thus not reported consistently.
EPA used data from EPA's Office of Water on Class V injection wells to estimate
the potentially affected number of facilities and quantities of was'ie tKat may require
additional treatment. The use of these data are described in Appendix B.
3. DATA LIMITATIONS
There are significant limitations to the data used for this analysis. These
limitations stem in large part from the lack of data on quantities and characteristics of
deactivated 1C wastes impacted by this rule. The major data limitations include:
• Deactivated 1C wastes are often not reported in hazardous waste
management databases, such as the BRS, because many facilities deactivate
these wastes immediately after generation and consider these wastes to be
non-hazardous.
• Many 1C wastes are deactivated with large quantities of non-hazardous
process waters in tank or surface impoundment systems. Even when the
quantities of original 1C wastes (pre-deactivation) are known, there is little
or no information on the effluent quantities that are leaving these systems.
-------
Most of the time, the quantities of process waters used to deactivate 1C
wastes are significantly greater than the original quantity of 1C wastes.
making estimates based solely on the initial quantity very imprecise.
• There is an extensive lack of data on the underlying constituents in
deactivated 1C wastes and on their concentration levels. This lack of data
makes it very difficult to evaluate whether deactivated 1C wastes meet or
exceed F039 levels.
• There is no comprehensive data on deactivated 1C wastes managed in non-
CWA/SDWA systems. While many of the responses to comments received
in conjunction with the emergency rule have dealt with deactivated 1C
wastes managed in CWA or SDWA systems, few comments reported 1C
wastes managed in other systems. Regional and state data on zero-
discharge systems are generally sketchy.
• Data on wastes managed in Class V injection wells are also lacking. There
are some general estimates concerning the number of Class V wells and
typical quantities of wastes injected in these wells. However, there is no
information on which Class V wells receive deactivated 1C wastes, the
quantities of deactivated 1C wastes injected in Class V wells, the underlying
constituents in these wastes, and constituent concentrations.
* Respondents to the Biennial Report were not required to fill out Form PS
which contains information on waste treatment, disposal or recycling
process systems. The data available on this form are very useful for
capacity analysis. However, because only a subset of facilities filled out
Form PS, EPA only had access to partial information on the management
of 1C wastes.
These data limitations make it difficult to arrive at precise estimates of wastes
iffected by this rule. EPA used the BRS to estimate data on quantities of 1C wastes
tndergoing treatment (i.e., incineration, reuse as fuel, stabilization, solvent recovery, and
:vaporation) and is confident of its estimates for these wastes. However, quantities of
leactivated 1C wastes managed in zero-discharge systems were not estimated in the
matysis because, absent additional information, EPA generally assumes that these state-
egulated treatment and disposal systems are CWA-equivalent. EPA used information
)rovided by regional and state officials and a methodology based on assumptions to
:stimate the quantities of deactivated 1C wastes discharged in Class V wells in an
nformation synthesis.
-------
7
4. CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This section presents the methodology used in the capacity analysis. EPA relied
on data from the BRS to estimate the quantities of 1C waste treatment residuals that
may require additional treatment as a result of this rule. EPA used data received from
regional and state officials, comments to the emergency rule, and professional judgement
to estimate the quantities of deactivated 1C wastes managed in non-CWA/SDWA systems
that may also be affected by this rule.
4.1 Residuals from Treatment
To the extent that they fail to meet F039 standards, residuals from the treatment
of 1C wastes may be affected by this rule. To estimate this quantity, EPA extracted from
Form CM of the BRS the quantities of DOOl and D002 wastes from facilities that report
sending 1C wastes to incineration, reuse as fuel, solvent recovery, and stabilization
systems. In addition, wastes sent to land based evaporation systems may still be affected
by this rule, and EPA also extracted those quantities from the BRS.
EPA assumed that 1C wastes mixed with a listed waste would have to meet BOAT
standards for the listed waste and could not be simply deactivated. Furthermore, these
wastes would likely meet F039 standards after treatment. To estimate the quantities of
treated 1C wastes potentially affected, EPA aggregated nine different groups of 1C wastes
treated in each of the five treatment categories (i.e., incineration, reuse as fuel,
stabilization, solvent recovery, and evaporation):
DOOl only;
DOOl with D004-D011 only;
DOOl with D004-D011 -and other waste codes;
D001 with F001-F005 only;
DOOl with F001-F005 and other codes;
DOOl and D002;
D002only;
D002 with D004-D011 only; and
D002 with D004-D011 and other codes.
Wastes were aggregated such that the totals in each category would be mutually
exclusive. While this rule applies only to ignitable wastes (DOOl), except the high TOC
subcategory, the BRS does not require respondents to distinguish between low TOC and
high TOC DOOl wastes. Consequently, EPA assumed that none of the quantity of DOOl
liquids reported in the BRS is in the high TOC subcategory.
-------
8
Because today's treatment standards for ignitahle wastes (D001) include DEACT
(deactivation) and F039, or incineration (INCIN), or RORCs (recovery of organics). or
FSUBS (fuel substitution), D001 wastes that are already treated by any of the specified
treatment methods will not require further treatment and will not be affected by today's
rule. Nevertheless, quantities of these wastes were extracted from the BRS in a first tier
analysis.
Treatment standards for D002 wastes in the acid, alkaline, and other subcategory
based on 261.22 and managed in non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-SDWA systems are
DEACT and meet F039. Therefore, D002 wastes that are deactivated through treatment
still have to meet F039 levels and were analyzed using BRS data.
4.2 Deactivated 1C wastes in Non-CWA/SDWA Systems
To identify the facilities that may be treating 1C wastes in surface impoundments
not regulated under the Clean Water Act, and thus affected by this rulemaking. EPA
used Form PS of the Biennial Report. The various codes for regulatory status include
options describing RCRA regulated, RCRA exempt, and state only regulated units, as
well as NPDES, POTW, and UIC permitting standards. EPA extracted data on those
facilities that indicated their surface impoundments were entirely RCRA-regulated, and
did not have NPDES or POTW permits. EPA conducted a second analysis, using Form
PS data to compare influent and effluent quantities in surface impoundments. The
Agency assumed that facilities operating surface impoundments regulated by the Clean
Water Act would report an effluent quantity. Therefore, EPA identified facilities with
surface impoundments that reported zero in the effluent data field as potentially affected
facilities. EPA identified several facilities with surface impoundments in this category.
However, the total quantities of wastes managed in these surface impoundments was very
small. Additionally, EPA believes that most of these surface impoundments have been
closed since 1989 and are no longer receiving wastes.
i EPA learned that some facilities may be deactivating 1C wastes and disposing of
them by spray irrigation pursuant to permits specifying zero-discharge. The Agency was
specifically aware of five facilities which might be engaging in this practice. EPA
extracted all Form GM information on these facilities in an attempt to identify some
common code used by all these facilities to report this practice, which then could be used
to extract other facilities employing the same practice. EPA was not able to identify such
a "code". However, the Agency has determined that most of these systems are CWA-
equivalent and would not affected by this rule.
-------
9
43 Deactivated 1C Wastes in Underground Injection Wells Other than Class I
Some facilities may he diluting 1C wastes and disposing of them in Class V
underground injection wells. Since these wells are not covered hy the regulator)1 overlap
of RCRA with the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1C wastes disposed in these wells would be
affected by this rule. EPA conducted a search to determine whether data on Class V
wells can be gleaned from the Biennial Report. EPA extracted Form GM information.
including comments, on all facilities that reported sending wastes to systems Ml34
(Deepwell/Underground injection) or Ml37 (Other disposal). This effort did not yield
any information identifying wastes which were sent to Class V wells.
EPA contacted regional and state officials in water regulatory agencies to estimate
the number of facilities that may be managing deactivated 1C wastes in Class V wells. In
addition, EPA used an analysis of Class V wells undertaken for an upcoming rule to
assess the potentially affected universe of wastes. EPA adjusted the overall estimated
quantities of wastes from industrial facilities managed in Class V wells to account for (1)
the small quantity generator (SQG) exclusion, (2) facilities with de minimis losses in Class
V wells, (3) the proportion of facilities injecting deactivated 1C wastes in Class V wells,
and (4) the proportion of deactivated 1C wastes likely to contain constituents above F039
levels. The methodology for this analysis is presented in Appendix B.
EPA also received comments indicating that some Class II injection wells may be
affected by the Court decision. One commenter suggested that Class II wells could also
be subject to this rule if they were to inject decharacterized ignitable and corrosive
wastes that are not drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes-uniquely associated
with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal
energy, materials that are not hazardous wastes even at their point of generation. EPA
notes, however, that if the ignitable and corrosive wastes injected into non-Class I wells
were to be treated by CWA-equivalent means before injection, today's rule would not
apply. Such facilities would be a type of zero discharge facility and, since they are
treating by the same means as facilities discharging directly or indirectly, would not be
immediately subject to today's rule.
Furthermore, EPA believes that Class II UIC wells injecting oil and gas
exploration and production wastes are not newly impacted by this rule. First, injection
into Class II disposal wells of decharacterized wastes not covered by the exemption in §
261.4(b)(5> would violate existing UIC regulations. See § 146.5(b)(l) specifying which
wastes may be injected into Class II disposal wells. Because the conduct is already
illegal. EPA does not view today's rule as having any further regulat ry impact on that
conduct. Second, injection of such wastes into Class II enhanced recovery wells might
also be illegal. To be permissible, the injected materials must qualify as an "enhanced
recover)- fluid." To do so, the fluid "must function primarily to enhance recovery of oil
-------
10
and gas and must be recognized by the Agency as being appropriate for enhanced
recovery.Jn this context, 'primarily functions' means that the main reason for injecting
the materials is to enhance recovery of oil and gas rather than to serve as a means for .
disposing of those materials." In determining what fluids are appropriate. EPA believes
that fluids that are hazardous wastes at the point of injection would never meet the tesi.
Decharacterized fluids might also fail to satisfy the test depending on their composition
as well as the motivation for the injection. Since the commenter did not provide
sufficient information, EPA is not including Class II wells as affected wastes/facilities in
this capacity analysis.
4.4 Deactivated Ignitable Reactive Wastes
EPA received a comment from the Department of Energy that radioactive finely
divided zirconium chips, classified as D001 Ignitable Reactives Suhcategory. may be
affected by this rule. DOE is concerned that their treatment and disposal technology -
stabilization - might be affected because these wastes are not managed in centralized
wastewater treatment systems.
EPA does not believe that this rule will affect DOE's treatment of this waste
because deactivation, including standards for underlying constituents, is also promulgated
in this rule for D001 wastes. This would include stabilization as treatment for radioactive
zirconium chips. Absent additional information, EPA believes that this wastestream will
meet the standard. As these wastes are currently being stabilized, EPA does not expect
that any additional capacity will be required.
5. REQUIRED CAPACITY ESTIMATES
This section presents the results of the required capacity analysis for the wastes
covered in this rule. These estimates are provided for facilities that currently treat 1C
wastes that may require further treatment and for facilities that discharge deactivated 1C
wastes in non-CWA/CWA-equivalent/SDWA systems.
5.1 Quantities of 1C wastes currently deactivated
In order to estimate the potential quantities of 1C wastes affected by this rule,
EPA extracted data from the BRS on 1C wastes managed in surface impoundments
whose discharges were not regulated under CWA or SDWA. Preliminary data from the
BRS indicated that 99.9% of all waste quantities disposed of in surface impoundments
were discharged under CWA or SDWA. EPA believes that 1C wastes are land disposed
in the same proportions as other wastes, and that most are placed in surface
impoundments with CWA or SDWA discharges. Thus, EPA expects the quantity of 1C
-------
11
wastes deactivated in surface impoundments whose discharges aie not regulated under
CWA or SDWA to be small.
5.2 Treatment Residuals r
Residuals from the treatment of 1C wastes may also be affected by today's rule
and require additional treatment. Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 show the quantities of DOOI and
D002 wastes going to on- and off-site incineration, reuse as fuel, stabilization systems,
solvent recovery and evaporation systems, according to the 1989 Biennial Report. These
tables are organized to show the quantities of wastes potentially affected by this rule.
Whether 1C wastes are affected depends on whether they are managed alone or with
other wastes and on how they are currently treated.
Exhibit 5-1 shows wastes treated in off-site systems, and Exhibit 5-2 shows wastes
treated in on-site systems. The first row of these tables contains the quantities of wastes
in streams carrying only the D001 waste code. The second row contains the quantities of
wastes in streams carrying only the DOOI code, and any D004-11 codes. These waste
streams do not carry any listed codes, or other characteristic codes. The third row
contains the quantities of wastes in streams carrying the DOOI code, any D004-11 code,
regardless of the other listed or characteristic codes the stream may also carry. The
fourth row shows the quantities of wastes in streams carrying the DOOI code, and a
solvent code (F001-5), but no other codes. The fifth row shows the quantities of wastes
in wastes streams carrying the DOOI code, a solvent code (F001-5J, and any other code.
The sixth row contains the quantities of wastes in streams carrying only both the DOOI
and D002 codes. The final three ro-vs are similar to the first three, reporting quantities
of wastes in waste streams carrying only D002, D002 with any D004-11, and all streams
with D002 and D004-11 as well as any other listed or characteristic codes. It should be
noted that the Biennial Report only allows one system code to be checked per waste
stream. Therefore, wastes that are incinerated prior to being stabilized are not likely to
appear in the stabilization totals.
As indicated in Exhibit 5-1, the Agency believes that the majority of DOOI wastes
streams are being treated in combustion systems, and will not be affected by today's rule.
Ignitable wastes with metals that are being treated in combustion systems will not require
additional treatment because incineration (INCIN), reuse as fuel (FSUBS), and solvent
recovery (RORGS) are among the BOAT alternatives promulgated in this rule for
ignitablc wastes (DOOI), except the high TOC subcategory. Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 indicate
that approximately 7,000 tons of DOOI wastes are going to stabilization. These wastes
may require additional treatment to remove organics that may be present above F039
levels. By today's rule, these wastes may require incineration, reuse as fuel, or solvent
recovery as their initial treatment to handle organic constituents.
-------
12
Exhibit 5-1
Quantities of Wastes Treated in Off-site Incineration, Reuse as Fuel, and
Stabilization, Solvent Recovery and Evaporation Systems
(tons/year)
D001 Only
D001 &D004-I1
Only
D001 & D004-1 1
Mixed with other
codes
D001 & F001-5
only
D001 & F001-5
mixed with other
codes
D001-2
D002 Only
D002&D004-11
Only
D002&D004-11
mixed with other
codes
Incineration
77,396*
•14,352*
23,623*
55,898*
14,160*
5,066
23,647
1,119
9,054
Reuse as
Fuel
109,435*
462*
12,381*
267,483*
15,445*
566
370
663
1,779
Stabili-
zation
2,379 •
429
462
118
11
923
5,768
4,177
9,017
Solvent
Recovery
213,144*
2,626*
3,272*
39,670*
5,690*
1,230
13,894
239
45
Evaporation
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
42
88
NA
NA: Not Applicable
*: These wastes already comply with BOAT requirements in this rule. These
data are provided here on an informational basis.
-------
13
Exhibit 5-2
Quantities of Wastes Treated in On-site Incineration, Reuse as Fuel, and
Stabilization, Solvent Recovery and Evaporation Systems
(tons/year)
D001 Only
D001&D004-11
Only
D001 &D004-11
Mixed with other
codes
D001 & F001-5
only
D001 & F001-5
mixed with other
codes
D001-2
D002 Only
D002&D004-11
Only
D002&D004-11
mixed with ether
codes
Incineration
75,962*
722*
31,716*
25,006*
86,123*
108,518
5,287
16
26,484
Reuse as.
Fuel
379,182*
68*
50,707*
103,550*
98,447*
124,807
3,372
0
46,638
Stabili-
zation
420
2
1,266
34
1,255
0
1,097
4
1,277
V
Solvent
Recovery
56.387*
697*
327*
33,626*
3,823*
548
38
0
4
Evaporation
1.075
0
NA
NA
NA
0
835
101
NA
NA: Not Applicable
*: These wastes already comply with BOAT requirements in this rule. These
data are provided here on an informational basis.
-------
14
Exhibit 5-2 shows that relatively large quantities of D002 are reported in the
Biennial Report as being treated in combustion systems (DOOI-2 Only, and D002 &.
D004-11 mixed with other codes). Approximately 300,000 tons of D002 wastes are
managed on-site in combustion systems. Of these wastes, 70,000 tons are mixed with
metal wastes and other codes. Assuming a 10 percent residuals to waste ratio. EPA
expects that 7,000 tons of D002 wastes mixed with metal codes may require additional
treatment, provided the constituent concentrations in the ash exceed today's treatment
standards.
Close to 20,000 tons of D001 wastes were reportedly managed in evaporation
systems in 1989. However, one facility, generating 19,000 tons of this waste, reported to
EPA that the unit is undergoing closure. The wastes that formerly went to the unit are .
currently sent to a wastewater treatment system. Therefore, EPA estimates the
quantities of 1C wastes managed in evaporation systems to be approximately 1.000 tons
per year.
Thus, EPA expects that approximately 15,000 tons of treated 1C wastes may
require additional treatment as a result of today's rule. This estimate includes 7,000 tons
of ignitable wastes currently stabilized that may require incineration, reuse as fuel, or
solvent recovery as their primary treatment; 7,000 tons of D002 wastes mixed with metal
codes that may require stabilization; and 1,000 tons of D001 wastes managed in
evaporation systems that may require incineration or reuse as fuel followed by
stabilization.
5J Deactivated Wastes in CWA-Equivalent Systems
The Agency has become aware of wastewater treatment systems that are not
regulated under CWA/SDWA and that may be impacted by this rule. These systems are
generally state-regulated through zero-discharge, land application, or ground-water
protection permits. State data received by EPA did not indicate whether the wastes
discharged under these systems were ignitable or corrosive or what constituent levels are
allowed in the state permits. Furthermore, state standards exist either on a case-by-case
basis or in general form and are not necessarily consistent across states.
/ • . .
Exhibit 5-3 summarizes of the data provided by EPA regions on the number of
potentially affected facilities with zero-discharge permits. Exhibit 5-4 shows the estimated
number of facilities with zero-discharge permits by industrial sector.
Based on professional judgement, EPA estimates that approximately 100 facilities
regulated under these state programs may contain deactivated 1C wastes. However, EPA
believes that, absent additional information, because these wastes are managed under
-------
15
Exhibit 5-3
NO-DISCHARGE PERMITTING SYSTEM BY REGION
EPA REGION
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VI!
VIII
IX
X
REGION TOTAL
STATE PROGRAMS
• Land Spreading Permit- ME
• Groundwater Discharge Permit- NH
• Indirect Discharge Permit- VT
- Groundwater Permit- NJ
• Groundwater Discharge Permit- MD
• Waier Quality Management Permit- PA
- Pollutant Atatement Permit- VA
- Land Application Permit. AI_ GA. KY
- Spray Irrigation/Land Application
Permit- R, MS
- Industrial Discharge Permit- SC
- Non-Discharge Permit- NC
- Land Application Permit- IN
- Non-NPDES Permit- MI
- Water Pollution Control Management
Plan- OH
- No Discharge Permit- AK •
- Retention Systems Permit- LA
- Groundwatcr Discharge Permit- NM
- State Discharge Permit- 1A
• Land Application Permit- MS
- Pollutant Discharging System Permit- UT
- Waste Water Reclamation- CA
'• Spray Irrigation/Land Application
Permit- NV
- Land Application Disposal Permit- AL
- Water Pollution Control Facility Permit-
OR
MAJOR
INDUSTRIES
Paper. Electronics:
Utilities: Textile:
Dye A: Pif mcnt
Chemical: Paper/Pulp:
Pharmaceutical:
Electronics
Utility. Wood
Preserving: Chemical;
Metal: Artificial Fibers
Chemical: Mela!;
Artificial Fibers:
Dept. of Energy.
Utilities: Fiber/Textile:
Refinery
Paper/Pulp: Chemical;
Refiner)-. Unimex
Chemical: Iron &
Steel: Petroleum:
Utilities -
Refinery
Depl. of Defense:
Mining: Chemical:
Petroleum: Utilities:
Manufacturing
Utilities: Mining:
Wood/Pulp:
Electroplating:
Refinery
Utilities: Electronics:
WoodTulp
POTENTIAL # OF
FACILITIES
IMPACTED'
™
o
12
•»•>
15
14
4
U
7
6
107
* Potential number of facilities impacted by LDR 1C rule making.
-------
16
Exhibit 5-4
Estimated Number of Facilities with Zero-Discharge Permits By
Industrial Sector
Public Utilities
Chemicals and Allied Products
Pulp and Paper
Petroleum Refining
DoD/DOE
Mining
Metals
Wood Preserving
Electroplating
Oil Field/Service
Machinery
20
15
12
12
10
10
10
5
.4
4 :
3
TOTAL 105
-------
17
state regulations specifying numerical limits for pollutants based an proper performance
of wastewater treatment technologies, the Agency believes that these systems will he
CWA-equivalent and, therefore, not subject to regulation under the emergency rule.
5,4 Deactivated Wastes in Class V Wells
T%vo eommenters to the Notice of Data Availability raised the bsue of Class V
wells which may be affected by this rule. Additional data available to EPA indicates that
there may be up to 200,000 industrial Class V wells. Because of the lack of waste
characterization data, it is not known how many of these wells receive deactivated 1C
wastes or would meet F039 treatment standards before injection. Typical quantities of
wastes injected in these wells vary widely between 35 and 1.000 gallons per week. EPA
estimates that approximately 15,000 tons per year of wastes injected in Class V wells may
contain deactivated 1C wastes that do not meet F039 standards. These wastes may
contain both organic and inorganic constituents and could require incineration or reuse
as fuel followed by stabilization. Appendix B presents a more detailed exposition of how
this quantity estimate was derived.
The Agency suspects that many of these Class V wells fall under the Small
Quantity Generator (SQG) exclusion and are thus conditionally exempt from RCRA
requirements, including the LDRs (see 268.1(e)(l)). From the information gathered; and
comments received on the Notice of Data Availability, EPA further believes that a "
number of the deep Class V wells treat their wastes prior to injection, and thus would
not be affected by this rule if such a practice would qualify them as a CWA-equivalent
facility.
5.5 Affected Facilities
There are two sets of facilities affected by this rule; facilities that are currently
treating 1C wastes in non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-SDWA systems that may not
meet F039 standards and facilities that inject deactivated 1C wastes in Class V
underground injection wells without pretreatment1.
5.S.1 Facilities Treating 1C Wastes
Exhibit 5-5 shows the number of facilities which indicated in the BRS that they
treated DOOI and D002 wastes in incineration, reuse as fuel, solvent recovery,
stabilization, or evaporation systems. Some of these facilities may not meet the
numerical standards being promulgated today. The table shows both the number of
EPA Has determined thai facilities with zero-discharge systems are generally CWA-cquivalcnt and are
remanded hv the court decision.
-------
18
Kxhlbit 5-5
Facilities Treating 1C Wastes Potentially AJTrcled l,» this Kulr
, Tjp* of WaMe
Waste streams carrying *t least A D001 code, nw have
any other 0 code hut no listed codes
Waste streams earning at least a D001 code, may have
any other D code hut no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at le-isl a D001 and D002
code, may have any other D code hut no listed codes
Waste strums carrying at lust a D001 and 0002
rode, may hsve'any other D code but no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at least a D001 and D002
code, may have any other D code hut no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at least a D002 code, may have
any other D code hut no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at least a D002 code, may have
any other D code hut no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at least a D002 code, may have
any other D code hut no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at least » D002 code, may have
any other D code but no listed codes
Waste streams carrying at least a O002 code, may have
any other D code hut no listed codes
Total Facilities Affected. On-siie and Off-site
Total Number of Unique Facilities Affected
Typ* of Treatment
Slahil nation
Evaporation
Incineration
Reuse as fuel
Solvent Recovery
Stabilization
Incineration
Kcuse as Fuel
Evaporation
Solvent Recovery
All Of the above
All of the above
Facilities
Reporting On-slle
Treatment
4
3
^T
V
1
K
44
II
7
4
7.1
Facilities
Reporting O(T-»:ie
Treatment
n-l
>
K
-------
facilities treating 1C wastes on-site and those treating wastes received from off-site. The
off-site facilities include commercial treatment and company-captive treatment facilities.
The number of facilities potentially affected is an upper hound estimate since some of
these facilities are likely to generate treated 1C waste residuals that meet F039 standards.
The first two rows of Exhibit 5-5 show the number of facilities which reported
sending wastes streams carrying a D001 code, and any other D codes, hut no listed codes,
to stabilization and evaporation systems. The next three rows show the number of
facilities which reported sending waste streams carrying both the D001 and D002 codes,
and any other D codes, but no listed codes, to incineration, reuse as fuel, and solvent
recovery systems. The last five rows show the number of facilities which reported
sending waste streams carrying a D002 code, and any other D codes, but no listed codes,
to stabilization, incineration, reuse as fuel, evaporation, and solvent recovery systems.
Overall, Exhibit 5-5 indicates that the number of facilities with on-site treatment systems
that may be affected by this rule is relatively small (73 facilities). Up to 279 commercial
and company-captive facilities may also be affected by this rule, however.
5.5.2 Facilities Managing Deactivated 1C Wastes in Class V Wells
As discussed in Section 3 on data limitations, EPA has very little data on the
number of facilities managing deactivated 1C wastes in Class V wells. In an information
synthesis, EPA used two separate methodologies to estimate the number of facilities
potentially affected by the rule. These methodologies are discussed-in detail in Appendix
B. The first methodology is similar to that used to estimate quantities. The second
methodology relied on contacts with state and regional water regulatory offices from
around the country.
In Method 1, EPA used data on industrial Class V wells developed for EPA's
Office of Water and applied several assumptions to narrow the universe of potentially
affected facilities. Using this method, EPA estimates that approximately 114 Class V
wells may be impacted by this rule.
In Method 2, EPA relied on contacts with regional and state officials. Following
discussions with these officials, EPA has determined that the types of Class V industrial
wells that may be impacted by this rule are:
• Industrial process wate^and waste disposal wells that are used to dispose
of a wide variety of wastes and wastewaters from industrial, commercial, or
utility processes. Industries include refineries, chemical plants,
pharmaceutical plants, laundromats and dry cleaners, tanneries,
laboratories, petroleum storage facilities, electric power generation plants,
car washes, electroplating industries; and
-------
20
• Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells that inject wastes from repair
hay drains at service stations, garages, car dealerships, eic.
However, the Agency believes that many of these facilities are either Small
Quantity Generators (SQGs), or generate 1C wastes from de minimi's losses of ignitable
or corrosive products, as described in this rule, or treat iheir wastes in CWA-equivalent
systems before permanent disposal, and are therefore not covered by this rule. Based on
contacts with regional and state officials, EPA estimates that fewer than 100 facilities
with Class V wells may he impacted. These include primarily wastes from industrial
facilities that are not treated prior to injection, and wastes from large repair/maintenance
facilities.
The estimate of 114 wells affected derived from Method 1 and of fewer than 100
affected facilities estimated in Method 2 confirm each other assuming that, on average,
LQGs operating Class V wells have more than one well per facility.
-------
21
6. AVAILABLE CAPACITY ESTIMATES
This section presents EPA's estimates of available commercial treatment capacity
for this rule. Section 6.1 summarizes the results of EPA's analysis of commercial
combustion capacity at incinerators and cement kilns. Section 6.2 discusses EPA's
estimate of available commercial incineration capacity for liquids, sludges and solids, and
the methodology used to arrive at its estimate. Section 6.3 discusses EPA's estimate of
available cement kiln capacity for liquids, sludges and solids, and the methodology used
to estimate available cement kiln capacity. Section 6.4 discusses capacity for commercial
treatment other than combustion that may be applicable to wastes regulated under this
proposed rule, including stabilization, biological treatment, and chemical precipitation.
6.1 Commercial Combustion Capacity Summary
This section summarizes the results of EPA's analysis of commercial combustion
capacity at incinerators and cement kilns. Exhibit 6-1 summarizes EPA's estimates of
commercial hazardous waste combustion capacity available for Emergency Rule wastes
by waste form and facility type. EPA subtracted the amount of Phase I wastes which will
require off-site capacity from the total available capacity identified in its analysis.
Approximately 28,000 tons of Phase 1 wastes per year will require bulk solids incineration
capacity, 4,000 tons per year will require containerized solids incineration capacity, and
41,000 tons per year will require containerized solids cement kiln capacity. These
estimates include 69,000 tons of routinely generated F037 and F038 wastes and 4,000
tons of other newly listed wastes.2 Since the Phase 1 analysis, EPA has added capacity
for one incinerator, Aptus' Tooele, Utah, facility, which was expected to come on line
before March 1993, and one cement kiln, ESSROC Logansport, Indiana, which started
burning hazardous waste in October 1991. EPA received new information, or
reevaluated capacity at three other incinerators: Ross Environmental Services, Grafton,
Ohio; ENSCO, El Dorado, Arkansas; and Chemical Waste Management, Port Arthur,
Texas.. Exhibit 6-2 lists the incineration facilities included in the commercial combustion
capacity estimate, along with the waste forms each facility can burn. Exhibit 6-3 lists the
cement kilns included in this capacity update, and the types of wastes accepted at each
facility.
• Routinely generated F037 and P038 will require commercial treatment when the one-year capacity
variance expires in June 1993. EPA assumes that HD7 and FIBS will be removed from surface
impoundments during ihc two-year capacity variance granted for these waitcs. and thai they wilt not
require commercial combustion capacity prior to June 1994.
-------
22
6.2 Commercial Incineration Capacity
To support its capacity analysis for Phase 1 newly listed ;uul newly identified
wastes, EPA contacted currently operating hazardous waste incineration companies prior
to the Phase 1 rule to update the Agency's available capacity estimates for RCRA
hazardous sludges and solids. As shown in Exhibit 6-1. EPA categorized hazardous waste
into the following forms: liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpahle sludges, containerized
solids, and bulk solids. Between the Phase 1 proposed and final Phase 1 rules for newly
listed wastes and hazardous debris, EPA incorporated information contained in public
comments and collected additional data to resolve specific issues raised in these
comments. Since the Phase 1 final rule, EPA has incorporated new information that was
received too late to be used in the Phase 1 final rulemaking.
6.2.1 Analysis for the Phase 1 Rule
Commercial hazardous waste incineration firms that can incinerate sludges and
solids were contacted and asked to participate in a voluntary capacity update and the
companies that participated were Aptus, Chemical Waste Management, Ross
Incineration Services, ThermalKEM, Rhone-Poulenc, Basic Chemicals, and Rollins
Environmental Services. In August 1991, EPA sent these companies were sent a capacity
guideline form requesting both facility-specific and unit-specific information. Facility
specific questions included permit status, number of incinerator uniti.currently operating
and expected to operate by 1994, acceptable physical form of receiving wastes.
acceptable RCRA waste codes, and future changes to the facility that may increase or
decrease capacity. Unit specific questions included type of unit, thermal rating, annual
average operating hours, feed mechanisms, waste burned in first half of 1991, permitted
waste feed capacity for each waste form, and practical waste feed capacity for each waste
form. Capacity guideline forms submitted by hazardous waste incinerator facilities are in
the docket for the Phase 1 rulemaking. Responses from facilities requesting that their
capacity information be maintained as Confidential Business Information are also in the
docket for the Phase 1 rulemaking, in a separate document entitled Background Data Sci
for Commercial Hazardous Waste Incinerator Capacity Analysis •• Confidential Business
-------
23
Rxhlhll 6-1
April I99J Commercial llnurdous Watte Comlimltnn Capacity Summary*
Waste Form
Pumpablc Sludges
Nonpumpable sludges
Containcri/ed solids
Dry solid!i
Bulk Solids
Tol.il Sludges .ind Solids*
Liquid*
Total'1
Incinerator*
Available Required Currently
April 199.1 for Phase 1 Available
(1,00.0 ip)') (i.oiwtpy) (i.tiooipy)
4S
8
72
NA'
34
162
IBS
350
0
0
4
NA
2««
32
0
.12
4H
8
r>8
NA
0
170
IHH
318
Omenl Kilns
Avnlluhlr Krc|ulrrd Currently
April 199.1 for Plxist 1 Available
(t.onnipy) (Lonoipy) (i.min ipy)
12
2
KR
24
NA
126
354
480
0
0
41
0
NA
41
0
41
12
2
•«7
24
NA
85
.154
4.19
Total
Currently
AvullHble
(ll)nn Ipj)
<>n
10
115
24
6
215
542
757 .
* Facilities burning only liquid h.i/jrdoui w^iite src gcncnllv not included in this Mimm.iry. In m cnpscity anitlyjiv I:.PA onty covered f.irilnin burning sluilgt-i. .mil
»c'lids hcc^uvr ihcic h.i\r h»cnnc.illy hccn more limited. In p.itt >unc\i and an.ilysn. I:PA hni di\o^crcd thai a Mpnificant CXCCM cxi\te of capacity gcnrr.-illy Ji>f\ nut apply to llm ty|>e of facility.
d 'IVii.iK m.iy nut .nlil correctly due lo rounding.
-------
24
Exhibit 6-2
Incinerators Included in April 1993 Capacity Estimate
Facility Name and Location Types or Wastes Burned
Aptus, Coffeyville, KS
Aptus, Tooele, UT
Chemical Waste Management
Port Arthur, TX
Chemical Waste Management
Sauget, IL
ENSCO, El Dorado, AR
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals
Baton Rouge, LA
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals
Houston, TX
Rollins Environmental Services
Baton Rouge, LA
Rollins Environmental Services
Bridgeport, NJ
Rollins Environmental Services
Deer Park, TX
Ross Incineration Services, Grafton, OH
ThermalKEM, Rock Hill, SC'
liquids, containerized solids, bulk solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable
sludges, containerized solids, bulk solids
pumpable sludges, nonpumpable sludges,
containerized solids, bulk solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable
sludges, containerized solids, bulk solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, containerized
solids, bulk solids
liquids, pumpable sludges
liquids, pumpable sludges
liquids, pumpable sludges, containerized
solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, containerized
solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, containerized
solids, bulk solids
liquids, nonpumpable sludges,
containerized solids, bulk solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable
sludges, containerized solids, bulk solids
-------
25
Exhibit 6-3
Cement Kilns Included in April 1993 Capacity Estimate
Facility Name and Locution Types of Wastes Burned
Ash Grove Cement, Chanute, KS
Ash Grove Cement, Foreman, AR
Ash Grove Cement. Louisville. NE
ESSROC Cement Group, Logansport, IN
Giant Cement, Harleyville, SC
Heartland Cement, Independence, KS
Keystone Cement, Bath, PA
Lafarge, Alpena, -MI
Lafarge, Demopolis, AL
Lafarge, Fredonia, KS
Lafarge, Paulding, OH
Lone Star'Industries, Green Castle, IN
Medusa Cement, Wampum, PA
National Cement, Lebec, CA
River Cement, Festus, MO
San Juan Cement, San Juan, PR
Southdown, Fairborn, OH
Southdown, Knoxville, TN
liquids, containerized solids
liquids, containerized solids
liquids, containerized solids
liquids, containerized solids
liquids, dry solids
dry solids
liquids
liquids
liquids
liquids, dry solids
liquids
liquids, containerized solids
liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable
sludges
liquids
liquids, pumpable sludges, nonpumpable
sludges
liquids
liquids
liquids, containerized solids
-------
In response to the Phase 1 proposed rule. EPA received several comments
regarding commercial incineration capacity1. As a result of information and issues
contained in public comments, EPA revised its capacity estimates for the following
incinerators: Rollins, Deer Park, Texas: Chemical Waste Management. Port Arthur.
Texas; and Aptus, Tooele, Utah. Specific changes to these estimates are discussed in
Section 6.2.2 below, and background documentation for these changes is provided in
Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris
io Suppnn 40 CFR 265 Land Disposal Restrictions (Final Rule): Appendiv C June 1992.
6.2.2 Revisions to the Analysis Since the Phase 1 Rule Tor Newly Listed Wastes
and Hazardous Debris
Ross Incineration Services replaced its rotary kiln in December 1991. and
submitted updated capacity information to EPA as Confidential Business Information.
Since the Phase 1 rulemaking, ENSCO has submitted capacity data to EPA, requesting
that it also be maintained as Confidential Business Information.
63 Commercial Cement Kiln Hazardous Waste Capacity
Analysis for the Phase 1 Rule
The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) is a trade association representing
firms involved in the use of wastes as fuel or feedstocks in cement-production. CKRC
notified EPA of its interest in providing capacity information to support EPA's analysis.
and EPA informed CKRC of the types of data it needed to conduct the capacity analysis.
CKRC surveyed its members, and asked a variety of questions pertaining to the types of
wastes accepted, the amount of waste currently burned, maximum practical waste burning
capacity, and the regulatory status of surveyed facilities. CKRC divided the universe of
hazardous wastes as fed to cement kilns into six categories: liquids, pumpable sludges,
nonpumpable sludges, containerized solids, dry solids, and bulk solids. Firms were also
asked about their hazardous waste storage capacity, their fuel processing capabilities, the
fuels blenders from whom they receive their hazardous waste fuels, and the physical and
chemical specifications their fuel must meet. Responses to the CKRC survey were
provided directly to the EPA for inclusion in the capacity analysis for newly listed wastes.
These completed survey forms and other supporting material are available in a separate
document in Appendix C of the Background Document for the Phase 1 rule. Survey
forms from facilities requesting that pan of their information be classified as CBI are in a
separate document in the docket for the Phase 1 rule, entitled Background Data Set for
'* For a detailed discussion of public comments pertaining 10 commercial indncraiion capacity, refer to
Chapter 2 of Response to Comments Background fJttcuntcm for the Nen-fy Lifted Wastes and Hazardous
Debris Proposed Rule, June 1992.
-------
27
Commercial Hazardous Waste Cement Kiln Capacity Analysis •• Confidential Business
Information. June 1992.
In the subsequent data analysis. EPA also asked various firms whether they expect
to hum wastes with heating values helow 5,000 BTU/ih. once they certified compliance
with the interim status requirements of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) Rule (56
FR 7134. February 21, 1991). BIF requirements, however, will supersede Sham
Recycling Policy Guidelines once a facility certifies compliance with BIF interim status
requirements. Currently, the EPA Sham Recycling Policy Guidelines specify that wastes
should have a minimum of 5,000 BTU/lb to be considered legitimate fuel substitutes, and
several states impose higher heating value limits. Cement companies indicated that while
some changes may be made, the overall limit will not decrease much, because of the high
temperatures that must be maintained to produce cement clinker.
EPA received several public comments on the proposed rule regarding cement
kiln combustion capacity4. As a result of the information and issues contained in public
comments, EPA contacted various cement kilns to confirm their operating status and
capacity. Background documentation on these wastes is provided in Background
Document for Capacity Analysis for Ncwfy Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris to Support
20 CFR 268 Land Disposal Restrictions (Final Rule): Appendix C, June 1992. EPA did
not revise any facility-specific capacity estimates since the Phase 1 proposed rule as a
result of new information. However, EPA did collect additional information to assess
capacity for packaging wastes for cement kilns.
Revisions to the Analysis Since the Phase 1 Rule
In June 1992, EPA received additional information from Cadence Chemical
Resources regarding cement kiln capacity. From this information, which is documented
in Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous
Debris to Support 40 CFR 268 Land Disposal Restrictions (Final Rule): Appendix C, EPA
learned that ESSROC's Logansport, Indiana, facility has added the Cadence
containerized solids feed system. After the Phase 1 rule, the facility submitted capacity
information for this solids feed system. This information is included in this capacity
analysis for Emergency Rule wastes.
4 For a detailed discussion of public comments pcruinim; to commercial combustion capacity, refer to
Chapter 2 of Response to Comments Background Document for the AVvr.'y Lixtcd Wastes and Hazardous
Debris Proposed Rule, June 1992.
-------
28
6.4 Other Treatment System Capacities
In estimating available stabilization treatment capacity for Emergency Rule wastes,
the Agency built on the capacity analyses conducted for the Third Third LDR rule. This
analysis was based on data contained in the May 1990 TSDR Capacity Data Ser*. The
TSDR Capacity Data Set contains results from the National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, Disposal and Recycling Survey (the TSDR Survey). The TSDR
Survey, administered in 1987 to 2,500 facilities provides comprehensive information on
current and planned hazardous waste management practices at RCRA-permitted and
interim status treatment, storage, recycling, and disposal facilities. The TSDR Survey
collected projections of capacity changes from 1986 through 1992._,The TSDR Capacity
Data Set includes the amount of hazardous and nonhnzardous waste entering each
treatment system in 1986. the maximum hazardous waste capacity, and the maximum
total waste capacity.
In prior LDR rulemakings, EPA updated the TSDR Capacity Data Set for critical
technologies based on confirmation of planned capacity changes and other information
received since the survey (e.g., comments on proposed rules). Updated information was
obtained by contacting facilities and verifying critical projected capacities reported in the
TSDR Survey. Based on the information provided by facility contacts, EPA determined
whether planned facility capacity had come on-line as projected. For a more detailed
explanation of the TSDR Survey and of the Third Third Rule refer to U.S. EPA,
Background Document for Third Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR ParT2(>8 Land Disposal
Restrictions, May 1990.
Exhibit 6-4 summarizes the required and available capacities of commercial
stabilization systems for Emergency Rule wastes. The 1991 baseline available capacity is
the updated maximum (updated as described above) net of the 1986 baseline utilized
capacity. To estimate the capacity available for Emergency Rule wastes, the required
capacity for previous LDR rules was subtracted from the 1991 available baseline capacity.
For individual facility data refer to the TSDR Capacity Data Set.
5 U.S. EPA. Commercial Treatment/Recovery Data Set, May 1990
-------
29
Exhibit 6-4
AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL STABILIZATION CAPACITY FOR
EMERGENCY RULE WASTES
Technology
Stabilization
1991
Baseline
Available
Capacity
(1,000 tpya)
3,125
Capacity
Required
for LDR
Rules Prior
to 1992
( 1,000 tpy)
1,921
•
Capacity
Required Tor
Phase 1
Wastes
(1,000 tpy)
77
Currently
Available
Capacity
(1,000 tpy)
1.127
Note: Totals may he inexact due to rounding.
a: Tons per year
Source: Background Document for Third Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Pan 26S Land
Disposal Restrictions, May 1990, and Background Document for Capacity Anah-sis for A'wA1
Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris to Support 40 CFR 263 Land Disposal Restrictions, June
1992
-------
30
7. VARIANCE DETERMINATION
EPA's analysis indicates that the quantities of wastes potentially affected hy this
rule are relatively small, approximately 30,000 tons per year. EPA estimates that there is
750,000 tons of combustion capacity for liquids and solids, and over 1.000.000 tons of
stabilization treatment capacity. Therefore, a capacity extension is not generally
warranted. However, capacity to provide additional treatment for these wastes may not
be immediately available.
EPA has determined that many logistical constraints will make it difficult for
generators of deactivated 1C wastes affected by this rule to comply immediately with the
new treatment standards. EPA has relied on such logistical factors in prior rulemakings
to determine when capacity is realistically available. In many cases, the plant managers
will need time to make adjustments. Waste streams may have to be segregated prior to
.treatment, involving the reconfiguration of existing treatment systems (e.g., repiping). In
addition, generators may have to locate and arrange for off-site treatment for certain
waste streams that are currently managed on-site and develop transportation networks.
Generators may also have to perform testing to identify the underlying constituents in
their 1C wastes. Therefore, in order to allow all generators and off-site treatment
facilities the time necessary to install additional treatment equipment that may be
needed, and to perform the necessary testing procedures to determine whether their
wastes are affected by this rule, the Agency is granting a 90-day national capacity
variance from the effective date of this rule to ignitable (D001) and corrosive (D002)
wastes covered under this rulemaking. -
EPA also believes that most of the Class V wells which could be potentially
impacted by this rule either fall under the Small Quantity Generator (SQG) exclusion
and are conditionally exempt from RCRA requirements, including the LDRs (see
268.1(e)(l)), or have CWA-equivalent treatment systems and are therefore not affected
by today's rule. As an interim measure, however, the Agency is granting a nine month
national capacity variance extending the effective date of today's rule for decharacterized
ignitable and corrosive wastes injected into Class V wells in order for facilities to: 1)
determine if they are impacted; 2) develop appropriate on-site modifications for
alternative treatment; 3) obtain off-site treatment including the development of
transportation networks and reconfiguration of transportation areas at the plant
operation facility; and 4) if necessary, submit petitions for case-by-case extensions of the
effective date (see section IV of the preamble). The Agency also solicits additional
information on the number of Class V wells, the types of wastes, and the volumes of such
wastes injected. The Agency believes that it would be prudent for facilities operating
Class V wells to apply for case-by-case extensions of the effective date during this nine-
month extension period.
The Agency wishes to emphasize that deactivated 1C wastes regulated under
CWA/CWA-equivalent/SDWA will be addressed in future rulemakings. These wastes
have not been addressed in this capacity analysis. Current treatment standards for wastes
managed in these systems remain in effect.
-------
APPENDIX A
CAPACITY COMMENTS SUMMARIES
AND RESPONSE
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This Appendix presents the summary and response to capacity-related comments
to the Notice of Data Availability (58 FR 4972, January 19. 1993) in response to the U.S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision in Chemical Waste Management.
Inc.. et al. v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2. In the Notice Of Data Availability (NODA). EPA
requested capacity-related comments on wastes potentially affected by the Court's
decision. Specifically, EPA requested comments and data on the generation, affected
quantities, management practices, and available capacity for wastes covered in the Court
decision.
EPA received 64 comments dealing with issues raised in the NODA. Many of the
comments were capacity-related. The Court decision vacated the treatment standards of
deactivation (DEACT) for ignitable wastes (D001), except the high TOC subcategory,
and corrosive wastes (D002). The Court remanded other issues to EPA. Among the
issues remanded by the Court was the regulatory overlap of RCRA with the Clean Water
Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for characteristic wastes that are
deactivated in CWA and SDWA-regulated systems.
While the NODA requested comments on ail issues raised in the Court decision,
this emergency rule only deals with wastes whose treatment standards were vacated by
the Court. As a result, many of the comments received by EPA that deal with remanded
wastes and issues will be addressed and responded to in upcoming rules. Because the
NODA did not specifically distinguish between vacated and remanded wastes, many
commenters addressed capacity issues that could apply to both groups of wastes. These
comments are included in this Appendix. Therefore, this document addresses comments
specific to the vacated wastes covered in this rule, and comments concerning issues that
apply to both vacated and remanded wastes.
Many commenters to the NODA expressed concern about the impact of the Court
decision on the management of deactivated ignitable and corrosive (1C) wastes in CWA
and SDWA systems. Most of these commenters requested a national capacity variance
or case-by-case extension for deactivated 1C wastes managed in CWA/SDWA systems.
BeccL;se these wastes are not covered in this rule, EPA will address these comments
during future rulemakings.
Comments specifically addressing vacated wastes were received from Texas
Instruments (7), Great Lakes ChemicafCorp. (19). Hoescht Celanese (21 & LO(KKS).
American Petroleum Institute (30), Department of Energy (29). Conoco (32), Texaco
(46), and Ethyl Corp. (L0002). These comments address deactivated 1C wastes managed
in systems that are not regulated under CWA or SDWA. In addition. 15 other
commenters addressed issues that apply to both vacated and remanded wastes.
-------
Al-2
Comments addressing both vacated and remanded wastes were received from the
American Petroleum Institute (30) and from the Chemical Manufacturers Association (44
& 45). In addition, 11 commenters [National Petroleum Refiners Association (25);
Conoco Inc. (32); Penzoil Company (34); Amoco Corporation (37); Shell Oil Company
(38); Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) (39); BP Oil Company (41); Texaco
Inc. (46); Exxon Company (53); Sun Company (55); and Chevron Corporation (56)]
support or incorporate API's position and 10 commenters support or incorporate CMA's
position [Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. (17); Lubrizol Corp. (18); Monsanto
Company (22); National Petroleum Refiners Association (25); Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc. (43); Rohm & Haas Company (47): Eastman Chemical Company (48):
General Electric Company (49); DuPont (51); and Ethyl Corporation (L0002).
Throughout the rest of this Appendix, whenever comments by C.MA and API are
mentioned, the commenters supporting their position are implicitly included.
Format
Similar comments were grouped into issues. The format for the discussion of each
issue raised by commenters consists of three areas: summary, response, and comments.
The "summary" section provides a brief description of the content of the comments
related to the issue. The "response" section following each summary provides EPA's
response to the corresponding issue. The "comments" section following the summary and
response sections contains a list of each comment addressed with its EPA comment letter
number, and copies of the relevant sections of the comment letters. ~"
Overview
Each chapter addresses capacity-related comments for the vacated wastes
addressed by the emergency rule. The capacity-related comments have been grouped
into the following major issues:
• Chapter 2 Data Sources and Analysis Methodology;
• Chapter 3 Affected Generators, Volumes, and
Management Practices;
• Chapter 4 Available Capacity; and
• Chapter 5 Variances.
Since many of these issues are interrelated, the substance of certain comments may be
presented more than once. Also, some comments that are not directly capacity-related
have been included because they may indirectly pertain to these major issues.
-------
CHAPTER 2
DATA SOURCES/ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Twelve commenters submitted comments that addressed the data sources and
analysis/methodology used in the capacity analyses. Nine of these commenters focused
on vacated wastes covered by the emergency rule. The nine commenters were:
American Airlines (13); Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21); U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) (29); Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA) (31); Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA) (44); DuPont (51); Chevron (56); Entergy
Corporation (L0003); and Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) (L0004). Most
of these commenters believe that EPA has underestimated the total volume of waste due
to inadequate data sources and flawed methodology. The group of commenters who
believe that EPA has underestimated the total volume of waste mention?d specific areas
where they believe EPA's data sources were lacking. They provided arguments that
included identifying generators and waste streams not in the analysis and criticizing the
primary data sets used in the analysis. One commenter HWTC believes that EPA has
overestimated the total volume of waste due to flawed methodology. In general the
comments can be divided into the following issues:
• EPA Did Not Include All Waste Streams;
• EPA Underestimated the Number of Affected Faciiitks/Units:
• The Data Set EPA Used Is Not Accurate;
• EPA Overestimated the Total Volume of Waste;
• The Waste Categories Used are Not Accurate; and
• Other.
-------
A2-2
2.1 EI'A Did Not Include All Waste Streams
Summary:
Four commenters [American Airlines (13), Hoechst Celanese (21). DOE (29). and
CMA (44)] were concerned that waste streams from their industries had not been
included. American Airlines (13) reported that the data relied upon by EPA in
considering this action did not include many operators like American which legitimately
aggregate wastewaters to facilitate centralized treatment and inject decharacterized
wastewater into deep wells. The Department of Energy1 reviewed EPA's analysis and
believes that information regarding Federal facilities (in particular. DOE facilities) is not
reflected by the capacity analysis. Thus, DOE requests clarification from EPA as to
whether Federal facilities were considered in performing the capacity analysis. If not,
then DOE requests that the capacity analysis be revised to reflect the Impact on Federal
facilities.
Both Hoechst Celanese and CMA expressed the view that ICR waste streams that
cannot be segregated had not been included in the capacity analysis. Hoechst Celanese
estimates that its 13 facilities potentially affected by the court's decision treat 24 million
tons of wastewater in wastewater treatment plants, produce 75,000 tons of sludge (at
20% solids), and inject 860,000 tons of wastewater. These figures measure the total
volumes affected after aggregating point-of-gcneration ICR wastes with nonhazardous
flows. They argued that these aggregated totals should be used in EPA's Capacity
Determination since segregation of most ICR flows is not practical- CMA believes that
EPA may not have included wastewaters that cannot be segregated from ICR waters,
although these wastewaters were not themselves ICR waste stjeams.
Response:
EPA agrees that data on quantities of affected wastes, and especially those wastes
managed in centralized waste water treatment systems are not readily available.
However, most of these wastes are managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, or SDWA
systems that are not included in this rule. EPA is developing a program to obtain more
comprehensive information on remanded deactivated 1C wastes for use in future
rulemakings.
EPA is also aware that its data from Federal facilities on deactivated ICR wastes
are incomplete. The Agency will use additional data submitted by Federal Agencies in
the planned 1993 Inventory of Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Activities in its
upcoming rulemaking on wastes remanded by the Court decision.
-------
A2-3
Comments:
The comments that suggest EPA did not include a!! relevant waste streams are
resented in the following order:
• ' American Airlines (13);
• Hoechst Celanese (21);
» DOE (29); and
• CMA (44).
-------
A2-4
Docket Number: TTCA-00013
Commenter: American Airlines
Comment: pp. 4
American's operations typically result in the injection of over 300 gallons per
minute, 24 hours per day. American is therefore injecting approximately 165 million
gallons or 138 billion pounds of wastewaters per year in its two injection wells.
Because the wastewater injected by American is not hazardous, these volumes are
not reflected in Biennial Reports. Additionally, because American refurbishes
rather than manufactures the aircraft, its industry code is 4512 and American is
therefore not included in TSDR survey data. Thus, American represents but one
example of an operator with a significant volume of wastes that will be affected by
the proposed rule, but who has not been considered by EPA.
The limited data reviewed by EPA not only understates the total volume of
wastes at issue (and the resulting impact of EPA's proposed action from a cost and
national capacity standpoint), the data also does not reflect the vastly different
waste management practices at issue. American, for example, has engaged in waste
minimization and pollution prevention procedures to the full extent practical by
undertaking waste segregation and off-site shipment of all listed and characteristic
wastes. However, American has no practical alternative to its handling of its
rinsewaters. It would be virtually impossible to monitor each of 109 rinse tanks and
design diversion and segregation facilities to capture the incremental volume of
waters in a particular tanic which briefly and randomly reaches a characteristic
concentration level American believes that the legitimate aggregation of
wastewater streams and injection of the decnaracterized wastewaters, at least under
circumstances such as these, fully satisfies the requirements of § 3004(m)(l).4
EPA has recognized that aggregation for frpgr*'**** treatment is an appropriate and sometimes
necessary waste management practice that is not considered dilution. See, e.g., S3 Fed. Reg. 28124
(July 26,1988).
-------
A2-5
Docket Number: TTCA-00013
Commenter. American Airlines
Comment: pp. 5 (continued)
EPA's Report draws no distinction between American's situation and that
presented by a hypothetical operator who mixes small volumes of a characteristic
ignitable waste with a large nonhazardous waste stream specifically to avoid what
would otherwise be a simple process of segregating its ignitable wastes for treatment
or off-site disposal. The striking difference between these types of practices
illustrates how EPA has not considered the full impact of its proposed action. The
hypothetical operator described above may be considered by some to be simply
using dilution to avoid practical treatment alternatives that are readily available.
However, American is an example of an operator who segregates and treats its
waste to the full extent practical and utilizes aggregation and injection as the only
reasonable alternative for its operations.
-------
A2-6
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
TTCA-00021
Hoechst Celanese
p. 18-19
E. Capacity DetennmiDaar
OQ p. 45 EPA
by this nW B?
that 65 tt"T**"« tons of wanes could be impacted
, Hoedat Crtarvae cstiiaiHi» that its 13
facilities potentiaUy affected by the court's decision treat 24 million ton* of
waitcwater in wastewster treatment plants, produce 75,000 tons of sludge
(at 20% solids), and inject 860,000 tons of wastewater. These figures
measure the total volumes affected after aggregating point of generation
ICR wastes with nonhazardous flows. These aggregated totals should be
used in EPA's Capacity Determination ftn«-»- segregation of most ICR
flows is not practical,
-------
A2-7
)ocket Number: TTCA-00029
"ommenter: Department of Energy
'omment: p. 27
VLF. Capacity Dctenninaliaoj
1. EPA provida a table (Tibfe VL6) summarizing the estimated number of faculties tiut
may be *"'nr!*™ by toe courts opmiocL . ' •
Upon review of Table VI-6, it does not appear that information regarding Federal facilities (in
particular, DOE facilities) is reflected by the capacity analysis. Thus, DOE requests clarification
from EPA as to whether Federal faculties were considered in performing the capacity analysis. If
not, then DOE requests that the capacity analysis be revised to reflect the impact on Federal
faculties. However, significantly more time would be required to develop pertinent data.
-------
A2-8
Docket Number: TTCA-00044
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)
Comment: pp. 13-14
SPA's analysis of affected wast* volume based on the
Survgv also significantly iindprgstimatss th^ volumes
Based on the survey conducted by CMA, EPA's estimates from TSDR survey data.
appear to seriously underestimate the quantity of waste water affected. EPA estimates that
the total of D001-3 wastewater generated at facilities with surface impoundments is 103
million tons vs. the 537 million tons reported for CMA member companies.
C. EPA cannot assume that DQQ4-DQ11 wgstgsjvill be treated in
subtitle C units and not centralif*^ wmt»wnt^^ treatment
systems.
EPA cannot assume .that D001-3 commingled with D004-11 or listed wastes can be
excluded. EPA should certainly include wastewaters which heve D001-3~in the combined
waste stream. This would give a volume of 109 million tons per year. As is indicated above,
even this volume is approximately one-fifth of the volume indicated by CMA's survey for
only 10 of its member companies.
-------
A2-9
2.2 EPA Underestimated the Number of Affected Facilities/Units
Summary:
Six commenters, [American Airlines (13), Eli Lilly (20); U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) (29), Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (31), DuPont (51), and
Entergy (L0003)] believed that EPA had underestimated the number of facilities and
units affected by revisions to the Third Third.
Two commenters believe that EPA's estimate of 600 surface impoundments is low.
PMA (31) asserts that EPA vastly underestimates the number of wastewater treatment
systems which contain a surface impoundment. PMA believes that many facilities have
relied on mixing characteristic wastes prior to entry into the wastewater treatment facility.
This practice results in the loss of the wastes' hazardous characteristic, such as ignitability
or corrosivity. These facilities and their surface impoundments are not in EPA's
database. DuPont (51) maintains that if the Agency interprets the Court's decision as a
call for regulation of combined wastewaters with any F039 constituents from any sources,
the estimate of 600 impoundments affected nationwide would appear to be seriously
underestimated, since DuPont's potentially impacted impoundments would constitute 12
percent of that number.
Two commenters were concerned that waste streams from their industries had not
been included. American Airlines (13) reported that the data relied upon by EPA in
considering this action did not include many operators like American which legitimately
aggregate wastewaters to facilitate centralized treatment and inject decharacterized
wastewater into deep wells. The U.S. Department of Energy (29) reviewed EPA's
analysis and believes that information regarding Federal facilities (in particular, DOE
facilities) is not reflected by the capacity analysis. Thus, DOE requests clarification from
EPA as to whether Federal facilities were considered in performing the capacity analysis.
If not, then DOE requests that the capacity analysis be revised to reflect the impact on
Federal facilities.
Response:
EPA recognizes the commenters' confusion that 600 units were identified as
impacted in the NOD A. However,'in Section VI of the NODA (Capacity
De'terminations), EPA explicitely stated that approximately 600 facilities (not units) are
potentially affected. EPA is aware that its estimate of affected units and facilities
presented in the NODA may be low. Most of the commenters on this issue, however,
are concerned with remanded wastes (i.e., deactivated 1C wastewasters managed in
CWA, SDWA, and CWA-equivalent systems). EPA will revise its estimates of affected
units and facilities managing remanded wastes in the upcoming rulemakings addressing
these wastes.
-------
. A2-10
As discussed in the Background Document. EPA believes that the number of
facilities/units managing vacated wastes affected by the emergency rule is relatively small
and wells defined (although, certainly, for any facility affected, there is a hona fide
emergency justifying immediate Agency action).
In addition, in response to DuPont, EPA is taking the position that only hazardous
constituents present in the prohibited waste require treatment in commingled wastes.
Thus, if a non-prohibited waste (e.g., lead) is combined with a prohibited waste that
doesn't contain lead, there is no requirement that lead in the combined waste be treated.
Comments:
The comments that submit that EPA underestimated the number of facilities and
units affected are presented in the following order:
American Airlines (13);
Eli Lilly (20);
DOE (29);
DuPont (51); and
Entergy (L0003).
-------
A2-11
Docket Number: TTCA-00013
Commenter: American Airlines
Comment: p. 4
American's operations typically result in the injection of over 300 gallons per
minute, 24 hours per day. American-is therefore injecting approximately 165 million
gallons or 138 billion pounds of wastewaters per year in its two injection wells.
Because the wastewater injected by American is not hazardous, these volumes are
not reflected in Biennial Reports. Additionally, because American refurbishes
rather than manufactures the aircraft, its industry code is 4512 and American is
therefore not included in TSDR survey data. Thus, American represents but one
example of an operator with a significant volume of wastes that will be affected by
the proposed rule, but who has not been considered by EPA,
The limited data reviewed by EPA not only understates the total volume of
wastes at issue (and the resulting impact of EPA's proposed action from a cost and
national capacity standpoint), the data also does not reflect the vastly different
waste management practices at issue. American, for Cample, has engaged in waste
minimisation and pollution prevention procedures to the full extent practical by
undertaking waste segregation and off-site shipment of all listed and characteristic
wastes. However, American has no practical alternative to its handling of its
rinsewaters. It would be virtually impossible to monitor each of 109 rinse tanks and
design diversion and segregation facilities to capture the incremental volume of
waters in a particular tank which briefly and randomly reaches a characteristic
concentration level American believes that the. legitimate aggregation of
wastewater streams and injection of the decbaracterized wastewaters, at least under
circumstances such as these, fully satisfies the requirements of § 3004(m)(I).4
EPA his recognized tK«t aggregation for fftrr^tfrfA treatment is an appropriate and sometimes
necessary waste management practice that is not considered dilution. See. e.g,, 53 Fed Reg. 2SL24
(July 26,1988).
-------
A2-12
Docket Number: TTCA-00020
Commenter: Eli Lilly
Comment: p. 5
V. EPA has Underestimated Units Affected.
EPA has probably given an unrealistically low estimate of units
affected by this "proposed" program. There are likely to be numerous
units which have managed deactivated characteristic wastewaters
which were not included in biennial reports and which met Subtitle D
standards. These units could be the primary focus of the "proposed"
program and EPA has no firm data to determine the number of units
affected.
Few wastewater treatment "tanks" constructed prior to 1984 will meet
the RCRA definition of a "tank" and thus will become "surface
impoundments". If the biological sludge from these "surface
impoundments" must meet F039 treatment standards; which are br-sed
on incineration, the cost to industry to retrofit or most likely replace
these "surface impoundments" will be staggering.
-------
A2-13
Docket Number: TTCA-00029
Commenter: Department of Energy
Comment: p. 27
VLE Capacity Determinationa
1. EPA provides • tabie (Table VI-6) muuiaiuing the catenated number of fatah'tig that
may be •^Fnr*"^ by the court's opinion. •
Upon review of Table VI-6, it does not appear that infonnatioo regarding Federal facilities (in
particular, DOE facilities) is reflected by the capacity analysis. Thus, DOE requests clarification
from EPA as to whether Federal facilities were considered in performing the capacity analysis. If
not, then DOE requests that the capacity analysis be revised to reflect the impact on Federal
facilities. However, significantly more n'm^ would be required to develop pertinent data.
-------
A2-14
Docket Number: TTCA-00031
Commenter: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA)
Comment: p. 2
It is difficult to assess the number of facilities in the
pharmaceutical industry which would be affected by the Court's
decision, in the pharmaceutical industry, most facilities
discharge wastewater to NPDES permitted wastewater treatment
facilities, either publit or private. It does not appear to be
EPA's intent to include these Clean Water Act (CWA) regulated
facilities unless they include a land disposal unit, we support
this interpretation and we urge the Agency to maintain the
current exemption for tank-based wastewater treatment.
We believe EPA's estimate of 600 affected units nationwide vastly
underestimates the number of wastewater treatment systems which
contain a surface impoundment. Many facilities have relied on
mixing characteristic wastes prior to entering the wastewater
treatment facility. This resulted in the loss of the
characteristic of hazardous wastes, such as igriltability or
corrosivity. These facilities and their surface impoundments are
not in the EPA's database. The cost of treating the sludge from
these impoundments to meet the universal treatment standards or
to redesign the wastewater treatment systems would be staggering
and would provide little environmental protection over the level
currently provided by State and Federal (CWA) regulation.
-------
A2-15
Docket Number: TTCA-00051
Commenter: DuPont
Comment: p. 2
If IffiA construes that combine*} wa^gwaters ^^ impacted, as opposed to the Court's mandate tha|
only ICR wastes with har^rcfag^ constituents are impacted, then EPA has underestimated the number
of impacted sites and the number pfjinjts,
DuPont operates 20 facilities in tbe United Stales which employ,either as part of the flow-through
treatment train or in an emergency diversion system, one or more surface impoundments. Fifteen of
these facilities manage de-characterized ICR wastewaters in those wastewater systems and these
potentially impacted systems use a total of seventy four (74) land-based non-MTR earthen clay or
concrete surface impoundments. In anticipation of this rulemaking in light of the Court's decision,
DuPont had samples taken of these systems' wastewaters and had those samples analyzed for the
:ntirc P039 set of parameters, minus the pesticides which are not an issue for any of these sites.
Because of the Knnimri nature of this data and the fact that only the single set of grab samples exist for
:ach of these sites, no definitive conclusions can be reached from this data abolit each facilities ability
o comply with any standards developed from this rulemaking. However, several F039 constituents
vere detected in these plant wastewater streams and thus all 74 of these waste water impoundments are
xxentially impacted by an F039 based treatments standard, if that approach is pursued by EPA.
/ the Agency is believes that the Court's decision calls for regulation of combined wastewaters with
jiy P039 constituents from any sources, the estimate of 600 impoundments nationwide would appear
o be seriously underestimated, since DuPont's potentially impacted impoundments would constitute
2 percent of that number.
-------
A2-I6
Docket Number: TTCA-L0003
Commenter: Entergy Corporation
Comment: p. 4
EPA's regulatory impact analysis lists the number of affected surface impoundments is
600. Entergy alone has 17 fossil generating stations that manage corrosive wastewaters in
CWA treatment trains. This management may occur before or after neutralization and
discharge to a surface impoundment. Management of corrosive wastes in surface
impoundments is a common industry practice at electric utilities across the nation. While
Entergy is a large utility, it is merely one of many similar size electric utlities. Considering
the number of such utilities across the nation, EPA's estimate of affected facilities might
be a reasonable estimate for the electric power industry alone, much less the the remainder
of the regulated community. Entergy believes the EPA's estimate is unreasonably low.
EPA's survey of affected waste streams also suggests that boiler blowdown and coal pile
run off are common ICR wastes found at electric utilities. Testing of these waste streams
at Entergy facilities shows that neither of these waste streams show these characteristics.
Instead, demineralizer regenerant and boiler chemical cleaning wastes show the corrosive
characteristic. Facility generation of these wastes may vary from 5 to 45 thousand
gallons/year depending upon facility size and maintenance schedules.
As noted before, these corrosive wastes are often treated before discharge to surface
impoundments. Where this treatment of irR wastes does not involve dilution, the Court
did not vacate the treatment standards for ICR wastes. Elementary neutralization of
corrosive wastes is not dilution and was not vacated by the Court. The EPA and the
regulated community have had ample experience with the unintentional results of rules
written too broadly for their original intent, e.g. toxicity characteristic. Without a dear
and accurate knowledge of the effects on the regulated community, the EPA should avoid
going beyond the Court's holdings to address standards not vacated by the Court that are
still judged to meet the RCRA definition of treatment
-------
A2-17
Docket Number: TTCA-L0003
Commenter: Entergy Corporation
Comment: p. 5 (continued)
Because of the lack of solid knowledge of affected waste streams and unrealistically low
estimates of affected facilities, Entergy urges EPA to limit the rule to a close application of
the Court's holdings and only propose new treatment standards for those specifically
vacated by the Court, i.e. dilution. Entergy facilities can change operational practices to
treat corrosive wastewaters before discharge to surface impoundments without resorting
to dilution. Both the EPA and the Court have found this to be an acceptable practice
which satisfies the definition of treatment and minimizes any threat to human health and
the environment.
-------
A2-18
2J The Data Set EPA Used Is Not Accurate
Summary:
Five commenters posed questions concerning the Agency's primary data sets used
in the capacity analysis. These commenters were: American Airlines (13); Eli Lilly (20):
Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21); Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) (44); and the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (29). Several cite their own observations, process
data, and data from their own surveys as evidence that EPA may have miscalculated due
to inadequate data sources.
• Hoechst Celanese (21) stated that the volumes reported in
the Biennial Report were the volumes of hazardous waste
generated. Since the ICR wastes are no longer hazardous
after deactivation, the Biennial Report data will not include
these as ICR wastes. Hoechst Celanese also believes that
EPA's data grossly underestimates the total volume, after
mixing, that will be subject to the land disposal restrictions as
a result of the court's ruling.
• CMA (44) asserts that the analyses of affected waste volumes
based on the TSDR Survey significantly underestimates the
volumes affected. A CMA survey'of 10 member companies
indicates that 537 million tons of wastewater would be
affected. In addition, a CMA conducted.survey of
n< nhazardous wastes generated in 1989 indicates that
approximately 382 million tons of nonhazardous wastes are
treated wholly or partially in impoundments.
Response: .
EPA is aware that its estimates oT quantities and affected facilities presented in
the Notice of Data Availability may be low. These estimates will be revised for the
upcoming rulemaking on wastes addressed by these commenters (i.e., deactivated 1C
wastewaters managed in CWA, SDWA, and CWA-equivalent systems).
EPA is aware that the quantities of deactivated ICR wastes reported in the Notice
cf Data Availability may significantly underestimate actual quantities, and that the
primary Sources of information available (e.g., BRS) do not include much of the
deactivated ICR waste universe. EPA will reexamine its analysis of deactivated ICR
wastewaters managed in CWA, SDWA, or CWA-equivalent systems in a future
rulemaking.
-------
A2-19
Although EPA acknowledges a lack of data, data gaps are more critical for
remanded wastes that are not included in this rule. For a large portion of the vacated
wastes affected by this rule, the use of the Biennial Report is appropriate.
Comments:
The comments that suggest that the data set EPA used is not accurate are
presented in the following order:
American Airlines (13);
Eli Lilly (20);
Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21);
DOE (29); and
CMA (44).
-------
A2-20
Docket Number: TTCA-00013
Commenter: American Airlines
Comment: p. 4
American's operations typically result in the injection of over 300 gallons per
minute, 24 hours per day. American is therefore injecting approximately 165 million
gallons or 138 billion pounds of wastewaters per year in its two injection- wells.
Because the wastewater injected by American is not hazardous, these volumes are
not reflected in Biennial Reports. Additionally, because American refurbishes
rather than manufactures the aircraft, its industry code is 4512 and American is
therefore not included in TSDR survey data. Thus, American represents but one
example of an operator with a significant volume of wastes that will be affected by
ijhe proposed rule, but who has not been considered by EPA.
-------
A2-21
Docket Number: . TTCA-00020
Commenter: Eli Lilly
Comment: p. 5
V. EPA has Underestimated Units Affected,
EPA has probably given an unrealistically low estimate of units
affected by this "proposed" program. There are likely to be numerous
units wliich have managed deactivated characteristic wastewaters
which were not included in biennial reports and which met Subtitle D
standards. These units could be the primary focus of the "proposed"
program and EPA has no firm data to determine the number of units
affected.
Few wastewater treatment "tanks" constructed prior to 1984 will meet
the RCRA definition of a "tank" and thus will become "surface
impoundments". If the biological sludge from these "surface
impoundments" must meet F039 treatment standards, which are based
on incineration, the cost to industry to retrofit or most likely replace
these "surface impoundments" will be staggering.
-------
A2-22
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
TTCA-00021
Hoechst Celanese
p. 18
C Data Sources, Methodology, and Results
In this section, the Report uses as hs primary source Biennial Report
data. However, the volumes reported on Biennial Reports are the
volumes of hazardous wastes generated. Since the ICR wastes are no _
longer hazardous after deactivation, the Biennial Report data wffl inchibVv
volumes only for the ICR. wastes at thftfr points of generation. When
these deactivated ICR streams are T"**1** with other nonhazardous
wastewaters, the entire volume of wastewater going to a wastewater
treatment facility win, as a result of the court ruling, be subject to land
disposal restrictions. The Report recognizes this at page 57. Since the
Biennial Report d*tti incftKtet ICR wastes only at their point of
generation, this data grossly underestimates the total volume, after mating,
that wffl be subject to the land disposal restrictions as a result of the
com is rnhng.
-------
A2-23
Docket Number: TTCA-00029
Commenter: Department of Energy
Comment: p. 26
VLC Data Source*, Methodology and Results
1. EPA ***te* that ft • continuing to fitter data for the opacity inaJjsis. SpedficaDy, the
Accncy • "p^T^rcy A*ft on quantities of wxtes cuncothr \F*ni dinxxcd in Subtitle D
mr*\ «"»<^*>iniOti> M I H^*" I £ ' rV^ WXtitiOQ wdk bcCSWC tfaaC Units
could be recejving dOuted fionncr ICR wnta." •
DOE requests that EPA explain how this ongoing data evaluation process wfl] affect the
regulatory decision-malting process now, and if the capacity analysts will be revised at a later date
to reflect new information.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A2-24
TTCA-00044
Chemical Manufacturers Association
p. 13
. b. EPA'fi gnBlvsis of flffectgd waste volume ha^fd on the TSDR
Survey nlsa significantly undprnti mates thp voltim«»sjftiffgetgd.
Based on the survey conducted by CMA, EPA's estimates from TSDR survey data,
appear to seriously underestimate the quantity of waste water affected. EPA estimates that
the total of D001-3 waste water generated at facilities with surface impoundments is 103
million tons vs. the 537 million tons reported for CMA member companies.
-------
A2-25
2.4 EPA Overestimated the Total Volume of Waste
Summary:
One commenter, HWTC (L0004), believes that the Agency improperly included
large volumes of waste in its analysis that it should not have. HWTC asserts that the
fundamental flaw in all of EPA's proposed options is the presupposition that ICR wastes,
that contain any and all organic and inorganic hazardous constituents, should he
aggregated with large volume wastewaters for lagoon treatment. Therefore, the capacity
demand identified in EPA's NODA can be reduced by at least a factor of 100
considering that only undiluted non-amenable ICR waste streams will require alternative
treatment.
Response:
This is an important issue which primarily affects remanded wastes. For this
emergency rule EPA believes that wastes reported as managed in non-CWA and non-
SDWA systems such as combustion or stabilization are not diluted as described by the
commenter. As discussed elsewhere, for other wastes covered by this emergency rule,
the volumes are expected to be relatively small and volume data were not used as the
primary justification for granting a national capacity variance. Furthermore, the volume
data presented in the NODA primarily included remanded wastes which are not affected
by this rule. _
Comments:
The comment discussing EPA's overestimation of the volume of waste affected is
presented below:
• HWTC (L0004).
-------
A2-26
Docket Number: TTCA-L0004
Commenter: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
Comment: p- 18
The capacity demand identified in EPA's Supplemental
Information Document can be reduced by at least a factor of 100
considering that only undiluted non-amenable ICR waste streams
will require alternative treatment. At least 50% of the F039
organic constituents should remain amenable to treatment in CWA
impoundments, making the demand for alternate treatment of ICR
wastes prior to dilution much less. The following table gives a
more realistic picture of the capacity demand, if EPA adopts the
strategy of restricting non-amenable ICR wastes from CWA
impoundments .
ICR WMTB CMyOgRY. REQUIRED TREATMENT CAPACITY
Non-Amenable D002 Wastes 253,500 tons/year
Non-Amenable 0001 Wastes 62,500 tons/year
Non-Amenable D003 Wastes 103,000 tons/year
TOTAL requiring alternate treatment 419,000 tons/year
The assumptions used in the above table are based on a
conservative 100 times reduction in volume, if the non-amenable
ICR waste stream is segregated prior to dilution for alternate
treatment. It is also conservatively assumed that the D002
wastes will be reduced by 15% for streams containing hazardous
constituents that are not amenable to CWA lagoon treatment. The
15% factor was derived from volume generation information
provided in the Third Third final rule. The D001 wastes demand
was reduced by a factor of 70%, assuming that about 50% of all
P039 constituents will still be amenable to management in CWA
lagoon systems.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
•A2-27
TTCA-L0004
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
p. 19 (continued)
There is more than adequate capacity to manage this volume
of waste. The HWTC member companies alone have the following
capacities for these types of ICR waste streams:
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Incineration
I
Wastewater treatment
TOTAL AVAILABLE CAPACITY
EITC Kembar Company
AVAILABLE CAPACITY
479,310 tons/year
1,100,000 tons/year
1,519,310 tons/year
This capacity represents 13 vastevater treatment facilities
and 11 incineration facilities. There are numerous commercial
centralized wastewater treatment facilities that are not members
of the HWTC, whose combined capacity- is at least triple the
wastewater capacity identified in the table above.
-------
A2-28
2.5 The Waste Categories Used are Not Accurate
Summary:
Two commenters, Department of Energy (DOE) (29) and the American Forest &
Paper Association (AFPA) (LOOOl) cited the waste categories used in the capacity
analysis as an area of concern.
• DOE (29) believes that the waste categories used in the
capacity analysis appear to have been erroneously assumed to
be mutually exclusive. For example, the first group (D001-
D003 wastes) and the second group(D001-D011 wastes that
are currently diluted prior to injection into deep wells) seem
to overlap. If not accounted for already, EPA should
incorporate a mechanism (i.e., into the capacity analysis)
whereby wastes are not double counted.
• AFPA (LOOOl) notes that Table VI-4 of the Supplemental
Information Report identifies "Black Liquor" as DOOI waste.
This is absolutely incorrect. The information provided to the
Capacity Programs Branch of the Office of Solid Waste by
the pulp and paper industry indicated that pulping liquors
may, at times, be corrosive — above a pH of 12.5. Pulping
liquors are not ignitable and do not meet the ignitable-
characteristic of DOOI. Therefore, the Agency's analysis of the
number of facilities affected by the Court's decision is
probably incorrect for DOOI and D002 waste streams.
However, the pulp and paper industry itself is not certain as
to which of AFPA's waste streams contain hazardous
constituents in concentrations that could be of concern. That
information is collected as part of the industry's sampling and
analysis program.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the comment from the American Forest and Paper
Association that "Black Liquor" waste was incorrectly identified as DOOI in Table VI-4 of
the Supplemental Information Report and EPA has corrected this error.
EPA acknowledges DOE's concern about overlapping categories of wastes subject
to this rule. In the capacity analysis, EPA has accounted for overlap in categories of 1C
wastes covered by the rule.
-------
A2-29
Comments:
The comments that addressed the waste categories used in the capacity analysis
are presented in the following order:
• DOE (29); and
« AFPA (L0001).
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A2-30
TTCA-00029
Department of Energy
p. 26
1.
EPA fists tbe typa of wastes Out i
I b performing the capacity analysis.
As presented in tbe list, tbe wute categories used in tbe capacity analysis appear to have been
erroneously assumed to be mutually exclusive. For example, tbe first group (D001-D003 wastes)
and tbe second group (DOOl-DOtl wastes tbat are currently diluted prior to injection in deep
wells) seem to overlap. If not accounted for already, EPA should incorporate a mechanism (Lt,
into tbe capacity analysis) whereby wastes are not double counted.
-------
A2-31
Docket Number: TTCA-L0001
Commenter: American Forest & Paper Association
Comment: p. 3
SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED IN SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT
Pulping Liquors Mav be D002. Not D001 Wastes
Table VM of the Supplemental Information Report identifies "Black Liquor* as D001
waste. This is absolutely incorrect. The information provided to the Capacity Branch of the
Office of Solid Waste by the pulp and paper industry indicated that pulping liquors may, at
imes, be corrosive - above a pH of 12.5. Pulping liquors are not ignitable and do not meet
.he ignitable characteristic of D001.
Therefore, the Agency's analysis of the number of facilities affected by the Court's
tecision is probably incorrect for D001 and D002 waste streams. However, as we noted above,
he pulp and paper industry itself is not certain as to which of our waste streams contain
hazardous constituents in concentrations that could be of concern. That information is being
zoilected as pan of the industry's sampling and analysis program described above.
-------
A2-32
2.6 Other
Summary:
Although not directly addressing capacity issues, several commenters raised
technical issues which impact on the methodology used for the capacity analysis. DuPont
(51) and Chevron (56) address treatment residuals which may require additional
treatment and CMA (44) reports that a recent limited survey of its members shdwed that
some waste water treatment facilities do not consistently meet F039 standards for their
effluents and sludges.
Response:
EPA adjusted its capacity analysis to reflect that ten percent of residuals from
D002 treatment will need additional treatment, and 25 percent of the decharacterized 1C
wastes injected into Class V wells will be impacted because they have constituents above
F039. (See the methodology in Appendix B for the quantity of wastes affected in Class
V wells by this rule.)
Comments:
The comments that are indirectly related to the capacity analysis methodology are
presented in the following order:
• . CMA (44);
• DuPont (51); and
• Chevron (56).
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A2-33
TTCA-00044
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Attachment B
QUESTION: COULD THE DISCHARGE FBOH TOUR TREATMENT 8IS1EK TEAT
CONTAINS A LAND-BASED TOAWENT UNIT ntil TH£ 5039 V&SIEVATER
T8EATHENT STAKDAEDS AT THE PQIKT THAT THE WASTEWATE8 EXITS
THE TXEATttEKt STSTEh* (discharge to surface waters, POTV, or
influent to well)? * '
a)
If the answer Is no, identify the characteristic tfctt
fch« trcote hazerdotxs at the point of gtatrttion and list tbe
constituent* that won Id poc*nti«llj not »««t tba F039
standard.
RESPONSE: 23 of &4 facilities could not ae«t F039 sUadardc
Charaetcrlatic
1-8
C - 15
R * 5
QDESTIQN:
IF TOT TREAT LIQUID IGNITABLE, COEiOStVE, OR SEACTIYE
HA2AEDODS VASTES THAT AEE CLASSIFIED AS KON-VASTEVATERS FOR
TEE PURPOSES OF RCKA'S LAND DISPOSAL TREATHENT STANDARDS
(czeater thoa 1Z of TOG or greater than 11 TSS). COULD THE
SLUDOE FRO« THE TREA.THEKT OF THESE WASTES HEET F039 TREATHEKT
LEVELS VITBOOT ADDITIONAL TKEATMEKT?
a) If not, estijute th* voln»« of a lodge generated «ceh 7«ar and
tbe eanoal cost to treat the sludge such that it would,
BOAT tftaadazds?
RESPONSE: 5 of 8 facilities with these wastes con Id not «eet F039
additional treatnent.,
-------
A2-34
Docket Number: TTCA-00051
Commenter: DuPont
Comment: . p. 8
WASTES MANAGED IN OTHER THAN CWA FAOLFTIES
Tfre Agency should set stsndanfc for hzrarSons constituents in wasrcs reared in other than CWA cr
SDWA facilities bzsed on how that waste is managed.
The Agency has requested commenced how it should deal with hazardous constitueats in ICR wastes
winch are treated in other than CWA or SDWA facilities, The Agency specifically references chemical
and thermal treatment as possible alrsmanve treatment processes 10 wastcwater trraimeat In tie case
ftf rhCTrtfll tmnfnyw uny r^ffaf^. that trenTr sll/mld ***- ^valiistM «gsin>* diaiywrifltes and only ha
subjectro fonhcr treatmeat if there ere cxooedmocs of those characensacs. This epproech is
Eppioprfate because these residues ere not direcdy released to ihe en viroomem (as ihe previously
) hnf an* ntkfr p1ae»l in bilir>r is reduced.
Both These coaccpts are central to 3004
-------
A2-35
Docket Number: TTCA-00056
Commenter: Chevron
Comment: p. 5
For physical, chemical and thermal treatment technologies used to
neet BOAT requirements, any ICR treatment residues should not be
subject to 'further regulation as hazardous wastes unless they
Exceed the criteria for classification as characteristic wastes.
Such treatment residuals are already covered by existing RCRA
regulations.
-------
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED GENERATORS, VOLUMES, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
EPA received forty-four comments addressing the generators, volumes and
management practices that may he affected by the Chemical Waste Management et al..
vs. EPA Court decision (976 F. 2d 2). Relatively few of these commenters specifically
discussed the vacated wastes that are addressed in this emergency rule (i.e., essentially,
deactivated 1C wastes whose discharges are not regulated under CWA or SDWA).
Twelve commenters [Texas Instruments (7), GLCC (19). Eli Lilly (20). Hoechst Celanese
(21, L0008), Department of Energy (29), American Petroleum Institute (30), Conoco
(32), CMA(44), Texaco (46), DuPont (51), Ethyl (L0002), and HWTC (L0004)]
submitted comments that addressed affected generators and management practices for
vacated wastes.
Hoechst Celanese operates a zero-discharge treatment system for its 1C wastes.
Ethyl (L0002) and GLCC (19) operate Class V wells for the reinjection of tail brine from
their bromine production process. Texaco (46) expressed concern about the impact of
this rule on Class V wells. DOE (29) commented on zirconium chips that are currently
managed at one DOE facility and that can be categorized as D001 ignitable reactives for
which treatment standards were vacated by the Court decision. Conoco (32) raised
concerns about deactivated 1C wastes managed in Class II wells.
In summary, commenters raised six issues related to affected_generators, volumes,
and management practices:
• Facilities Managing Deactivated 1C Wastes in Zero-Discharge Systems are
Using CWA-Equivalent Treatment Systems;
• EPA has not Considered the Impact of the Court Decision on Facilities
Managing Deactivated 1C Wastes in Class V Injection Wells;
• Federal Facilities that Generate Zirconium Chips in the D001 Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory May Be Affected by the Court Decision;
• EPA has Underestimated the Impact of the Court's Decision by not Fully
Taking Into Account Decharacterized Wastes Managed In Class II
Nonhazardous UIC Wells;
• Segregation of Wastes can Significantly Reduce the Quantity Requiring
Treatment; and
• General Issues Concerning the Generation and Management of
Decharacterized 1C Wastes.
-------
A3-2
i
3.1 Facilities Managing Deactivated 1C Wastes in Zero-Discharge Systems are Using
OVA-Equivalcnt Treatment Systems
Summary:
Three commenters [Texas Instruments (7), Hoechst Celanese (21, L0008) and API
(30)] believe that facilities managing deactivated 1C wastes in zero discharge systems are
CWA equivalent and should not have to provide additional treatment for these wastes.
Texas Instruments (7) generates wastewaters that are treated on-site prior
to discharge under indirect discharge permits. These wastes may contain
corrosive acids at their point of generation.
Hoechst Celanese (21, L0008) explains that at its Pampa
Plant a no discharge irrigation permit regulates the
wastewater treatment system with constituent concentration
limits equivalent to CWA NPDES systems and the Pampa
Plant system is for all practical purposes operationally and
effectively equivalent to a CWA OCPSF NPDES system.
Therefore, the Agency should place this system on an
equivalent regulatory basis, providing the same
accommodations and/or exemptions enjoyed by those-systems
operated pursuant to an NPDES permit under the CWA.
Hoechst Celanese indicates that 600 million gallons per year
of wastewater are treated in non-CWA land based units
impacted by the Court's decision.
API (30) does not believe that the court decision applies to zero discharge
facilities that manage ICR wastes in centralized wastewater systems. API
does not believe that EPA should consider these facilities in its rule. API
states that there are many zero discharge facilities that employ advanced
wastewater treatment systems even though they are not subject to CWA.
Response:
EPA has determined that most facilities with zero-discharge systems that are
regulated under state programs engage in CWA-equivalent treatment. Such facilities are
not subject to the emergency rule for the reasons explained in the preamble. Therefore,
the Agency has not included these wastes in this capacity analysis and will address them
in the upcoming rulemaking on remanded wastes.
-------
A3-3
EPA contacted Texas Instruments. They confirmed that their Lubbock. Texas
facility has a no-discharge type Texas Water Commission permit for the neutralization
stream. They also asserted that this wastewater is treated prior to discharge to the
evaporation pond and probably meets F039 standards for fluoride.
Comments:
The comments addressing zero discharge systems are presented in the following
order:
Texas Instruments (7);
Hoechst Celanese (21, L0008); and
API (30).
-------
A3-4
Docket Number: TTCA-0007C
Commenier: Texas Instruments
Comment: p. 2
Major Texas electronics manufacturing industries generate
large volumes of industrial wastewaters. Those wastevaters are
/treated on-site prior to discharge to a publicly owned treatment
/ works under indirect discharge permits or to Texas waterbodies
/ under direct discharge peraits (NPDES).
These wastewaters are generally not contaminated except for
corrosive acids and bases and they may exhibit a lav pH resulting
from the acid rinsing and other related manufacturing operations.
The wastewaters are treated and discharged through wastewater
treatment systems which are totally enclosed" from the point of
I process wastewater generation to a centralized on-site waste
treatment plant, where the wastewaters are neutralized as needed
to a non^'hazardous* condition. ^
-------
A3-5
Docket Number: TTCA-00021
Commer.ter: Hoechst Celanese
Comment: p. 16
B. Applicability to Non-CWA Facilities Using Centralized Wastewater
Management
The HCC Pampa Plant is located in the semi-arid Texas Panhandle far
from any significant surface waters of the United States. It has an
advanced biological treatment system consisting of multiple units including
oil/water and solids separators, an above ground anaerobic reactor tank,
land based aerobic treatment h«y"n«, and a darificr unit. Although this
treatment system is equivalent in design to many NPDES direct discharge
systems, it does not discharge the treated wastewater through an NPDES
permitted outfall Instead, the facility uses this wastewater to irrigate a
section of grassland pursuant to a State of Texas permit with discharge
constituent limitations similar to NPDES permit limitations. Table 4
provides additional detail about the treatment system and the potential
impact of the court decision on this facility.
As we-have stated above, we believe that the Agency should promulgate
standards to allow CWA 402 and 307(b) systems to receive point of -
generation ICR wastes providing thrt they meet certain standards at the
end of the treatment train. We also believe that the Agency should apply
the same regulatory provisions to equivalent, non-CWA facilities using
centralized wastewater management as ft does to those CWA NPDES
systems. The Regulation might include language such as "a wastewater
treatment facility that is subject to regulation under either Section 402 or
307(b) of the Clean Water Act or equivalent facilities such as facilities
subject to State irrigation or land application permits."
HCC is aware of other Acuities with similar wastewater treatment and
irrigation lyttems thai do not discharge subject to an NPDES permitted
outfall and that would be impacteS by the court decision. We provided
EPA, in separate communication* to the capacity analysis branch,
information regarding these similar systems. We believe this general
regulatory approach to equivalent, non-CWA fecuitie* would address
thofe situations.*! wefl as that at our Pampa Plant. If the Agency chooses
not to act on this issue ft would impose • icvere economic impact on the
facflfty and surrounding community. Since there are no immediate
operational solutions the facflfty could pursue in the short-term, it would
probably mean ceasing operation at this site. The Agency should apply
the "i""*? same regulatory provisions to equivalent, non-CWA facilities
ttring centralized wastewater management as ft doe* to those CWA
NPDES systems.
-------
A3-6
Docket Number: TTCA-00030
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute (API)
Comment: Appiif^iity of. court decision to "zero discharge"
facilities that manage ICR wastes in centralized
wastewater treatment systems.
.Since the court did not address—or even have before it—the
s-acus of rero discharge facilities, the court's decision simply
does not apply to such facilities. Thus, EPA has no need to even
consider whether such facilities must change their current
operations." However, if EPA nonetheless insists on considering
chis ancillary issue. API endorses EPA's tentative conclusion that
•zero discharge" facilities should be allowed to make the
equivalency demonstration described in the court's opinion in order
to continue managing their decharacterized wastewaters in
centralized treatment systems that include one or more land-based
units. Many "zero discharge" facilities employ highly advanced
wastewater treatment systems even though they are not subject to
Clean Water Act NPDES permits. There is no practical or
environmental reason to distinguish between these facilities and
similar plants that are regulated under the Clean Water Act in
implementing the court's decision.53
52 Moreover, as discussed above, API believes the court
erred in disapproving EPA's original decision allowing treatment of
decharacterized wastes in CWA systems without meeting RCRA
standards. Thus, API believes zero discharge facilities should be
permitted to continue managing their wastes as before the decision.
11 In the past, when EPA has sought to integrate the
requirements of RCRA with those of the Clean Water Act, the Agency
has treated "zero discharge' facilities as. eligible for the same
treatment as discharges that are subject to regulation under the
Clean Water Act. See, e.g.. 40 C.F.R. § 261.3(a)
-------
A3-7
.)cket Number: TTCA-00030
.immenter: American Petroleum Institute (API)
.>mment: p. 56 (continued)
Any significance chat might .attach to the lack of an actual
an Water Act permit at 'zero discharge" facilities should be
rcome by the stringent nature of the equivalency demonstration
cribed by the court for CWA treatment systems. According to the
rt, the facility must demonstrate RCRA-level treatment for any
merly hazardous wastes placed in land-based units as part of a
tralized CWA wastewater treatment system. Thus, all such wastes
1 be subject to RCRA-level treatment as part of the ecjuivalency
onstration, regardless of what form the plant's final discharge
take or what regulatory regime governs that discharge.
-------
A3-8
3.2 EPA has not Considered the Impact or the Cnurt Decision on Facilities Managing
Deactivated 1C Wastes in Class V Injection Wells
Summary:
Three commenters [(GLCC (19), Texaco (46), and Ethyl (L0002)] expressed
concern that EPA's capacity analysis failed to consider the impact of the Court's decision
on Class V wells.
• GLCC's (19) processes currently generate millions of gallons
per day of wastewaters which have already been strenuously
reviewed for waste minimization alternatives. Further
reductions are not technically or economically feasible.
Consequently, any land ban treatment standard applicable to
this wastewater must be designed to allow technically feasible
on-site treatment. If this waste were to be shipped off-site,
all the capacity of off-site TSDs capable of handling our
wastewater would be overwhelmed.
• Texaco (46) states that the EPA's analysis is flawed in that it
only considers the impact to Class I non-hazardous injection
wells. While Texaco agrees that the impact to these wells will
be significant, the impact to Class V wells will be devastating.
The EPA fails to consider the impacts associated with the
proposed rule changes to Class V wells.
• Ethyl (LOOQ2) has approximately ten million gallons per day
of spent brine from bromine extraction that may be affected
by new requirements the Agency is considering. Ethyl
believes that a requirement for treatment beyond
neutralization of this brine would be unwarranted. It is clear
in particular that a requirement for treatment to F039 or
similar treatment standards would be inappropriate for the
type of material at issue. If the Agency adopts such
standards for general application to corrosive wastes, Ethyl
believes that a separate treatment standard for its spent brine
may be necessary and justified.
Response:
EPA reco^.
Class V wells may
Response:
EPA recognizes that a number of facilities managing deactivated 1C wastes in
V wells may be affected by this rule. Facilities that pretreat their wastes prior to
-------
A3-9
injection into Class V wells, however, are not affected by the emergency rule provided
treatment is CWA-equivalent. Based on information provided by state regulator)'
agencies, EPA believes this is the case for the industrial facilities using Class V wells for
disposal. These facilities are not included in this rulemaking. These wastes are
considered remanded and will be included in future rulemakings. EPA has also
determined that many facilities managing 1C wastes in Class V wells are Small Quantity
Generators or that the 1C components originate from de minjmis losses. In both cases.
these wastes at these facilities are not covered by the land disposal prohibitions at all.
However, EPA has estimated in its capacity analysis that fewer than 100 facilities with
Class V wells could be impacted.
In addition, as discussed in the preamble, both GLCC and Ethyl appear to be
discussing wastes which are excluded from land ban coverage (as well as other Subtitle C
regulations) by virtue of the Bevill/Bentsen Amendment.
Comments:
The comments addressing Class V wells are presented in the following order:
• Great Lakes Chemical Corp (19);
• Texaco (46); and
• Ethyl (L0002).
-------
A3-10
Docket Number: TTCA-00019
Commenter: Great Lakes Chemical Company
Comment: P- 3
*
Detailed Comments
GLCC produces bromine and brominated specialty chemicals at facilities
in Arkansas and Michigan. Great Lakes extracts the bromine it uses to
manufacture these chemicals from brine bearing formations in the vicinity of
the Arkansas plants. Great Lakes and its customers use the extracted bromine
in the manufacture of products such as flame retardants, gasoline additives,
water disinfectants, oilfield chemicals, and pharmaceutical intermediates.
Great Lakes Chemical is one of only two companies in the United States and
one of only three companies worldwide that is capable of producing these
important commercial products. ' •
The nature of the chemistry involved in the production process requires
the use of many caustic scrubbers as abatement for the control of halogenated
air emissions from the processes. This is Best Achievable Control
Technology (BACT) for inorganic halides as required-under the Clean
Air Act. These corrosive scrubber streams cannot be minimized or
eliminated, but can be neutralized to remove the characteristic, which results
in ah aqueous salt solution with very small traces of trapped impurities. By
management of these neutralized solutions in deep wells, the trace
contaminants offer no risk to human health or the environment. GLCC also
relies significantly on the neutralization and injection of various brine and
process wastewater streams.
Both of the companies that extract bromine, .are dependent on the ability
to manage these process waters by deep well injection. The elimination of
this disposal option would curtail operations of six of the major production
facilities in South Arkansas. This would have a significant detrimental
consequence on the economy of South Arkansas and Northern Louisiana. As
many as 4,000 jobs (20% of the total population) in El Dorado, including
Great Lakes, related contractors and associated businesses could be affected
by an ill-advised response on the part of the EPA to the Court's ruling.
-------
A3-11
)ocket Number: TTCA-00046
•ommenter: Texaco
bmment: p. 6
Class V injection wells exist in several pam of the country, primarily in desert
areas where there are na surface water sources. Spray fields and other zero
discharge facilities (which are also not adequately addressed by the EPA) are
not permitted in areas by the state or local regulatory authorities. Thus the
only alternative for on-site disposal is in an injection well The states in these
cases have authorized permits for Cass V wells, injection of non-hazardous
waste within 1/4 mile of a drinking water source. Because of the location of
these facilities to the underground water, Class I wells, hazardous or non-
hazardous, are not permitted. When the toxicity characteristic rule came
about, facilities spent millions installing either treatment or resource recovery
systems to insure the wastewater did not exhibit the toxicity characteristic
before injection. Because Gass I hazardous waste injection wells would be
prohibited under state regulations or law, retrofitting the wells and seeking
T cTnits was not an option. '"*•'•
-------
A3-12
Docket Number: TTCA-L0002
Commenter: Ethyl Corporation
Comment: p. 2
Ethyl operates two separate plants, which it refers to as
the West Plant and the South Plant, near Magnolia, Arkansas.
These plants are physically separated by 6 miles (12 miles by
road). Both plants extract elemental bromine from natural brine
pumped up from the subsurface, and use the bromine to produce a
variety of brorinated products. Although a few production
processes at the plants do not involve bromine, over 94 percent
of the production (by weight) is produced in processes that do
use bromine.
The bromine production process involves extensive wellfield
operations. Natural brine from a deep geologic formation (the
Smadcover formation), containing significant concentrations of
bromides, is extracted from a wellfield comprising 23 brine
production wells. The brine (called "feed*brine")L is then pumped'
to a process area at each plant where bromine is removed. The
debrominated brine (called "tail brine") is then pumped back to
the brine field for reinjection in a separate set of 33 Class V
injection wells.1' The scale of these operations is staggering.
The brine field area occupies approximately 66,000 acres (100
square miles). Each well is about 8,500 feet - more than one and
a half miles - deep. Approximately ten Million gallons a day of
brine is extracted, debrominated and reinjected. Reinjection of
the debrominated brine is necessary to avoid subsidence in the
Smadcover formation.
In all of Ethyl's production wells, naturally-occurring
hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulfide are produced along with the
brine*. Gas-phase natural gas and hydrogen sulfide are separated
from the brine at the wellhead, and additional organics are then
.removed by phase separation. At this point the brine has a pH of
5-6 and a temperature in excess of 200 degrees P. It contains
dissolved hydrogen sulfide, 375 ppm total organic carbon (TOC),
350,000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS) and 2000-5500 ppm
bromine as bromide ion, principally sodium bromide. The brine is
then stripped to remove hydrogen sulfide (which is subsequently
recovered as sulfur) and additional hydrocarbons. The brine is
then directed to the Bromine Towers where the pi", of the brine is
lowered below 2.0 in order to produce elemental bromine (Br.), ~
which is then removed and condensed as product and for use in
production of brominated products.
-------
A3-13
Docket Number: TTCA-LQ002
Commenter: Ethyl Corporation
Comment: p. 2 (continued)
The debroainated brine from the process, in which chloride
is substituted for bromide to yield sodium chloride or common
salt, exits the Bromine Towers at a pH of less than 2.0. At the
South Plant, the tail brine is neutralized and directed to a
surface impoundment; froa the surface impoundment, the brine" is
then directed to the Class V wells for reinjection into the
Snackover formation froa which it came.y At the West Plant, the
tail brine is neutralized and directed to a tank system, froa
which it is then directed to the Class V wells for reinjection
into the Smackover. In either case, the brine at the point of
reinjeetion retains aucITof its heat and TDS content, and,
although it »ay contain some organobroaine compounds that are noV
present in Jthe natural brine, it has significantly lower levels
of organics than the natural brine.
-------
A3-14
33 Federal Facilities that Generate Zirconium Chips that Fall in the D001 Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory may be Affected by the Court Decision
Summary:
The Department of Energy (DOE) (29) stated that facilities that generate
zirconium chips that are in the D001 ignitahle reactive suhcategory and that already
stabilize these wastes should not have to change management practices.
Response:
EPA also is prommulgating deactivation and F039 treatment standards for
underlying constituents for D001 wastes covered by this rule. This would include
stabilization treatment for radioactive zirconium chips. Absent additional information,
EPA believes that this waste stream will meet the standard. Therefore, there will be no
new capacity demands from this waste.
Comment:
The comment on D001 ignitable reactive wastes is presented below:
• Department of Energy (29).
-------
A3-15
Docket Number: TTCA-00029
Commenter: Department of Energy
Comment: p. 11
Furthermore, DOE is concerned that the potential revisions to the "deactivation" treatment
standard for wastes not managed in centralized wastewater treatment systems may not adequately
account for certain unique and problematic RMW which exhibit a hazardous characteristic. For
instance, as DOE explained during the development of the Third Third rule, various processing
activities conducted at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory generate finely divided
zirconium chips which are both radioactive and pyropboric. As discussed in the Third Third final
rule (55 F& 22627; June 1,1990), this RMW stream belongs to the D001 Ignitable Reactive*
Subcategory. As DOE explained in comments in response to the proposed Third Third
ruiemaking,13 the radioactive zirconium fines wfll be treated using a stabilization process
whereby the fines are physically separated and immobilized in a cement monolith out of contact
with air. This treatment stabilizes the pyropboric characteristic, and the cement provides fixation
(and shielding) of the radioactive component. As indicated in these earlier comments, DOE
maintains that stabilization of zirconium fines would not constitute a form of impermissible
dilution. EPA stated in the preamble to the Third Third LDR final rule that the Agency
"believes that stabilization is an established deactrvation technique for safe*and equivalent
management of reactive ignitable materials since it accomplishes results equivalent to those of
other technologies by isolating and encapsulating the pyropboric metal fines and precluding
conditions that could cause ignition or reaction of the material.* (55 Fj£ 22546; June 1,1990).
Furthermore, EPA explained that stabilization was an acceptable technology for achieving the
treatment standard applicable to radioactive zirconium fines. (55 PR 22627; June 1,1990). With
these considerations in mind (and if the Agency decides to revise the "deactjvauon" standard for
wastes not managed in centralized wastewater treatment systems), the Department urges EPA to
develop revisions in a manner which retains stabilization as the standard for treating radioactive
zirconium fines, and, more generally, in a manner which appropriately accounts for other such
unique and problematic ICR wastes.
-------
A3-16
\ •
3.4 EPA has Underestimated the Impact or the Court's Decision by not Fully Taking
Into Account Decharacterizcd Wastes Managed in Class II Nonhazardnus L'lC
Wells
Summary:
One commenter (Conoco (32)) mentioned that EPA failed to consider the effect
of the Court's decision on decharacterized wastes managed in Gass II nonhazarduus UIC
wells.
Response:
After an examination and evaluation of the comments received on the Notice of
Data Availability, the Agency believes that Class II UIC wells injecting oil and gas
exploration and production wastes are not newly impacted by this rule. While the
commenter indicated that this rule would impact their injection of decharacterized
ignitable and corrosive wastes into a Class II UIC well, the Agency disagrees. First.
injection into Class II disposal wells of decharacterized wastes not covered by the
exemption in § 261.4(b)(5) would violate existing UIC regulations. See § 146.5(b)(l)
specifying which wastes may be injected into Class II disposal wells.- Because the conduct
is already illegal, EPA does not view today's rule as having any further regulatory impact
on that conduct. Second, injection of such wastes into Class II e"hhanced recovery wells
might also be illegal. To be permissible, the injected materials must qualify as an
"enhanced recovery fluid." To do so, the fluid "must function primarily to enhance
recovery of oil and gas and must be recognized by the Agency as being appropriate for
enhanced recovery...In this context, 'primarily functions' means that the main reason-for
injecting the materials is to enhance recovery of oil and gas rather than to serve as a
means for disposing of those materials." See Report to Congress: Management of
Wastes from the Exploration. Development, and Production of Crude Oil. Natural Gas.
and Geothermal Energy; Volume 1 of 3: Oil and Gas. EPA/530-SW-S8-003, December,
1987, p. 11-18. The Agency gave produced waters as one example of materials
appropriate for enhanced recovery. Id. In determining what fluids are appropriate, the
Agency is of the view that fluids that are hazardous wastes at the point of injection would
never meet the test. Decharacterized fluids might also fail to satisfy the test depending
on their composition as well as the motivation for the injection. Since the commenter
provided none of this information (or even indicated if the comment referred to injection
in disposal or enhanced recovery wells), the Agency is unable to assess further whether
today's rule might have any affect on these operations.
-------
A3-17
Comment:
The comment on decharacterized wastes managed in Class II wells is presented
below:
• Conoco (32).
-------
A3-18
Docket Number: TTCA-00032
Commenter: Conoco
Comment: p. 5
EPA's overly expansive reading of this decision could in fact create serious gaps
resulting in overregulation of decharacterired wastes. EPA has promulgated a number
of exclusions from the definitions of solid wastes and hazardous wastes. In many
instances, there are no corollary exclusions and exemptions for decharacterized ICR
wastes. For example, the following decharacterized wastewaters could be impacted by
EPA's response to the decision:
* "de minimis" losses;
* Laboratory wastewaters;
• Discharges to POTWs that are not commingled with domestic
sewage prior to discharge;
*
* Discharges to Class II nonhazardous UIC wells.
In the past, since decharacterized ICR wastes were no longer considered hazardous,
there was no need for the equivalent exemption or exclusion. Although the Third-Third
decision maintains that these wastes remain nonhazardous, EPA in its notice effectively
mandates that decharacterized ICR wastes be managed as hazardous wastes. In many
instances this will result in more stringent requirements than currently applicable to
listed hazardous wastes. Without specific exemptions, or other regulatory remedy,
these nonhazardous wastes would suddenly be regulated more stringently than their
hazardous waste counterparts.
-------
A3-19
3.5 Segregation of Wastes Can Significantly Reduce the Quantity Requiring
Treatment
Summary:
One commenter (HWTC (L0004)) asserts that segregating 1C wastes after
generation can significantly reduce the quantities of wastes subject to this rule.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the importance of HWTC's comment to capacity analysis in
general. However, the issue of waste segregation as it relates to volumes of waste
affected is not critical for this rulemaking (except insofar as the segregation process itself
takes time, justifying some form of limited national capacity extension). Because the vast
majority of deactivated 1C wastes are managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, or SDWA
systems, this issue will be addressed in future rulemakings.
Comment:
The comment on waste segregation and its impact on affected quantities is
presented below:
• HWTC (L0004).
-------
A3-20
Docket Number: TTCA-L0004 -
Commenter: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
Comment: p. 8
The HWTC objects to any new treatment variances for ICR
wastes. The capacity determination Bust b« properly focused.
EPA1s Supplemental Information Document appears to focus on the
diluted ICR wastewater streams, and bases the capacity demand on
the high volume of such wastewaters. If segregation of .ICR waste
streams containing F039 constituents non-amenable to treatment in
CWA impoundments is required up front, PRIOR TO DILUTION, then
the demand for alternate treatment of ICR wastes is significantly
reduced. The majority of ICR wastes can continue to be treated
in such CWA impoundments. Further, since non-amenable ICR wastes
are segregated prior to dilution, then the volumes requiring
treatment are significantly reduced.
-------
A3-21
3.6 General Issues Concerning the Generation and Management of Decharacterized
1C Wastes.
Summary:
Two commenters [CMA (44) and Dupont (51)] raised general issues concerning
the generation and management of decharacterized 1C wastes. Both CMA and DuPont
believe that residuals from thermal treatment should only he subject to further treatment
if they exhibit a characteristic.
• CMA (44) believes that treatment residues from thermal treatment should
only be subject to further treatment if they exhibit a characteristic. CMA
states that this is only likely to occur for metals that exceed the toxicity
characteristic since well operated thermal treaiment units destroy all but
the metal components of the waste.
• DuPont (51) feels that residuals from the chemical and thermal treatment
of 1C wastes should not require further treatment. Dupont believes that
existing regulations concerning treatment residuals are sufficient to ensure
environmental protection.
Response:
This rule does affects facilities that treat 1C wastes. To the extent that residuals
from treatment exceed the standards for underlying constituents promulgated in this rule,
they will require further treatment. As explained in the preamble, EPA believes this is
the best means of documenting compliance with this rule, but not necessarily a
determination that all residues from the treatment of 1C wastes require further
treatment. In its capacity analysis, EPA has assumed that residuals of 1C wastes that are
not mixed with metal wastes would not be affected by this rule.
Comments:
The comments addressing general issues pertaining to the management of
decharacterized 1C wastes are presented in the following order:
• CMA (44); and
• Dupont (51).
-------
A3-22
Docket Number: TTCA-00044
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment: p. 52
2. The eouivaJencv demonstration can be nnnljfd to zero diseharpp facilities
that mqppfP ICR wastes in cpfitralize wat»r treatment systems.
CMA endorses EPA's tentative conclusion that zero discharge facilities should be
allowed to make the equivalency demonstration described in the court's opinion in order to
continue managing their decharacterized wastewaters in centralized treatment systems that
include one or more land-based units. Many zero discharge facilities employ highly
advanced wastewater treatment systems even though they are not subject to CWA NPDES
permits. The Hoechst Celanese plant in Pampa, Texas-described in a paper placed in the
rulemaking docket in connection with a December 16, 1992 meeting-is an example of such a
plant. There is no reason for EPA to distinguish between these facilities and similar plants
that are regulated under the CWA as it implements the court'* decision.
Any significance that might attach to the lack of.an actual CWA permit at zero
discharge facilities should be overcome by the stringent nature of the equivalency
demonstration authorized by the court's opinion. According to the court, the facility must
demonstrate RCRA-level treatment for any formerly hazardous wastes placed in land-based
units as part of a centralized wastewater treatment system. Thus, all such wastes will be
subject to RCRA-level treatment as part of the equivalency demonstration, regardless of
what form the plant's final discharge may take or what regulatory regime governs that
discharge.
In the past, when EPA has sought to integrate the requirements of RCRA with those
of the CWA. che Agency has treated zero discharge facilities as eligible for the same
treatment as direct dischargers and indirect dischargers that are subject to regulation
under the CWA . See, for example. 40 CFR § 261.3(aXivl (1992) (exemption from mixture
rule for certain dilute mixtures of listed wastes and industrial wastewater). The same
result should obtain here.
-------
A3-23
Docket Number: TTCA-00051
Commenter: DuPont
Comment: p. 8
Agency should set standards for hazardous constituents in wastes treated in other than CWA or'
yA facilities based on how that wastej<« managed,
: Agency has requested comment on how it should deal with hazardous constituents in ICR wastes
ch arc treated in other than CWA or SDWA facilities. The Agency specifically references chemical
thermal treatment as possible alternative treatment processes to wastewater treatment. In the case
hennal treatment, any residues that result should be evaluated against the characteristics and only be
ject to further treatment if there arc exceedances of those characteristics. This approach is
ropriaie because these residues are not directly released to the environment (as the previously
nissed discharges are) but are rather placed in either Subtitle D or C land-based disposal facilities,
ch the Agency has previously recognized provide some measure of protection. Additionally, in the
: of well-operated thermal treatment, all but metal components of the waste are combusted to some
ree, unlike some other treatment technologies which treat some but not all organics. If the metal
iposition is such that the TC characteristic is exceeded for one or more constituents, those residues
i require further treatment in accordance with existing RCRA regulations. If Jhey do not, requiring
her treatment would be inconsistent with the Agency's previous findings on what represents a
at to human health and the environment
ic case of chemical treatment, these processes typically either convert the hazardous constituents to
toxic or nontoxic compounds or bind the constituents so that their toxiciry or mobility is reduced.
h these concepts are central to 3004(mXD, so the use of chemical treatment, depending on the
stituents in the waste, may be completely consistent with RCRA. In cases where constituents
£in mobile and at levels in excess of the TC standards, the wastes would be subject to further
(mem. .
-------
CHAPTER 4
AVAILABLE CAPACITY
EPA received sixteen comments that addressed the issue of available capacity.
light of the sixteen comments were limited to remanded wastes that are not the subject
•f this rule. Eight commenters addressed vacated wastes covered by the emergency rule.
fhese commenters were: American Airlines (13); Great Lakes Chemical Corp. (GLCC)
19); Hoechst Celanese (21 & L0008); Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration
CRWI) (26); Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) (44); Chemical .Manufacturers
Association-Underground Injection (CMA-UIC) (45); Texaco Inc. (46); and Hazardous
>Vaste Treatment Council (HWTC) (L0004). In summary, commenters raised the
ollowing issues.
• Substantial Shortages of Treatment and Storage Capacity Will
Occur;
• More Than Adequate Treatment Capacity Exists; /
• Design, Permitting, and Construction Constraints; and
• Additional Capacity Has Been Identified.
-------
A4-2
4.1 Substantial Shortages or Treatment and Storage Capacity Will Occur
Summary:
Tne majority of commenters addressing vacated wastes were concerned that the
implementation of the court's opinion would create substantial shortages of treatment
and storage capacity: GLCC (19); CMA (44); CMA-UIC (45); and Texaco (46).
• GLCC (19) stated that if wastes were required to be shipped
off-site, all the capacity of offsite TSDs capable of handling
GLCC's wastewater would be overwhelmed. The largest
commercial TSD with hazardous deepwells in the South was
recently prohibited from injecting restricted hazardous waste
into one of their new wells. GLCC estimates that it would
take several years to design and construct a treatment system
to meet the additional treatment standards currently under
consideration by the EPA.
• CMA (44) asserts that there will be a massive shortfall in
capacity to treat the quantities of wastes that would be barred
from current land disposal practices under the court's
opinion. Even if sufficient treatment capaciiy were available,
considerable logistical difficulties would have to be overcome
before waste could be transported off-site for treatment,
including the construction of new pipelines to segregate
wastestreams and the construction of transfer facilities and
acquisition of sufficient trucks, tanks cars, or barges.
• In addition, Texaco (46), expressed concern that their
facilities are currently experiencing difficulty with disposal of
land ban waste due to inadequate capacity, and the current
state of technology development for handling and treating
wastes which have been recently subjected to the land ban.
Texaco has found that waste treatment and disposal facilities
continue to overstate their capabilities and capacities, and
understate their limitations. Thus Texaco has, albeit
assurance and contracts to the contrary, repeatedly found that
waste shipments are required to be rescheduled and rerouted
to a facility with available technology and/or capacity.
-------
A4-3
Response:
As discussed elsewhere, EPA estimates that the quantities affected by this rule are
relatively small and EPA does not expect substantial shortages of treatment and storage
capacity as a result. EPA notes that the GLCC and Texaco facilities are considered
CWA-equivalent facilities and are not included in this rulemaking. These facilities and
the issues raised by GLCC and Texaco will be considered in future rulemakings.
Comments:
The comments discussing shortages of treatment and storage capacity are
presented in the following order:
• GLCC (19);
• CMA (44);
• CMA-UIC (45); and
• Texaco (46).
-------
A4-4
Docket Number: TTCA-00019
Commenter: Great Lakes Chemical Company
Comment: p. 6
Alternative Options
GLCCs processes currently generate millions of gallons per day of
wastewaters which have already been strenuously reviewed for waste
minimization alternatives. Further reductions are not technically or
economically feasible. Consequently, any land ban treatment standard
applicable to this wastewater must be designed to allow technically feasible
on-site treatment. Eventhough it would not be physically possible, if this
waste were to be shipped offsite, all the capacity of offsite TSDs capable of
handling our wastewater would be overwhelmed. The -largest commercial TSD
with hazardous deep wells in the South was recently prohibited from injecting
restricted hazardous waste into one of their new wells, thus further limiting
offsite disposal. A minimum of 4100 truckloads, a rate of 3 per minute, of
deactivated wastewater would be shipped offsite daily. This would create
more air pollution and increase energy consumption by having to transport
these wastewaters in tanker trucks or railcars. The trucks would emit more
pollutants into the air than would be placed into our deep wells and additional
energy, in the form of fuel, would be consumed by the hauling of the
materials. In addition, a major highway safety concern would be created by
the increased traffic on the local roadways.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A4-5
TTCA-00044
Chemical Manufacturers Association
p. 14
2. fcidtist;rv will need suffiqgn^timg tq CQTIP\V with anv new treatment
gtandprds.
EPA must provide sufficient time for affected facilities to modify their treatment
systems in order to comply with any new treatment standards issued in response to the
court's decision. Basically, facilities have two options: either they must locate adequate
off-site commercial capacity and make the necessary facility modifications to be able to
transport their wastes, or they must modify their existing treatment systems in order to
provide the necessary treatment on-site.
Even if sufficient treatment capacity were available, considerable logistical difficulties
would have to be overcome before wastes could be transported off-site for treatment
Characteristic wastestreams would first need to be segregated from other wastes. In many
cases this would require the construction of new pipelines. In addition, construction of
transfer facilities and acquisition of sufficient trucks, tank ears, or barges will be required.
(CMA notes that the risks inherent in transporting ICR wastes for off-site treatment would
far outweigh any environmental benefits achieved under the new treatment standard. A
more complete discussion of this issue is provided in CMA's UIC comment*.)
-------
A4-6
Docket Number: TTCA-00045
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association Underground Injection Control
Group CMA-UIC
Comment: pp. 19-21
4. Off-gjfce Management.
Aa the Agency is already aware, there would be a
massive shortfall in available waste management capacity if the
Agency were to adopt the type of treatment requirements it is
presently considering for characteristic wastes'.22' Even
assuming that capacity is available for off-site management,
however, off-site management would not be a realistic short-term
compliance option for most operators.
Due to the volume of wastewater typically generated by
injection well operators, it would generally be infeasible for a
facility to direct all. of its injected waste .off-site. For most
operators, it would therefore be necessary to segregate affected
waste streams from existing centralized wastewater management •
systems so that only these wastestreams would have to be directed
off-site. As already discussed, however, the hardware necessary
to facilitate the segregation of these wastes oftsu is not in
place, and would have to be constructed.2? In addition, many
facilities do not have existing storage and loading facilities
that would enable them to direct wastes off-site. _Again, it
would often take a significant amount of time - typically six
-------
A4-7
Docket Number: TTCA-00045
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association Underground Injection Control
Group CMA-UIC
•
Comment: pp. 19-21 (continued)
months to one year - to construct the necessary facilities.E/
Segregation of characteristic waste streams could also alter the
nature of the aggregate injected waste stream to the extent that
a UIC permit modification would be required in order for the
remainder of the wastewater to be injected after the
characteristic streams have been segregated.* This too would
require time to resolve. In the interim, affected facilities,
lacking sufficient capacity to store their waste, would have no
option but to cease or curtail their production processes.c/
In a number of cases, off-site transportation of
affected waste streams would not even be a viable long-term
compliance option. Often the volume of the waste at issue - even
after segregation - is simply too large for off-site management
to be logistically or economically feasible.&
-------
A4-8
Docket Number: TTCA-00046
Commenter: Texaco
Comment: p. 6
Off-site disposal has been investigated, but the lack of capacity and the cost
for off-site transportation and disposal of hundreds of millions of gallons of
wastewater make off-site disposal an unrealistic option. In addition,, the
facility could not afford to continue operating, (even assuming capacity was
available) due to the enormous cost to the facility for transportation and
disposal The refinery operators in these areas have indicated this may
effectively shut them down.
-------
A4-9
4,2 More Than Adequate Treatment Capacity Exists
Summary:
One commenter. HWTC (L0004), maintains that the capacity demand identified in
EPA's NODA can be reduced by at least a factor of 100 considering that only undiluted
non-amenable ICR waste streams will require alternative treatment. HWTC asserts that
there is more than adequate capacity to manage this volume of waste. The total
available capacity of HWTC member companies is 1,519,310 tons/year. The capacity
represents 13 wastewater treatment facilities and 11 incineration facilities.
Response:
In its capacity analysis EPA has determined that the quantities of wastes affected
by this rule that will require additional treatment are relatively small. As discussed
earlier wastes managed in non CWA, non SDWA and non CWA-equivalent systems
using combustion or .stabilization are unlikely to be diluted prior to treatment. The other
1C wastes likely impacted by this emergency rule probably are diluted prior to injection
into Class V wells; however, the total volumes of affected wastes are expected to be less
than 15,000 tons. Given the time and data limitations EPA considered the total volume
as affected for this capacity analysis. EPA plans to update its capacity analysis for
remanded 1C wastes as part of future rulemakings and this issue wjl be addressed at that
time.
Comment:
The comment stating that more than adequate treatment capacity exists is
presented below:
HWTC (L0004).
-------
A4-10
Docket Number: TTCA-L0004
Commenter: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
Comment: p. 3
The approach here advocated by the council emphasizes the
importance of "unbundling" ICR wastes streams at the battery
limits of the plant's production operations. ICR wastes that
contain hazardous constituents which are not amenable to .
biological treatment in lagoons must be segregated, either for
pretreatment prior to aggregation with other wastewaters fe.q<
steam stripping of volatile compounds) or for other appropriate
treatment (e.g. metals precipitation). How can EPA ensure that
all hazardous constituents in ICR wastes will be effectively
treated if certain compounds are not amenable to biological
processes in the first place? Responsible chemical companies
with whom the Council has discussed the court decision readily
agree that waste streams with non-amenable hazardous constituents
should not be sent to biological treatment lagoons, and they
already segregate such ICR wastes themselves. All industries
should be held to the same standard. -
-------
A4-11
4.3 Design, Permitting, and Construction Constraints
Summary:
Five commenters expressed that design permitting and construction constraints will
cause a lack of available capacity for any vacated wastes covered in this rule [American
Airlines (13): GLCC (19): Hocchst Celanese Corp. (21): CMA (44): and CMA-UIC (45)]
Some commenters provided their own time and cost estimates for the implementation of
new requirements.
• American Airlines (13) ha.< determined it would take at least
2 years to construct an on-site treatment facility that could
treat all constituents in its waste stream to an F039 standard.
• Hoechst (21) roughly estimates time to develop alternative
disposal options for affected wastewaters to he 4-6 years. It
would take 1-3 years to design, acquire, and commission
equipment to manage and prepare sludges from wastewater
treatment for incineration.
• CMA-UIC (45) contends that it would take operators an
average of at least 3 years - and potentially much longer - to
obtain approval "no migration" exemptions. Design, . -
permitting, and construction of alternative wastewater
treatment systems would often require 3 to 5 years and cost
$10 million to $70 million per facility. Even changes
necessary to allow for the off-site transfer of large-volume
waste streams would require six months to one year with little
hope of offering a fully adequate solution. If EPA were to
impose the dramatic new requirements it is considering
without allowing several years for operators to achieve
compliance, some operators would have no compliance
options other than to cease their manufacturing activities.
Response:
EPA agrees that logistical considerations will have an impact on the ability of
generators to manage vacated wastes covered in this rule. In prior rulemakings (e.g., the
Third Third final rule and the Phase I rule), EPA took into account logistical difficulties
impeding access to existing treatment to justify granting national capacity variances.
Given the nature of this emergency rule, factors such as the time needed to segregate
wastes will legitimately affect the ability of generators to treat the wastes covered in this
rule immediately after the effective date. Therefore, as explained in more detail in the
preamble and capacity background document, EPA is granting a three-month national
-------
A4-12
capacity variance for all wastes affected by this rule and a nine-month national capacity
variance for affected 1C wastes injected into Class V wells.
Comments:
The comments discussing design, permitting, and construction constraints are
presented in the following order:
• American Airlines (13);
• GLCC(19);
• Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21);
• CMA (44);and
• CMA-U1C (45).
-------
A4-13
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
TTCA-00013
American Airlines
p. 9
Finally, the cost and time required to comply with an FO39 standard will be
extreme. As discussed above, EPA's analysis doesn't include the volume of
decharacterized waste streams that are currently injected11 and therefore fails to
take into consideration the additional cost of treatment for the never-characteristic
"other constituents" within an aggregated waste stream which would be required to
be treated under an FO39 standard For example, an operator may have
constructed treatment facilities to treat his single characteristic waste in response to
EPA's prior land ban restrictions. But if faced with compliance to an FO39
standard, an operator would be required to treat or ship off-site the "other
constituents" which never reach a characteristic level but which are present in
concentrations higher than allowed under FO39. American has determined that it
would take at least two years and cost approximately S21 million to construct an on-
site treatment facility that could treat all constituents in its waste stream to an FO39
standard. Transportation and off-site treatment is even more prohibitive, costing
approximately $13 million per mon/A.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A4-14
TTCA-00019
Great Lakes Chemical Company
p.7
Furthermore, our engineers estimate that it would take several years to
design and construct a treatment system to meet the additional treatment
standards currently under consideration by the EPA. This treatment
technology would entail rnultimillion dollar expenditures at our five locations.
It should be of the utmost concern to EPA to thoroughly analyze the
economic cost associated with any additional requirements put on our facilities
to comply with any ruling which would be made.
-------
A4-15
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
TTCA-00021
Hoechst Celanese
P- 3 .
Applicability to CWA Facffltiei
Based upon an initial review of our land-based management
systems ind the limited analytical data we have gathered to date,
we believe many of these facilities wffl not be able to meet all of
the F039 standards ehher in the wastewater or in the sludges
generated as a result of their treatment. Table 1 lists the '
constituents far which we believe some of these facflitics may
exceed the proposed levels either in the treated wastewater or the
associated sludges. It is our position that for CWA NPDES or
equivalent systems, the F039 levels should be replaced with
applicable constituent specific discharge permit limitations (OCPSF
EAT). Where these do not exist, the Agency should strongly
consider setting levels at least 10X the F039 standards to avoid the
extreme disruptions that might otherwise occur. 14 of HCCs 35
tfa cturipg, R&D, and tep1""?*1! facilities operate land-based
wastewater treatment units that may receive ICR wastes and, thus,
may not be able to operate based upon the court decision.
Without their'wastewater treatment plants, these manufacturing
facilities would potentially have to shut down their operations.
Table 3 sumnmrfrffs the potential impact of this action on HCC
Disruption would occur at 13 faculties with 71 hind based
management units treating some 5.4 billion gallons of wastewater
per year. We have roughly estimated that the cost and time to
"develop alternative disposal options for these wastewaters is in the
range of $50-250 million and 4-6 yean. This would be achieved
principally by a combination of construction of tank-based
wastewater treatment systems, source segregation and separate
treatment/disposal, and source elimination. We have commented
on one of these facilities, our dear Lake Plant, in the section
dealing with reactive wastes. En addition, disruption would also
occur at our Pampa Plant (see Table 4) which has an additional 8
land-based management units which would be impacted in the
same manner. This facility treats an additional 600 million gallons.
of wastewater per year. The cost and time range for alternatives
for this facility are $5-50 million and 44 years. This facflhyis
discussed in more detafl in the later section dealing with non-CWA
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A4-16
TTCA-00044
Chemical Manufacturers Association
p. 14
2. Industry will need sufficient time to comnlv with gnv new treatment'
standards.
EPA must provide sufficient time for affected facilities to modify their treatment
systems in order to comply with any new treatment standards issued in response to the
court's decision. Basically, facilities have two options: either they must locate adequate
off-site commercial capacity and make the necessary facility modifications to be able to
transport their wastes, or they must modify their existing treatment systems in order to
provide the necessary treatment on-site.
Even if sufficient treatment capacity were available, considerable logistical difficulties
would have to be overcome before wastes could be transported off-site for treatment
Characteristic was testr earns would first need to be segregated from other wastes. In many
cases this would require the construction of new pipelines. In addition, construction of
transfer facilities and acquisition of sufficient trucks, tank cars, or barges will be required.
(CMA notes that the risks inherent in transporting ICR wastes for ofT-sfU treatment would
far outweigh any. environmental benefits achieved under the new treatment standard. A
more complete discussion of this issue is provided in CMA's UIC comment*.)
-------
A4-17
Docket N'umber: TTCA-00045
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association Underground Injection Control
Group CMA-UIC
Comment: Executive Summary
CMA urges EPA to develop a regulatory response to the Third
Third decision that would give operators adequate tine to
achieve compliance with any new regulatory requirements.
It would take operators an average of at least 3 years
- and potentially much longer - to obtain approval of
"no migration" exemptions.
Design, permitting, and construction of alternative
wastewater treatment systems would often require 3 to 5
years and cost $10 million to $70 million per facility.
Even changes necessary to allow for the off-site
transfer of large-volume waste streams would require
six months to one year with little hope of offering a
fully adequate solution.
If EPA were to impose the dramatic new requirements it is
considering without allowing several years for operators to
achieve compliance, some operators would have no compliance
option other than to cease their manufacturing activities.
-------
A4-18
4.4 Additional Capacity Has Been Identified
Summary:
One commenter, the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (26), reports
that it owns and operates a hazardous waste incinerator which burns hazardous waste
generated by the company, including D001 (both low and high TOC nonwastewaters) and
D002.
Response:
In its capacity analysis, EPA recognizes that there is sufficient treatment capacity
for the vacated wastes covered by this rule. The Agency is granting a three-month
national capacity variance for all wastes affected by this rule and a nine-month national
capacity variance for affected 1C wastes injected into Class V wells largely to account for
time needed to get these wastes to the treatment facilities (for example, time needed to
interpret the new requirements, locate treatment, segregate 1C wastes, reconfigure
transport, etc). EPA will reexamine the availability of incineration capacity in future
rulemakings.
Comment:
The comment identifying additional capacity for wastes covered by this rule is
presented below:
• Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (26).
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A4-19
TTCA-00026
Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration
p. 1 "
The experiences of a member company of CRWI will
be used to illustrate CRWTs comments. The CRWI company owns
and operates a hazardous waste incinerator used to burn hazardous
wastes generated by the company, including D001 and D002 wastes.
Among the D001 ignitable wastes, the CRWI company's incinerator
bums nonwastewaters that are low TOC and high TOC (Le., 10%
or more TOQ.
-------
CHAPTER 5
VARIANCE DECISION
EPA received 31 comments that discussed the need for capacity variances.
Sixteen commenters addressed the adequacy of the existing capacity to treat the vacated
wastes affected by this rule and the need for a national capacity variance. The sixteen
commenters were: Monsanto Company (11); American Airlines (13); International
Specialty Products (16); Great Lakes Chemical Corp. (19): Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21):
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures Association. Inc. (SOCMA) (27);
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (28); U.S. Department of Energy (29); American
Petroleum Institute (API) (30); Conoco (37); Chemical Manufacturers Association
(C.MA) (44); Chemical Manufacturers Association Underground Injection Control Group
(CMA-UIC) (45); Texaco (46); E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPom) (51):
Ethyl Corporation (L0002); and Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (L0004). In
summary, commenters raised the following issues:
• A Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Affected Wastes
is Justified;
• Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Affected Wastes is
Not Justified;
• Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Affected Deep
Well Injected Wastes is Justified; and
• A Case-By-Case or a Generic Extension is Necessary.
-------
A5-2
5.1 A Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Wastes Affected is Justified
»
Summary:
Fourteen of the comments suggested that EPA promulgate a national capacity
variance for wastes affected by this rule due to a lack of adequate capacity. The
fourteen commcnters were: Monsanto Company (11); American Airlines (13);
International Specialty Products (16); Great Lakes Chemical Corp. (19); Hoechst
Celanese (21); Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures Association, Inc. (SOCMA)
(27); U.S. Department of Energy (29); American Petroleum Institute (API) (30); Conoco
(37); Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) (44); Chemical Manufacturers
Association Underground Injection Control Group (CMA-U1C) (45); Texaco (46); E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) (51); and Ethyl Corporation (L0002).
• GLCC (19) believes that if the Agency determines that
neutralization followed by deep well injection is not an
appropriate land ban treatment method for corrosive
wastewater, the Agency must,- at a minimum, grant a two-year
national capacity variance for on-site underground injection of
the neutralized wastewater. This variance is necessary
because of the lack of currently available off-site capacity to
manage wastewater from GLCC, let alone from the oTher
generators who will be affected by this action.
• DOE (29) states that the regulatory revisions promulgated in
response to the court decision may have significant
compliance and cost impacts. There will be massive
shortages of capacity to treat wastes affected by revisions to
the Third Third LDR final rule. DOE urges EPA to provide
some form of capacity variance once the court's mandate is
put into effect.
Response:
EPA's analysis indicates that the quantity of wastes potentially affected by this rule
is approximately 30,000 tons per year. Although EPA has determined that sufficient
combustion and stabilization treatment capacity currently exists to treat this additional
waste quantity, additional time is necessary for facilities to get the wastes to the
treatment facilities. (See Section 7 of the Background Document, Variance
Determination). However, EPA believes that a full two year national capacity variance is
not necessary. EPA also agrees with SOCMA, Monsanto, and CMA that there is no
legal obstacle to granting national capacity variances for these wastes.
-------
A5-3
In addition, commenters seemed to be more focused on the large volumes of
deactivated 1C wastes managed in CWA/CWA-equivalent/SDWA systems. EPA
emphasizes that these waste volumes were not addressed in the capacity analysis for this
rule, and that these volumes will be addressed in future rulemakings.
Comments:
The comments requesting a 2-year national capacity variance are presented in the
following order:
Monsanto (11);
American Airlines (13);
International Specialty Products (16);
GLCC(19);
Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21);
SOCMA (27);
DOE (29);
API (30);
Conoco (37);
CMA (44);
CMA-UIC (45);
Texaco (46);
DuPont (51); and
Ethyl Corporation (L0002).
-------
A5-4
Docket Number: TTCA-00011
Commenter: Monsanto Company
Comment: p. 1
Anv rule imposing new retirements in response to the Court's
decision relative to impoundments/wells should allow for a 2
national capacity variance and ^h,e availability of case-bv-cas»
variances thereafter.
Discussion:
The wastes at issue, those exiting non-Subtitle C surface
impoundments or entering underground injection wells, are not
hazardous wastes but are decharacterized wastes, subject to LDRs
for the first tine. For the purposes of the LDR program,'these
wastes should be considered to be newly identified or listed under
the terms of RCRA $ 3004(g)(4).
This approach might be best implemented if all parties are
convinced that EPA's overall approach to implementation is
sufficiently responsible and that to proceed without this
interpretation would cause significant and unnecessary disruption
to the regulated community*
-------
A5-5
Docket Number: TTCA-00013
Commenter: American Airlines .
Comment: p. 6
rule itself.7 Thus, the rule remains in effect and need not be replaced by a new
treatment standard before EPA and industry have been afforded time sufficient to
supplement the record to provide the necessary justification.1
There is also no practical urgency in withdrawing the authority to inject
decharacterized wastes in deep wells. EPA has previously determined that injection
of nonhazardous wastes in Class I wells is "fully protective of underground drinking
water and human health and the environment" Report at 26, n. 11. See also, 55
Fed Reg. 22658. Having acknowledged both the severe disruption and capacity
problems which will result from its proposed action (Report at 42) and the fact that
more time is needed to develop a "minimize threat" standard as is required under
§3004(m)(l) (Report at 28, 38), EPA should allow the current rule to remain in
place while it considers hard data and studies currently available to support the
present rule or, alternatively, develops a treatment standard specifically for deep
well injection.9
IV. The Treatment Standard Proposed br EPA (FO39) Is Inappropriate
for Deep Well Injection and Is Not Required by RCRA $ 3004(m)(l).
EPA proposes the utilization of an FO39 "universal" treatment standard for
disposal in either CWA surface impoundments or Class I injection wells. This
standard is clearly inappropriate, at least as it applies to injection wells, for a
number of reasons. FO39 was developed as a standard for "multi-source leachates"
which are defined as liquids which have "percolated through or drained from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of more than one listed hazardous waste."10 The
primary example of a multi-source leachate is liquid draining into soils from a
landfill unit11 Surface disposal, including temporary placement in CWA surface
7 976F-Mal25.
*
<*^vM constitute treatment satisfying *t»» reooimneots of i 3004/n)(l) t»t>A»r ^-r**"1 fi
976 F^d H 15-16,
9 Since whatever treatment standard is ultimately developed may itself provide a capacity problem,
American suggests that EPA reserve the National Capacity Variance and case -by-case extensions to
provide time for frifnpl!infff with ^^^ oltisiate standard issued by EPA.
10 5^/curi££Mrfiac*pa^Z>cxum0tf/^
NTTS fPWO-234337 (MayS, 1990), at 1-1
" /cf. H2.2.
-------
A5-6
Docket Number: TTCA-00016
Commenter.: International Specialty Products
Comment: p. 13
C. GenericCag«-pr-Cage
.^ *
In addition to the national capacity variance, EPA could
also achieve an equitable solution to some of the problems raised
by the Chem Wastq decision by issuing a generic case-by-case
extension of the land disposal prohibition to facilities that are
in compliance with EPA's Third Third regulations on the date of
the O.C. Circuit's mandate. A case-by-case extension under RCRA
S 3004(h)(3) would avoid potential disputes that a capacity
variance might engender concerning permissible length. Because a
case^by-case extension can be granted and renewed for a total of
two years past the expiration of a capacity variance, a
case-by-case extension could indisputably extend until May 8,
1994.
-------
A5-7
Docket Number: TTCA-00019
Commenter: Great Lakes Chemical Company
Comment: p. 2
Accord-
ingly, the Agency would have to grant a national capacity variance with the
issuance of any emergency rules, and the emergency rules should be limited
solely to the dilution of characteristic wastes.
-------
A5-S
Docket Number: TTCA-00021
Commenter: Hoechst Celanese
Comment: p. 18
Hoechst Crlnncv* strongly supports EPA's conchision on p. 42 that a two-
year national capacity variance is available and EPA's proposal on p. 63-
to grant such a variance for D001-DOG3 wastes.
On p. 45, EPA estimates that 65 minion tons of wastes could be impacted
by this ruling. By comparison, Hoechst Olanesft g«timat*« that its 13
facHities potentially affected by the court's decision treat 24 million tons of
wastewater in wastewater treatment plants, produce 75,000 tons of sludge
(at 20% solids), and inject 860,000 tons of wastewater. These figures
measure the total volumes affected after aggregating point of generation
ICR wastes with nonhazardous flows. These aggregated totals should be
used in EPA's Capacity Determination since segregation of most ICR
flows is not practical
-------
)ocket Number:
Jommenter:
SOCMA)
Comment:
A5-9
TTCA-00027
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures Association, Inc.
p. 22
B. EPA Can and Should Provide Both National Capacity and
Case-By-CaseVariances
SOCMA supports EPA's consideration of a national capacity variance
as a reasonable strategy for managing the predicted massive shortage of
capacity to treat the wastes affected by the implementation of an overly
broad interpretation of the Third Third opinion. SOCMA believes that
the granting of a national capacity variance is supported both by the
language and the intent of RCRA. Moreover, SOCMA believes that a
national capacity variance is the only fair and practicaj manner in
which to implement such substantially new regulations.
-------
A5-10
Docket Number: TTCA-00027
Commenter: Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures Association, Inc.
(SOCMA)
Comment: p. 22 (continued)
1. The Language of RCRA Supports the Availability of
Capacity Variances
In response to the Third Third opinion, EPA not only intends, but
to some extent is required, to promulgate new regulations to establish
land disposal restrictions to replace those invalidated by the court.
SOCMA believes that the establishment of new regulatory standards
necessarily leads to the consideration of such practical facts as
whether there will be capacity to treat the affected wastes. Congress
directly addressed this problem in section 3004(h)(2)-of RCRA, providing
the means for EPA to establish 'an effective date different from the
effective date which would otherwise apply" from that statutorily
mandated with respect to a specific hazardous waste which is subject to
a land disposal prohibition under certain sections of RCRA. By its
response to the Third Third decision, EPA is proposing to promulgate a
new rule — a new prohibition with respect to hazardous constituents in
ICR wastes and decharacterlzed ICR wastes. The language of RCRA allows
EPA in this case to establish a different "effective date," expiring two
years after the promulgation of this new rule. Of course, a
case-by-case extension would also be applicable.
-------
A5-I1
Docket Number: TTCA-00029
Commenter: Department of Energy
Comment: p. 25
Basis for Variance
OG whether a national capacity variance may be legally granted
thai the court's opinion caortfcutei a new probJbinba EPAabo
axis on how, if a national capacity variance » precluded, the inevitable delays
ffr* court's
A that implementation of the court's opinion will almost certainly create
of treatment capacity. DOE would support the argument that the court's
s prohibition on land disposal of ICR wastes to the underiying hazardous
echiracterized ICR wattes, constitutes a "new prohibition" (for purposes of
a nationwide bask). This would seem to be a reasonable argument since
afore regulated under the LDR requirements are being brought into the
ore, DOE urges EPA to grant a two-year national capacity variance,
stive date of *bc court's rnffH*****, If national capacity variances are
duded, EPA may want to consider approving generic case-by-case capacity
x approach taken relative to hazardous debris (57 £R 20766; May 15, 1992)
ird hazardous sous (57 FR 47772; October 20, 1992).
?A to issue a two-year national capacity variance, the Department would like
years likely wQI not provide adequate Hfn^ for the regulated community to
jacity for managing all of the wastes that the court's opinion will bring into
n addition, for Federal facOines subject to the Federal budgetary process, it
Tease waste management capacity within such a short time frame.
-------
A5-12
)ocket Number: TTCA-00030
ommenter: American Petroleum Institute
"eminent: 2
Additionally, whatever approach EPA adopts,
t is vital that"sufficient time be allowed for implementation to
void widespread disruption to industrial operations.
-------
A5-13
Docket Number: TTCA-00032
Commentcr: Conoco
Comment: P-9
)therwise, practically speaking, there would be few alternatives immediately available
3 handle these nonhazardous wastes if land disposal were restricted. Unless BDAT
tandards are reasonable and achievable, they will only serve to place the regulated
ommunity in a situation of immediate non-compliance, and compliance itself may not
z technically feasible or readily achievable. Even source segregation requires major
modifications to reroute existing wastewater cqllection systems, to replace
npoundments with tanks, and to design and construct separate treatment trains as
scessary.
'e are currently spending tens of millions of dollars at our U. S. refineries to
jmplete similar modifications under the Benzene Waste operations-Neshaps, primary
udge and TC rules. On average, these modifications will take three to four years to
jmplete including development of compliance strategies and design, permitting,
instruction, and startup of new and modified facilities. Thus it will take years to
feet modifications to wastewater collection systems and treatment trains that may be
quired subsequent to the Third-Third decision. We must be able to rely on existing
stems until these modifications can be made. Otherwise our ability to handle
nhazardous wastewaters, typically our largest waste stream, would be crippled, and
a result, our entire operations would be severely disrupted.
-------
A5-14
Docket Number: TTCA-00044
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment: p. 17
4. EpA ^hould grant H tw
-------
A5-15
Docket Number: TTCA-00045
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association Underground Injection Control
Group CMA-UIC
Comment: pp. 25-26
C. EPA Should DelayAdoption of a National Capacity
Variance Until it has had Time to Develop a Well-
Considered Regulatory Response to the Court's Decision.
As the Agency is well aware, a requirement that '
characteristic hazardous wastes be rendered nonhazardous and
treated to F039 or similar standards prior to deep well injection
would affect enormous volumes of waste that are currently
rendered nonhazardous and injected in Class I wells. Such a
requirement would necessarily be based on the "point of
generation" interpretation of the land disposal.restrictions,
which has never previously applied to wastes managed by deep well
injection. Consequently, such a rule would subject these wastes
to the land disposal restrictions for the first time.
As the Agency is also aware, there would not be
sufficient treatment capacity available to handle che volume of
newly-restricted waste that would be affected by such a rule.
Accordingly, EPA would be authorized to adopt a national capacity
variance postponing the effective date of these new prohibitions
for up to two years from the date that "would otherwise apply.*
RCRA §3004(h)(2), 42 U.S.C. 56924(h)(2). The statute provides
that the date that "would otherwise apply" would be the date
these prohibitions are promulgated.2*' Accordingly, such a
postponement of the effective date of the prohibitions could
extend for up to two years from the date of the final rule
adopting those crohibitions.
-------
A5-16
Docket Number: TTCA-00046
Commenter: Texaco
Comment: p. 6
Immediate application of such rules would probably shut all the facilities
down anyway because there would be insufficient time to identify possible
technology and perform treatability studies. Thus a variance is critical to
avoid shutting down facilities. In some areas, the facilities are the major
employer, which would not only cause substantial loss to the companies
affected, but significant economic impact to the local communities.
-------
A5-17
Docket Number: TTCA-00051
Commenter: DuPont
Comment: P- *5
National Capacity Variance
.t the very least, EPA should adopt a "national capacity variance" granting a two-year exemption from
xnplying with any regulatory program the Agency adopts via emergency rules. As indicated above,
uPpnt does not have the ability to comply with some pretreatmem standard, off-site treatment
xjuirement or pre-approved "no migration" petition requirement in the short term. Significant
rononric harm will result to DuPont unless the Agency provides a reasonable amount of time to
raply with whatever standards it devises to respond to the Court's decision.
uPont contends that EPA is fully within its purview to grant a "two year" national capacity variance
r me formerly characteristic ICR wastes that are now being subjected to land disposal restriction
mdards. The Courts decision resulted in a new conceptual consideration of these decharacterized
jstes and this constitutes, in DuPont's view, a "newly identified" waste. For such newly identified
istes, a two-year national capacity variance, followed by potential case-by-case extensions, are
rifted thus providing needed exemptions to the applicability of any land disposal restriction
ndards adopted for these waste streams. Such a variance, unless EPA adopts some other
chanism to delay the applicability of these land disposal restriction standardsTshould at least take
ect upon the date of any EPA emergency rules impacting these wastes. To do otherwise would, we
ievc, be irresponsible of the Agency. No one, particularly the Agency, viewed these wastes the
y the Court has now "interpreted the statute. Through no fault of DuPont's, we are faced with
ential process shut downs or massive unjustified costs, to comply with what is a totally new view
he requirements for decharacterized wastes. Time to comply wiih EPA's regulatory program is
uitiaL
-------
A5-1S
Docket Number: TTCA-L0002
Commenter: Ethyl Corporation
Comment: pp. 10-11
The Agency has already identified one regulatory option that
could be used to allow operators at least some opportunity to
achieve compliance with any new treatment requirements: the
Agency could grant a national capacity variance postponing the
effect of the new requirements pursuant to RCRA $3004(h) (2), 42
U.S.C. $6924(h)(2). The legal and technical basis for such a
capacity variance is discussed in separate contents filed by CHA
and by the CMA Underground Injection Control Group, and those
consents are incorporated by reference here. As explained in
those comments, it is clear that EPA has the authority to grant 6
capacity variance of up to two years from the date that new
treatment requirements are promulgated.
•
There is no question that a national capacity variance is
warranted on the merits. At 10 million gallons per day,-the
spent--brine from Ethyl's Magnolia, All facilities alone represents
15 million tons per years of wastewaters that could be affected
by new treatment requirements. As this brine is neutralixed on-
site. Ethyl has never reported this brine on its Biennial
Hazardous Waste Report. EPA indicates several industry contacts
have reported that waste streams that are rendered nonhazardous
shortly after generation frequently are not reported in biennial
reports. Therefore, EPA's estimate of the volume of waste that
would be affected by new treatment requirements is low.
In addition to granting a national capacity variance, it is
imperative that EPA retain the option of granting individual
case-by-case extensions pursuant to RCRA $3004(h)(3), 69 U.S.C.
$6924(h)(3). If Ethyl's operations are significantly affected by
new treatment requirements, a case-by-case extension is likely to
be necessary to enable Ethyl to achieve compliance. In fact,
without assurance that the case-by-case mechanism will be
available to provide additional time for compliance after the
expiration of a national capacity variance, it might not be
possible for Ethyl to identify any compliance option that could
be implemented within the time available.
-------
A5-19
5.2 Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Affected Wastes is Not Justified
Summary:
The Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) (LOO(M), objected to any new
variance for ICR wastes:
• The HWTC (L0004) objects to any new treatment variances
for ICR wastes. EPA's estimate of capacity demand appears
to focus on diluted ICR wastewater streams. If segregation of
ICR waste streams containing F039 constituents non-
amenable to treatment in CWA impoundments is required up
front, prior to dilution, then the demand for alternative
treatment of ICR wastes is significantly reduced. There is
more than adequate capacity to manage this volume of waste.
Response:
In its capacity analysis EPA has determined that the quantities of wastes affected
by this rule that will require additional trtatment are relatively small. However, EPA
recognizes that logistical considerations will have an impact on the ability of generators to
manage vacated wastes covered in this rule. In prior rulemakings (e,g., the Third Third
final rule and the Phase 1 rule), EPA justified granting national capacity variances based
on these types of real-world considerations. Given the nature of this emergency rule,
factors such as time needed for waste segregation will legitimately affect the ability of
generators to treat the wastes covered in this rule immediately after the effective date.
Therefore, EPA is granting a three-month national capacity variance for all wastes
affected by this rule and a nine-month national capacity variance for affected 1C wastes
injected into Class V wells.
Comment:
The commenter stating that a two-year national capacity variance for affected
wastes is not justified is presented below:
• HWTC (L0004).
-------
A5-20
Docket Number: TTCA-L0004
Commenter: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC)
Comment: . p. 18
The HWTC objects to any new treatment variances for ICR
wastes. The capacity determination must be properly focused.
EPA's Supplemental Information Document appears to focus on the
diluted ICR vastewater streams, and bases the capacity demand on
the high volume of such wastewaters. If segregation of ICR vaste
streams containing F039 constituents non-amenable to treatment in
CWA impoundments is required up front, PRIOR TO DILUTION, then
the demand for alternate treatment of ICR vastes is significantly
reduced* The majority of ICR vastes can continue to ba treated
in such CWA impoundments. Further, since non-amenable ICR vastes
are segregated prior to dilution, then the volumes requiring
treatment are significantly reduced.
The capacity demand identified in EPA's Supplemental
Information Document can be reduced by at least a factor of 100
considering that only undiluted non-amenable ICR vaste streams
vill require alternative treatment. At least 50% of the F039
organic constituents should remain amenable to treatment in CWA
impoundments, making the demand for alternate treatment of ICR
vastes prior to dilution much less. The following table gives a
more realistic picture of the capacity demand, if EPA adopts the
strategy of restricting non-amenable ICR vaates from CWA
impoundments.
-------
A5-21
SJ Two-Year National Capacity Variance for Affected Deep Well Injected Wastes is
Justified
Summary:
Five commenters [Monsanto (11), GLCC (19), Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21),
CMA-UIC (45), and Ethyl Corp. (L0002)) believe that EPA should provide a two-year
national capacity variance to allow facilities to continue using deep well injection wells
while they prepare no-migration petilions or modify their processes.
• Monsanto (11) believes that any rule imposing new
requirements in response to the Court's decision relative to
impoundments/wells should allow for a two-year national
capacity variance and the availability of case-by-case variances
thereafter.
» GLCC (19) states that if the Agency determines that
neutralization followed by deep well injection is not ari
appropriate land ban treatment method for corrosive
wastewater, the Agency must, at a minimum, grant a two-year
national capacity variance for on-site underground injection of
the neutralized wastewater. This variance is necessary
because of the lack of currently available off-site capacity to
manage wastewater from GLCC, let alone from the other
generators who will be affected by this action.
t
* Hoechst Celanese Corp (21) believes that the Agency should
provide a variance or extension to allow facilities to continue
to use the wells while they prepare no-migration petitions or
modify their processes to eliminate the use of the surface
impoundments, to manage these wastes in tank based systems
prior to injection, to seek alternative treatment technologies,
or to seek source reduction opportunities for these
wastestreams. HCC is committed to eliminating the use of
injection wells for all wastes by the end of 1996. These
facilities are actively pursuing source reduction of the streams
being disposed in the wells. They are planning to make
process changes and to construct alternative treatment
systems to deal with the wastesireams that cannot be
eliminated at the source. However, this is a very costly and
resource intensive effort. Hoechst does not expect to be able
-------
A5-22
to complete it before the end of 1996 because it may involve
major modification of existing or construction of new
\vastevvater treatment systems.. The Agency should provide
adequate time in the form of a newly listed waste and/or
capacity variance, or case-by-case extension, to allow us to
complete Hoechst Celanese efforts already underway.
Response; '
EPA estimates that approximately 15,000 tons of wastes managed in Class V
injection wells may be affected by this rule. As discussed earlier, wastes managed in.
Class I underground injection wells regulated under SDWA as well as brine wastes from
bromine production managed in Class V wells are not affected by this rule.
Comments:
The comments requesting a 2-year national capacity variance for affected 1C deep
well injected wastes are presented in the following order:
• Monsanto (11);
• GLCC(19);
• Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21);
* CMA-UIC (45); and
• Ethyl Corp. (LQ002).
-------
A5-23
Docket Number: TTCA-00011
Commenter: Monsanto Company
Comment: p. 1
Any rule Imposing nev requirements in respen«e_to the Court's
decision relative to impoundments/wells should allow for a 2 yi.i.r
national capacity variance and the availability of case-by-cas*
variances thereafter.
Discussion:
The wastes at issue, those exiting non-Subtitle C surface
impoundments or entering underground injection veils, are not
hazardous wastes but are decharacterired wastes, subject to LDRs
for the first tine. For the purposes of the LDR program, these
wastes should be considered to be newly identified or listed under
the terms of RCEA { 300*(g)(*).
This approach might be best implemented if all parties are
convinced that EPA's overall approach to implementation !•
sufficiently responsible and that to proceed without this
interpretation would cause significant and unnecessary disruption
to the regulated caenunlty.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A5-24 .
TTCA-00019
Great Lakes Chemical Company
p. 2
Enacting "emergency" rules will cause considerable chaos to the
companies using deep well technology because there are severe restrictions to
alternatives which would be available to the plants, particularly those deep
welling non-hazardous waste. Some of the alternatives offered do not make
sense in that they are neither economically or technically feasible. Accord-""
ingly, the Agency would have to grant a national capacity variance with the
issuance of any emergency rules, and the emergency rules should be limited
solely to the dilution of characteristic wastes.
-------
A5-25
Docket Number: TTCA-00021
Commenter: Hoechst Celanese
Comment: pp. 18-19
Hoecbst Celaoese strongly supports EPA's conclusion on p. 42 that a two.
year national capacity variance is available and EPA's proposal on p. 63_
to grant such a variance far D001-D003 wastes.
On p. 45, EPA estimates that 65 tniTKnn tons of wastes could be impacted
by this rating. By enflmpritftBi Htwhft fVT****"** p*trp«t^g that fa 1?
fafiffti^f potentially flffr*tfd by the court's dffjfk1" treat 24 minion tons of
wastewater in wastewater treatment plants, prodoce 75,000 tons of sludge
(at 20% solids), and inject 860,000 tons of wastewater. These figures
measure the total volumes p*fyrf*1 fft*r "PtfTOTt^g point of generation
ICR wastes with unhazardous flows. These aggregated totals should be
used in EPA's Capacity Determination since segregation of most ICR
flows is not practical.
-------
A5-26
Docket Number: TTCA-00044
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment: p. 17
4. EP.^jft)flu1d grant a two-venr national capacity varianc* for third third
wastes that may no longer be land
As EPA has recognized, there is a massive shortfall in capacity to treat the quantities
of wastes that would be barred from current land disposal practices under the court's
opinion. If the court's mandate were to be issued in the near future, the effects on American
industry would be catastrophic,. Therefore, notwithstanding CMA's belief that the hard
hammer provisions do not apply to formerly-characteristic wastes, EPA should grant a two-
year national capacity variance for wastes that may no longer be land-disposed due to the
Chem Waste decision. Indeed, the severity of the situation provides ample justification for
EPA to grant a national capacity variance immediately without protracted notice and
comment rulemaking procedures.
Under RCRA § 3005(gX5), EPA was obligated to determine whether third third
wastes would be prohibited from land disposal no later than May 8, 1990. EPA met this
deadline, and promulgated prohibitions and treatment standards for third third wastes,
including ICR wastes. It is notable that EPA's prohibitions for characteristic wastes
included the phrase "wastes identified as hazardous based on a characteristic alone." See
40 CFR § 268.35
-------
A5-27
Docket Number: TTCA-L0002
Commenter: Ethyl Corporation
Comment: pp. 10-11
In order to determine the extent to which it will be
iffected by new treatment requirements and to identify the steps
ihat aay be necessary to achieve compliance, Ethyl will require
!ar aore specific advance notice of exactly what the new
;reatiaent requirements will be and exactly how they will apply.
Cf Ethyl's current operations would be affected by new
requirements, a substantial period of time would be needed in
>rder for Ethyl to be able to implement any compliance option.
It is critical that EPA take whatever action is necessary to
tasure that Ethyl and other potentially affected operators will
lave an adequate opportunity to comply with any new requirements.
The Agency has already identified one reguittory option that
:ould be used to allow operators at least some opportunity to
chieve compliance with any new treatment requirements: the
.gency could grant a national capacity variance postponing the
ffect of the new requirements pursuant to RCRA S30t>4 (h) (2), 42
.S.C. S6924(h)(2). The legal and technical basis for such a
apacity variance is discussed in separate comments filed by CKA
nd by the CHA Underground Injection Control Group, and those
omments are incorporated by reference here. As explained in
hose comments, it is clear that EPA has the authority to grant a
apacity variance of up to two years from the date that new
reatment requirements are promulgated.
•
There is no question that a national capacity variance is
arranted on the merits. At 10 million gallons per day,-the
pent-brine from Ethyl's Magnolia, AR facilities alone represents
5 million tons per years of wastewaters that could be affected
y new treatment requirements. As this brine is neutralized on-
ite. Ethyl has never reported this brine on its Biennial
azardous Waste Report. EPA indicates several industry contacts
ave reported that waste streams that are rendered nonhazardous
hortly after generation frequently are not reported in biennial
eports. Therefore, EPA's estimate of the volume of waste that
Duld be affected by new treatment requirements is low.
In addition to granting a national capacity variance, it is
aperativp that EPA retain the option of granting individual
ise-by-case extensions pursuant to RCRA $3004(h)(3), 69 U.S.C.
5924(h)P). If Ethyl's operations are significantly affected by
sw treatment requirements, a case-by-case extension is likely to
i necessary to enable Ethyl to achieve compliance. In fact,
ithout assurance that the case-by-case mechanism will be
sailable to provide additional time for compliance after the
xpiration of a national capacity variance, it might not be
ossible for Ethyl to Identify any compliance option that could
-------
A5-2S
4 A Case-By-Case or a Generic Extension is Necessary
Summary:
Eight of the commenters supporting a national capacity variance also stressed the
ed for a case-hy-case or a generic extension: Monsanto (11); International Specialty
oducts (16); Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21); Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures
-sociation, Inc. (SOCMA) (27); Environmental Defense Fund (28); U.S. Department of
icrgy (29); DuPont (51); and Ethyl Corp. (L0002).
• International Specialty Products (16) states that because
hundreds of facilities are potentially eligible for a case-by-case
extension, EPA should issue a generic extension which would
encompass all existing facilities currently treating ICR wastes
in accordance with the Third Third regulations.
• Hoechst Celanese Corp.(21) suggests that the Agency provide
adequate time in the form of a newly listed waste and/or
capacity variance, or case-by-case extension to allow them to
complete their efforts already underway.
• SOCMA (27) encourages EPA to provide both national
capacity and case-by-case variances. The language of RCRA
supports the availability of capacity variances. SOCMA -
believes that a two-year national capacity variance and case-
by-casc variances similarly reflect a legislative intent to
provide for a period of transition in cases where a new
regulation could result in substantial changes. Not to use this
provision in a rulemaking, severely altering the number of
facilities and the amount of waste affected, would be
nonsensical. To deny a two-year national capacity variance
would be fundamentally unfair to industry. Industry should
have time to adjust to sweeping regulatory changes, a
practical concern which was recognized by Congress in the
variance provisions of RCRA.
Response:
EPA recognizes that the management of approxJmately 30,000 tons of waste may
affected by this emergency rule. As discussed in the variance chapter of the
ckground Document, EPA believes that a two-year national capacity variance is not
-------
A5-29
necessary. Furthermore, the commentcrs seemed to focus on the large volumes of
remanded wastes which will be covered in future rulemakines.
EPA does recognize that logistical factors may make it difficult for generators to
comply wiih the new treatment standards for vacated wastes immediately after
promulgation of ihis rule. Therefore, EPA is granting a three-month national capacity
variance for all wastes affected by this rule and a nine-month national capacity variance
for affected 1C wastes injected into Class V wells.
Comments:
The comments requesting a case-by-case or a generic extension are presented in
the following order:
Monsanto (11);
International Specialty Product (16);
Hoechst Celanese Corp. (21);
SOCMA (27);
EOF (28);
DOE (29);
DuPont (51); and
Ethyl Corporation (LQ002).
-------
A5-30
Docket Number: TTCA-00011
Commenter: Monsanto Company
Comment: p. 1
Anv rule tooting n«w requirements in response tp the Court •«
decision relative te iaDomdaents/veils should allow for a 2 T»«r
national capacity variance anji the_ayailafrility_-Of case-bv-caa*
variances thereafter.
Discussion:
The wastes at issue, those exiting non-Sobtitl« C rorftce
lopoundmcats or «nt«rin§ untUrfroimd injection velli, are not
hazardous vastei but are decharacterlxad vutes, tubject to LDRj
for the first tine. For the purposes of the LDR program, these
wastes should be considered to be newly identified or listed under
the terms of RCSA f 3004(g)(*).
This approach slight be best isqtleaented if all parties are
convinced that EPA's overall approach to iaplaaentAtion is
sufficiently responsible and that to proceed without this
interpretation would otuse significant and unnecessary disruption
to the regulated cooounity.
-------
A5-31
i
Docket Number: TTCA-00016
Commenter: International Specialty Products
Comment: p. 13
In addition to the national .capacity variance, EPA could
also achieve an equitable solution to some of the problems raised
by the Chen Waste decision by issuing a generic case-by-case
extension of the land disposal prohibition to facilities that are
in compliance with EPA's Third Third regulations on the date of
the D.C. Circuit's mandate. A case-by-case extension under RCRA
S 3004(h)(3) would avoid potential disputes that a capacity
variance night engender concerning permissible length. Because a
case-by-case extension can be granted and renewed for a total of
two years past the expiration of a capacity variance, a
case-by-case extension could indisputably extend until Hay 8,
1994.
-------
A5-32
Docket Number: TTCA-00021
Commenter: Hoechst Celanese
Comment: pp. 18-19
Hoechst Olnnrtr «rongfy supports EPA's conduoan an p. 42 that a two-
year national capacity variance is available and EPA'i proposal on p. 63-
to grant each a variance for D001-D003 wastes.
On p. 45, EPA ^ctrrpstT th"t 65 ff^ffKnn tons of wastes conic! be
bythfcrnlmg. By comparison, Hoechst Celanese estimates that hs 13
potentiaDy •ff*>f*^ by the court's dfri«'ftn treat 24 minion
wastewater in wanewater treatment plants, produce 75,000 tons of xhjdge
(at 20% solids), and inject 860,000 tons of wastewater. These figures
VOH2TDCS
ICR wastes with nonhazardous flows. These aggregated totals should be
med in E?A's Capacity netiumiimrtnfi since segregation of most ICR
flows is not practkaL
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
(SOCMA)
Comment:
A5-33
TTCA-00027
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures Association, Inc.
p. 22
1. The Language of RCRA Supports the Availability of
Capacity Variances [ ;
In response to the Third Third opinion, EPA not only intends, but
to some extent is required, to prooulgate new regulations to establish
land disposal restrictions to replace those invalidated by the court.
SOCMA believes that the establishment of new regulatory standards
necessarily leads to the consideration of such practical facts as
whether there will be capacity to treat the affected wastes. Congress
directly addressed this problem in section 3004(h)(2) of RCRA, providing
the means for EPA to establish 'an effective date different from the
effective date which would otherwise apply' from that statutorily
mandated with respect to a specific hazardous waste which is subject to
a land disposal prohibition under certain sections of RCRA. By its
response to the Third Third decision. EPA is proposing to promulgate a
new rule — a new prohibition with respect to hazardous constituents in
ICR wastes and decharacterized ICR wastes. The language of RCRA allows
EPA in this case to establish a different "effective date," expiring two
years after the promulgation of this new rule. Of course, a
case-by-case extension would also be applicable.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter.
Comment:
A5-34
TTCA-00028
Environmental Defense Fund
p. 4
2. "Good Housekeeping" Cannot Substitute for Application of Land
Disposal Restrictions, Though Use of Case-By-Case Extensions
May Be Appropriate.
Section III.E.4 of EPA's supplement contains a mixture of very good
and very bad Ideas. On the one hand. EDF strongly supports the concept
of considering "engineering solutions" as a means of satisfying the
conditions for a case-by-case capacity extension — If, and only if. the
applicant submits a binding contractual commitment to (1) undertake an
appropriate toxics-reduction audit and (II) implement the findings of that
audit See Notice, p. 31. Such an approach fits both the spirit and the
letter of RCRA and the CWM decision.
-------
Docket Number:
Commenter:
Comment:
A5-35
TTCA-00029
Department of Energy
p. 25
Bans fix Variance
£ts on whether a
Bay be legally granted
protribctico. EPAaho
thit the court's opinion cuuslitutea • :
arts oo how, ff« national capacity variance ii predoded, the heritable delays
b changes in watte Bianagrarnt practice* forced by the court'* ma
A that implementation of the court's opinion wfll almost certainly create
of treatment capacity. DOE would support the argument that the court's
s prohibition on land disposal of ICR wastes to the undertyinfbazardous
echaracterized ICR wastes, constitutes a "new prohibition' (for purposes of
a nationwide basis). This would seem to be a reasonable argument since
ofore regulated under the LDR requirements are being brought into the
ore, DOE urges EPA to grant a two-year national capacity variance,
stive date of the court's mandate. If national capacity variances are
duded, EPA may want to consider approving generic case-by-case capacity
ic approach taken relative to hazardous debris (57 FR 20766; May 15,1992)
trd hazardous sofls (57 FR 47772: October 20.1992).
?A to issue a two-year national capacity variance, the Department would like
years Ekdy win not provide adequate time for the regulated community to
jatity for m»n»png all of the wastes that the court's opinion wfll bring into
n addition, for Federal facilities subject to the Federal budgetary process, it
Tease waste management capacity within such a short time frame.
-------
A5-36
Docket Number: TTCA-00051
Commenter: DuPont
Comment: P- l5
National Capacity Variance
At the very least, EPA should adopt a "national capacity variance" granting a two-year exemption from
complying with any regulatory program the Agency adopts via emergency rules. As indicated above,
DuPont does not have the ability to comply with some pretreatment standard, off-site treatment
requirement or pre-approved "no migration" petition requirement in The short term. Significant
economic harm will result to DuPont onle<$ the Agency provides a reasonable amount of time to
comply with whatever standards it devises to respond to the Court's decision. .
DuPont contends that EPA is fully within its purview to grant a "two year" national capacity variance
for the formerly characteristic ICR wastes that are now being subjected to land disposal restriction
standards. The Court's decision resulted in a new conceptual consideration of these decharacterized
wastes and this constitutes, in DuPont's view, a "newly identified" waste. For such newly identified
wastes, a two-year national capacity variance, followed by potential case-by-case extensions, are
justified thus providing needed exemptions to the applicability of any land disposal restriction
standards adopted for these waste streams. Such a variance, unless EPA adopts some other
mechanism to delay the applicability of these land disposal restriction standards, should at least take
effect upon the date of any EPA emergency rules impacting these wastes. To do otherwise would, we
believe, be irresponsible of the Agency. No one, particularly the Agency, viewed these wastes die
way the Court has now interpreted the statute. Through no fault of DuPont's, we are faced with
potential process shut downs or massive unjustified costs, to comply with what is a totally new view
of the requirements for decharactcrired wastes. Time to comply with EPA's regulatory program is
essential
-------
A5-37
Docket Number: TTCA-L0002
Commenter: Ethyl Corporation
Comment: p. 10
The Agency ham already identified one regulatory option that
could be used to allow operator* at least some opportunity to
achieve compliance with any new treatment requirements: the
Agency could grant a national capacity variance postponing the
effect of the new requirements pursuant to RCRA $3004(h)(2), 42
U.S.C. S6924(h)(2). The legal and technical basis for such a
capacity variance is discussed in separate comments filed by GKA
and by the CMA Underground Injection Control Group, and those
comments' are incorporated by reference here. A* explained in
those comments, it is clear that EPA has the authority to grant <
capacity variance of up to two years from the date that new
treatment requirements are promulgated.
•
There is no question that a national capacity variance is
varran''*d on the merits. At 10 million gallons per day,-the
spent-brine from Ethyl's Magnolia, AR facilities alone represents
15 million tons per years of wastewaters that could be affected
by new treatment requirements. As this brine .is neutralized on-
site, Ethyl has never reported this brine on its Biennial
Hazardous Waste Report. EPA indicates several industry contacts
have reported that waste streams that are rendered nonhazardous
shortly after generation frequently are not reported in biennial
reports. Therefore, EPA's estimate of the volume of waste that
would be affected by new treatment requirements is low.
-------
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATION OF AFFECTED CLASS V
INJECTION WELLS
-------
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATION OF AFFECTED CLASS V INJECTION WELLS
This appendix presents the methodology, data sources, assumptions, and results of
the estimation of quantities of waste and number of facilities potentially impacted by the
emergency rule.
1. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING WASTE QUANTITIES
The Class V well wastes affected by the emergency rule are "deactivated 1C wastes
from large quantity generators (LQGs) managed in Class V wells that contain
constituents above F039 levels". The methodology used in this analysis consists
essentially of five steps.
Step 1: Estimate quantities of industrial wastes in Class V wells;
Step 2: Estimate quantities of deactivated ignitable and corrosive (1C)
wastes injected in Class V wells;
Step 3: Estimate the proportion of wastes from LQGs managed in Class V
wells; and
Step 4: Estimate the proportion of deactivated 1C wastes that are likely to
exceed F039 standards.
Step 1: Quantities of Industrfol_JWastes in Class V Wells
Based on data developed by EPA's Office of Water for an upcoming rulemaking
on Class V injection wells, EPA estimated the total quantity of industrial wastes injected
in these wells. Table B-l provides a summary of how this quantity was derived.
Based on the assumptions of the number if industrial Class V waste disposal wells
and of weekly disposal rates, we estimate that a total of 7.6 million tons of wastes are
disposed annually in Class V industrial wells.
-------
B-2
Table B-l
Disposal Rates for Potentially Affected Class V Injection Wells - All Waste
Category of Wells
Low Volume
Industrial
Waste Disposal
Wells
High Volume
Industrial Disposal
Wells
Total
Number of Wells
150,000
25,000
25,000
200,000
Model Well Weekly
Disposal Rate
(gallons/week)
35
200
1.000
Annual Disposal
Rate
(tons/year)
1.1 million
1.1 million
5.4 million
7.6 million
Step 2: Deactivated 1C Wastes in Class V Wells
There is very sparse data on the origin and content of wastes injected in Class V
wells. The emergency rule applies to deactivated 1C wastes that are discharged in
systems that are not regulated under CWA or SDWA. To estimate the proportion of .
deactivated 1C wastes managed in Class V wells, the Agency estimated the proportion of
1C wastes in relation to all wastes. To do so, EPA used (1) the percentage of hazardous
wastes that is characteristic only, and (2) the proportion of characteristic wastes that are
D001 or D002. EPA assumed that characteristic wastes mixed with listed wastes would
have to be treated to meet the BDAT requirement for the listed wastes and could not
simply be deactivated. In addition, because deactivated characteristic wastes are often
considered non-hazardous soon after generation and not reported, EPA assumed that 1.5
percent of all non-hazardous wastes injected in Class V wells are unreported deactivated
1C wastes. Table B-2 presents the derivation of the adjustment factor used to estimate
the proportion of deactivated 1C wastes.
-------
B-3
Table B-2
Adjustment Factor for Deactivated 1C Wastes
Percentage of
Hazardous Waste
that is
Characteristic
Only2/
17 percent
Percentage of
Characteristic
Waste that is D001
or D002 Onlyb/
21 percent
Adjustment Factor
for Unreported
Deactivated 1C
Wastes
1.5 percent
Deactivated 1C
Wastes as a
Proportion of Non-
Hazardous Wastes
5 percentc/
a/ Percentage of hazardous waste that is characteristic only is taken from 19S9 BRS
Summary Report. February 1993, p. 2-16.
b/ Percentage of characteristic waste that is D001 and D002 only is taken from RIA
of Third Third LDRs. April 25, 1990, p. 3-10.
c/ Calculated as: (17% x 21%) + 1.5% = 5%
Thus, EPA assumed that 5 percent of all non-hazardous wastes injected in Class V
wells are deactivated 1C wastes. Therefore, the quantity of deactivated 1C wastes
injected in Class V wells is assumed to be 380,000 tonsfyear (7.6 million tons x .05).
Estimation of the Proportion of Wastes from LQGs Managed in
Class V Wells
Most of the facilities that manage non-hazardous wastes in Class V wells are small
quantity generators (SQGs) that are not affected by this rule. Affected facilities are large
quantity generators (LQGs) that manage deactivated 1C wastes that contain constituents
above F039 levels in Class V injection wells.
EPA used a two-step process to estimate the number of Large Quantity
Generators (LQGs) with Class V wells potentially affected by the-emergency rule. In
Step 1, EPA assumed that low volume industrial Class V wells would be operated by
SQGs and that these wells would not be impacted by this rule. In Step 2, EPA estimated
the proportion of high volume industrial wells from large quantity generators (LQGs).
(1) Exclusion of Low Vojume Industrial Class V Wells. The Agency assumed
that low volume industrial wells are from facilities that are likely to be
SQGs (based on the SIC codes of facilities with such wells). By subtracting
-------
B-4
the overall quantity of wastes from low volume wells (1.1 million tons),
EPA estimates that 325,000 tons (6.5 million x .05) of deactivated 1C wastes
may be from LQGs.
(2) Proportion of High Volume Industrial Wells from LQGs. In order to
estimate the number of high volume Class V wells from LQGs, EPA
assumed that there is a strong correlation between the size of a facility and
the quantity of hazardous waste it generates. EPA identified the top 5 SIC
codes by number of wells in high volume industrial well category. For
those SIC codes1, EPA used the 1982 Census of Manufacturers to
determine the proportion of establishments with 50 or more employees
(i.e., "large-size companies") to the total number of establishments. EPA
then applied that percentage to the number of high volume Class V wells
in each of the five SIC codes to estimate the number of those wells that are
located in large-size companies, and therefore, by assumption, in LQGs.
Finally, EPA added the totals for each SIC code and weighted the result to
reflect the fact .that those 5 SIC codes accounted for only 81% of the total
number of Class V high volume wells. Using this method, EPA estimated
that 9,100 Class V wells (approximately 18 percent) are LQGs.
Applying this percentage (18 percent) to the quantity calculated in (1), EPA
estimates that approximately 60,000 tons of deactivated 1C wastes managed in Class V
wells are generated by LQGs.
Other estimates confirm that the relative quantity of wastes managed by small vs.
large quantity generators ranges from 80 to 90 percent. These estimates are consistent
with the proportions assumed in this analysis.
Step 4 Proportion of Deactivated1C Wastes Above F039 Levels
The final adjustment factor in estimating affected quantities is the proportion of
deactivated 1C wastes that contain constituents above F039 levels. Because Class V wells
are non-hazardous wells, the wastes they receive must be below certain maximum
contaminant limits for non-hazardous systems. The likelihood that Class V well
constituents are above F039 levels depends on the difference between acceptable
constituent levels in non-hazardous systems and F039 levels for specific constituents.
EPA compared F039 levels for wastewaters with maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
and water action levels for corrective action. The Agency then estimated the frequency
with which the MCL or the water action level exceeds F039 levels for various
constituents. EPA is using this proportion as a proxy for the probability that deactivated
1 The top five SIC codes by number of wells for Class V high volume wells arc: SIC 30 (rubber and
miscellaneous plastics products); SIC 34 (fabricated metal products): SIC 35 (machinery, except electrical);
SIC 36 (electric and electronic equipment); and SIC 37 (transportation equipment).
-------
B-5
1C wastes in Class V wells contain constituents above F039 levels. This is a conservative
assumption because many constituents in Class V wells are well below their MCLs.
Using this methodology, the Agency estimated that 25% of deactivated 1C wastes injected
in Class V wells will require treatment as a result of this rule.
To summarize, EPA calculated the affected quantity of wastes from Class V wells
using the following equation:
Affected Quantity = (Quantity of industrial waste in Class V wells - Quantity from
low volume wells) x (Proportion of deactivated 1C wastes) x (Proportion of waste
from LQGs) x (Proportion of deactivated 1C wastes above F039 levels)
Therefore, we estimated the total affected annual quantity to be:
(7.6 million tons - 1.1 million tons) x .05 x .18 x .25 = 15,000 tons.
2. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING AFFECTED FACILITIES
In an information synthesis, EPA used two separate methodologies to estimate the
number of facilities potentially affected by the rule. The first methodology is similar to
that used to estimate quantities. The second methodology relied on contacts with state
and regional water regulatory offices from around the country.
Method 1
The first method used to estimate affected facilities follows closely the
methodology used for affected quantities presented in Section 1 above. The method
consisted of four steps:
• Step 1: Estimate the number of Class V industrial wells;
• Step 2: Estimate the number of LQGs with Class V wells;
• Step 3: Estimate the proportion of LQGs receiving deactivated 1C wastes;
and
• Step 4: Estimate the proportion of deactivated 1C wastes above F039 levels.
In Step 1, EPA estimated that there may be up to 200,000 industrial Class V wells.
Of these, approximately 150,000 wells are low volume wells that are assumed to
be operated by SQGs.
In Step 2, EPA estimates that 50,000 high volume Class V wells may be impacted
by this rule. As described in Step in Step 3 of the previous section. EPA
estimated that 9,100 (18.2 percent) affected Class V wells are operated by LQGs
and are potentially affected.
-------
B-6
In Step 3, the proportion of LQGs receiving deactivated 1C wastes was assumed to
be directly related to the proportion of deactivated 1C wastes vs. all wastes
estimated above (i.e., 5 percent).
Finally, in Step 4, EPA used the estimate of 25 percent presented in Section 1 for
the proportion of 1C wastes above F039 levels.
Thus, the total number of affected Class V wells is computed as:
(200,000 wells - 150,000 low volume wells) x .182 x .05 x .25 = 114 wells
The methodology described above may result in conservative estimates of the
quantities and number of wells affected because this rule arguably would not affect
CWA-equivalent systems in which 1C wastes are pre-treated prior to injection.
In Method 2. EPA relied on contacts with regional and state officials. Following
discussions with these officials, EPA has determined that the types of Class V industrial
wells that may be impacted by this rule are:
• Industrial process water and waste disposal wells that are used to dispose
of a wide variety of wastes and wastewaters from industrial, commercial, or
utility processes. Industries include refineries, chemical plants,
pharmaceutical plants, laundromats and dry cleaners, tanneries,
laboratories, petroleum storage facilities, electric power generation plants,
car washes, electroplating industries; and
• Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells that inject-wastes from repair
bay drains at service stations, garages, car dealerships, etc.
However, the Agency believes that many of these facilities are either Small
Quantity Generators (SQGs), or generate 1C wastes from de minimi's losses of ignitable
or corrosive products, as described in this rule, or treat their wastes in CWA-equivalent
systems before permanent disposal, and are therefore not covered by this rule. Based on
contacts with regional and state officials, EPA estimates that fewer than 100 facilities
with Class V wells may be impacted. These include primarily wastes from industrial
facilities that are not treated prior to injection, and wastes from large repair/maintenance
facilities.
The estimate of 114 wells affected derived from Method 1 and of fewer than 100
affected facilities estimated in Method 2 confirm each other assuming that, on average,
LQGs operating Class V wells have more than one well per facility.
------- |