United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-97-043
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB97-177 547
Agency (5305W) February 1996
&EPA Response to Capacity-
Related Comments
Received on the
Phase III Land Disposal
Restrictions Proposed
Rulemaking
Printed on paper that contains at lest 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i 1. Report No.
PAGE |
I EPA530-R-97-043
4, Title and Subtitle
RESPONSE TO CAPACITY-RELATED COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED RULEMAKING
15. Report Date
I February 1996
I
7. Authors)
8, Performing Organization RepL No.
. L
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
10. Project/Task/WorkUnitNo.
|11. Contract © or Grant (G) No.
1(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
| 13. Type of Report & Period Covered
I TECHNICAL REPORT
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
SUMMARIZES AND RESPONDS TO COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE WASTES IN PHASE III OF THE LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS PROGRAM. RESPONDS TO COMMENTS RELATED TO REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE TREATMENT CAPACITY FOR DEGHARACTERIZED
WASTEWATERS, CARBAMATE AND ORGANOBROMINE WASTES, AND SPENT POTLINERS; PROPOSED TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR WASTES THAT ARE
MANAGED IN CLEAN WATER ACT, SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, OR CLEAN WATER ACT-EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS, CARBAMATE PRODUCTION WASTES,
ORGANOBROMINE PRODUCTION WASTES, SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES MIXED WITH NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED
WASTES. SUMMARIZES EACH PERTINENT COMMENT AND INCLUDES A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE COMMENTER'S LETTER.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identificrs/Open-Ended Terms
e.COSATI Field Group
18. Availability Statement
119. Security Class (This Report) 121. No. of Pages
| UNCLASSIFIED |
RELEASE UNLIMITED
120. Security Class (This Page) 122. Price
| UNCLASSIFIED |
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
-------
RESPONSE TO CAPACITY-RELATED COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
THE PHASE III LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
PROPOSED RULEMAKING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction : 1-1
Chapter 2: Available Capacity , 2-1
2.1 Combustion Capacity Methodology 2-1
2.2 Assessment of Available Capacity for K088 Wastes 2-4
Chapter 3: ICR and TC Wastes 3-1
3.1 Additional Industries Should Be Included in the Capacity Analysis 3-1
3.2 Using the Current Definition of "Point of Generation" While Applying
the Phase III LDR Rule Will Burden the Industries Unnecessarily 3-5
3.3 Stormwater Impoundments Should Be Excluded From the
Phase III LDR Rule 3-50
3.4 Are Land-Based Units Other Than Surface Impoundments (e.g., Sumps,
Sewers, Trenches etc.) Also Affected By the Phase III LDR Rule? 3-82
3.5 MTR Requirements for Wastes Under Variance 3-100
3.6 Logistics 3-108
3.7 Variance Determination 3-118
Chapter 4: Newly Listed Wastes 4-1
4.1 Carbamates ... .: 4-1
4.2 Spent Aluminum Potliners 4-7
Chapter 5: Mixed Wastes 5-1
-------
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
In the March 2, 1995 proposed rule for Land Disposal Restrictions - Phase III:
Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners (60
FR 11702), EPA proposed treatment standards ICR and TC wastes that are managed in CWA,
SDWA, or CWA-equivalent systems, carbamate production wastes (K156-161, P127-128, P185,
P188-192, P194, P196-199, P201-205, U271, U277-280, U364-367, U372-373, U375-379, U381-387,
U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411), organobromine production wastes (K140, U408)1, spent
aluminum potliners (K088), and radioactive wastes mixed with these newly listed and identified
wastes,
EPA received 148 comment letters on the proposed rule. This document summarizes
those comments received in response to the proposed rule that are related to required and
available treatment capacity. Each salient comment that was directly related to capacity issues2 is
represented in two ways: (1) in summary form, and (2) verbatim, i.e., a photocopy of the relevant
portion on the commenter's comment letter. This document also provides EPA's responses to
capacity-related comments. The source for each comment represented is indicated by the
comment number followed by the page(s) of the letter on which the comment appears.
The following table provides the name and number of all comments received in response
to the proposed rule.
lrThese wastes are not included in the final rule. LDR standards for the organobromine wastes will be
finalized at the same time as the hazardous waste listing is finalized.
2This document only addresses capacity-related comments for surface-disposed wastes. EPA's
responses to other comments can be found in other Response to Comments documents included in the
docket for the final rule.
-------
Commenters to the Phase III Rule
Comment
Number
Name
1
American Foundrymen's Society, Inc.
2
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3
Crossroads Enviro Corporation
4
Tanoak Enterprises Inc.
5
United Steelworkers of America
6
Entergy Corporation
7
Sun Company, Inc.
8
Fort Howard Corporation
9
CyanoKEM Inc.
10
NIBCO Inc.
11
AlliedSignal Inc.
12
Florida Power & Light Company
13
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation
14
Reynolds 'Metals Company
15
Duke Power Company
16
Zeneca Incorporated
17
The TDJ Group, Inc.
18
Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc.
19
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
20
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
21
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
22
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
23
Mobil Oil Corporation
24
Monsanto Company
25
Coastal Corporation
26
The Valvoline Company
1-2
-------
Comment
Number
Name
27
BP Oil Co.
28
Eastman Kodak Company
29
Ausmelt Technology Corporation
30
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
31
Phelps Dodge Corporation
32
Rohm and Haas Company
33
Rhone Poulenc
34
Alumax Inc.
35
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association
36
The Fertilizer Institute
37
Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
38
Dithocarbamate Task Force
39
Antifreeze Coalition
40
American Foundiymen's Society, Inc.
41
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
42
American Petroleum Institute .
43
Marine Shale Processors, Inc.
44
The City of Hopewell, Virginia
45
General Electric Company
46
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, the Edison Electric Institute, the American
Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association
47
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
48
Specialty Steel Industry of North America
49
Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
50
Steel Structures Painting Council
51
RMT, Inc.
-------
Comment
Number
Name
52
Department of Energy
53
Ausmelt Technology Corporation
54
American Forest & Paper Association
55
Comalco Aluminum, Ltd.
56
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
57
International Business Machines Corporation
58
Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc.
59
ASARCO Incorporated
60
National Petroleum Refiners Association
'61
The Aluminum Association
62
Southwire Corporation
63
Southwire Corporation
64
Union Electric Company
65
Illinois Power Company
66
Chemical Manufacturers Association
67
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
68
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation
69
Environmental Technology Council
70
Chemical Manufacturers Association's Underground Injection Control Task
Group
71
Jan Dixon
72
Northeast Utilities Service Company
73
Eli Lilly and Company
74
Safety-Kleen Corp.
75
American Airlines, Inc.
76
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
77
Merck & Co., Inc.
1-4
-------
Comment
Number
Name
78
BP Chemicals
79
Enviroscience, Inc.
80
American Wood Preservers Institute
81
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
82
Exxon Chemical Americas
83
Cytec Industries, Inc.
84
Albemarle Corporation
85
Salt River Project
86
Heritage Environmental Services, Inc.
87
Chevron
88
FMC Corporation
89
ICI Explosives Environmental Company
90
Texaco Inc.
91
Phillips Petroleum Company
92
Eastman Chemical Company
93
Zinc Corporation of America and Horsehead Resource Development Company,
Inc.
94
PPG Industries, Inc.
95
Union Carbide Corporation
96
Dow Chemical Company
97
Specialty Steel Industry of North America
98
Department of the Navy
99
Occidental Chemical Corporation
100
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
101
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
102
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
103
ARCO Chemical Company
1-5
-------
Comment
Number
Name
104
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Center
of Expertise
105
Non-Ferrous Founders' Society
106
Zeneca, Inc.
107
GPU Nuclear Corporation
108
GMD Environmental Systems, Inc.
109
United States Enrichment Corp.
110
Albright & Wilson Americas, Inc.
111
Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company
112
State of Washington, Department of Ecology
113
Barnard Environmental, Inc.
114
South Carolina Chamber of Commerce
115
Detroit Edison Company .
116
Ford Motor Company
117
Union Camp Corporation
118
American Iron and Steel Institute
119
International Specialty Products Inc.
120
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste Management
Program
121
Cyprus AMAX Minerals Company
122
Pennsylvania Electric Company
123
Chesapeake Specialty Products
124
DuPont
125
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc.
126
General Motors Corporation
127
Central Louisiana Electric Company
128
State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
129
Colonial Pipeline Company
1-6
-------
Comment
Number
Name
LI
EnviroSource Treatment and Disposal Services, Inc.
12
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
L3
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
L4
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers t)f America
L5
The Boeing Company
L6
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
L7
Aluminum Company of America
L8
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
L9
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines
L10
Borden, Inc.
Lll
Magma Copper Company
L12
State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality - Hazardous Waste
Division
L13
National Automotive Radiator Service Association
L14
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
L15
Reynolds Metals Company
L16
Chemical Manufacturers Association
LI 7
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
L18
Strategic Environmental Analysis, Inc.
L19
Eastman Chemical Company
1-7
-------
CHAPTER 2:
AVAILABLE CAPACITY
In order to determine whether to grant a capacity variance for hazardous wastes covered
by this rule, EPA must determine whether available treatment capacity meets or exceeds the
required off-site commercial treatment capacity. The analysis conducted to determine available
commercial treatment capacity focuses on treatment capacity projected to be available for the two
years that follow promulgation of the LDR rule (i.e., the national capacity variance "window").
EPA analyzed available commercial capacity for alternative treatment technologies capable of
meeting the LDR treatment standards. This capacity analysis generally included estimating the
maximum or design capacity for appropriate waste management systems and the amount of waste
currently going to these systems (utilized capacity). Available capacity was estimated as the
difference between maximum and utilized capacity. For today's rule, EPA analyzed commercial
capacity for wastewater treatment systems, hazardous waste combustion (including incineration
and reuse as fuel), and stabilization. Commenters addressed two aspects of EPA's available
capacity estimate:
* Combustion Capacity Methodology; and
* Assessment of Available Capacity for K088 Wastes.
2.1 Combustion Capacity Methodology
Summary:
One commenter, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, stated its support for EPA's
methodology in estimating available combustion capacity. (66-pp.36-37)
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenter's support.
Comment:
Chemical Manufacturers Association (66-pp.36-37)
-------
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment Number: 66
Page Number: 36
d. CMA supports EPA's effort to accurately estimate
commercial combustion capacity.
The Background Document for Capacity Analysis states that commercial facilities
sometimes report capacities for individual waste forms that exceed what the facility could
2-2
-------
Coramenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment Number: 66
Page Number: 37
practically accommodate. Short of obtaining better data, CMA supports fee reasonable
methods used by EPA to arrive at practical available capacity estimates.
-------
2.2
Assessment of Available Capacity for K0S8 Wastes
Seven commenters address EPA's assessment of the available treatment capacity for K088
wastes: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company (22 and 81 - identical); Ausmelt Technology
Corporation (29 and 53 - identical); Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia
Falls Aluminum Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (collectively "the Companies")
(37); Ormet Primary Aluminum Company (67); Ravenswood Aluminum Company (68); Barnard
Environmental, Inc. (113), and Reynolds Metal Company (L15). These comments deal with three
major issues:
* Disagreement with EPA's assessment of available K088 treatment capacity;
• Agreement with EPA's assessment of available K088 treatment capacity; and
* Recycling technologies for K088.
2.2.1 Disagreement With EPA's Assessment of Available K088 Treatment Capacity
Summary:
Three commenters disagree with EPA's assessment of the available capacity for K088
wastes. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company believes that cement kilns should not be used in
the assessment of available capacity because it is inappropriate for EPA to assume that cement
kilns will be utilized at the same rate as they have been in the past or that they can accept an
additional volume of potliners. In addition, Kaiser states that EPA's background documentation
indicates that cement kilns cannot meet the standards for either fluoride or cyanide, and that
therefore combustion is not a demonstrated technology. (22-p.l5) "The Companies" state that the
capacity of the Reynolds' Gum Springs facility should be 105,000 tons based on the delisting
restrictions. In addition, the actual capacity of the system will be less because of verification tests
and downtime greater than 15% (the amount of downtime currently assumed) and that the
capacity analysis should have considered the capacity for disposal of residues from the Gum
Springs facility. (37-pp.l3,14) Ravenswood Aluminum Company believes that the capacity of the
Reynolds' Gum Springs facility should be 105,000 tons based on the delisting restrictions. (68-
PP-3,5)
Response:
EPA's assessment of treatment capacity for K088 wastes is based on data submitted by
cement kilns, incinerators, and Reynolds on both the availability of capacity and the ability to treat
K088 wastes. Reynolds has confirmed that it can treat 121,500 tons of K088 a year and meet the
delisting criteria (see section 2.2.2 below). In addition, Reynolds states that it has a Class III
permitted landfill on site to accept the residues from its process. (See the final capacity analysis
background document for a more detailed discussion.)
Comments:
• Kaiser Aluminum (22-p.l5)
• Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (37-pp.l3,14)
* Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation (68-pp.3,5)
2-4
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company
22
15
EPA's initial determination that adequate capacity now exists is also based in part on the
indusion of cement lrilns as an alternative disposal option. Due to their size and available
temperature, cemet kilns are much in demand with many industries other than the aluminum
industry. It is inappropriate to assume that cement kilns may continue to be utilized at the same
rate they have been in the past or can accept an additional volume of potliners. In addition,
EPA's background documentation to this rulemaking indicates that EPA's test bum results are
cement kilns cannot meet either fluoride or amenable cyanide criteria; combustion capacity is
thus not demonstrated.
2-5
-------
Commenter: Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls
Aluminum Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number: 37
Page Number: 13
First, the Reynolds capacity is limited by the requirements
placed on the facility by EPA as part of the delisting decision.
According to the information in the Federal Register notice, 56
Fed. Reg. 32993 et seq. {July 18, 1991), the Reynolds facility is
limited to 300,100 tons of throughput per year. This limit
appears in the conditions to the final exclusion found at 56 Fed.
Reg. 67207 (Dec. 30, 1991). However, in the Reynolds process,
the SPL is mixed with other feed materials to ensure proper
operation of the rotary kiln. Thus, there is a limit on SPL
processed to no more than 35% of the kiln feed. This results in
a maximum annual capacity of 105,000 tons of SPL which can be
processed under the current EPA-required conditions. This alone
converts the excess capacity of 2,000 tons found by EPA to a
capacity shortfall of 13,000 tons.
A second problem with the EPA calculation is that it ignores
Murphy's Law. In the Reynolds facility, even after a company's
SPL has passed the verification tests," each batch run through
the kiln is subject to verification tests. In order that none of
the residual material (now three times the volume of the original
waste SPL) is improperly disposed of on land, any batch not
passing the tests must of necessity be reprocessed until it meets
the delisting criteria. Since each such batch is, in effect, the
equivalent of three days' volume, each failed batch takes away
that much capacity. However, in calculating the capacity of the
Reynolds facility, EPA assumed operation at' 24 hours per day,
every day, with only 15% downtime for kiln downtime.17 Thus,
even if the downtime estimate is accurate, there is no factor to
adjust for failed batches and the consequent loss of capacity
which results from reprocessing.
2-6
-------
Commenter: Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls
Aluminum Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number: 37
Page Number: 14
A further problem with the EPA capacity determination is
that it ignores the most prominent feature of the Reynolds rotary
kiln process-the generation of three times the volume of residual
materials needing land disposal. While it is true that the
material is delisted, and no longer requires land disposal in a
Subtitle C facility, it is equally true that such treatment and
disposal is the lowest-valued option of the treatment hierarchy.
This topic is discussed in more detail in Section 6 of these
comments. However, in any discussion of capacity issues, EPA
should at least ask whether Reynolds (or any nearby location) has
the capacity for disposal of 300,000 tons per year of kiln
residues. EPA should also discuss whether it might not be better
to consider as BDAT those processes which generate less, equally
harmless residue, and which are spread out in other parts of the
country.
i
2-7
-------
Commenter: Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation
Comment Number: 68
Page Number: 3
a. Insufficient Margin Exists Between Treatment
Capacity Assumed For The Gum Springs Facility
And Amount of K088 Waste Generated
The treatment capacity of the Gum Springs facility is approximately 120,OCX) tons per
year according to the Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions, Phase HI - Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes,
and Spent Potliner ("Capacity Background Document"). (While the total operating capacity is
300,000 tons per year, the delisting for treatment residues effectively limits the K088 content
of the treated waste to 120,000 tons per year. As explained later, however, the 120,000 tons
per year estimate is incorrect.) As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule granting the
delisting petition to the Gum Springs facility, this assumes an operation of two Wins with a feed
rate of 20 tons pa* hour, operation 24 hours per day, operation 365 days per year with 15
percent kiln downtime. See 56 Fed. Reg. 33005 (July 18, 1991). According to the Capacity
Background Document, the domestic aluminum industry generates approximately 118,000 tons
of K088 each year. Assuming that the 118,000 tons per year estimate is accurate, this leaves
less than two percent excess capacity. In other words, if the actual amount of K088 generated
exceeds the 118,000 tons per year estimate by two percent, the treatment capacity is insufficient.
2-8
-------
Commenter: Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation
Comment Number: 68
Page Number: • 5
C. EPA Has Overstated The Capacity Of
The Gym Springs Facility
According to the preamble to the proposed delisting rule for Reynolds' Gum Springs
technology, the maximum annual volume of material that can be processed by the facility is
300,000 tons per year. See 56 Fed. Reg. 33005 (July 18,1991). The effective treatment ratio
of spent potliner to this total amount is 30 percent, however. See 56 Fed. Reg. 33007. The
maximum ratio of spent potliner cannot exceed this effective treatment ratio by 5 percent. This
means that no more than 35 percent of the 300,000 tons of annual capacity can consist of spent
potliner. Based on these numbers, the maximum capacity of the Gum Springs facility is 105,000
tons per year, not 120,000 tons per year. Sufficient treatment capacity is therefore unavailable.
2-9
-------
2.2.2
Agreement With EPA's Assessment of Available K088 Treatment Capacity
Summary:
Two commenters agree with EPA's assessment of the available capacity for K088 wastes.
The Environmental Technology Council states that it believes that there is sufficient K088
treatment capacity at RCRA-permitted facilities. (69-p.l6) Reynolds Metal Company provides
additional data to support EPA's assessment that it can treat 121,500 tons of K.088 per year.
(L15-p.l,5)
Response;
EPA's acknowledges the commenters support and Reynolds' confirmation that it can treat
121,500 tons of K088 a year and meet the delisting criteria.
Comments:
• Environmental Technology Council (69-p.l6)
~ Reynolds Metals Company (L15-pp.l,5)
2-10
-------
Commenter: Environmental Technology Council
Comment Number: 69
Page Number: 16
The ETC believes that adequate treatment/recoveiy capacity for K088 potliners
currently exists at RCRA-permitted facilities, and that vendors of new technologies
should receive credited action on their RCRA permit applications. EPA should
develop a model RCRA permit for these emerging treatment/recoveiy technologies.
2-11
-------
Commenter: Reynolds Metals Company
Comment Number: L15
Page Number: 1
Royi»kbtotrcrtl21^toi«ofK0S8pecyeir, fkmmtfa^Twm&tmmrwfacwaci&
itxiumiB wlMi wpsbm 15% nwniail duwiiUmc foe nuinicmmso tad tccoucn foe >11 lit&xts gapotcd by
B^Ws«$eBi6iigsa4iaeddi9gpeRiilk taadfidkStR^iioMtlw filiated stops to modi^ilstir
penultwhichwo provide fas bmmi ROW wmam opacity to 132,000 wm ofRWI per ym.
necosanrytotmtiniJAgenetitedEDtt.
2-12
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Reynolds Metals Company
L15
5
REYNOLDS GUM SPRINGS PLANT CAPACITY STATISTICS
' !• CURRENT PBRMtT
LimMooi
2 kiim maximum (Misting rule)
Maximum annual capacity 300,000 cy (delisting rale, landfill penult)
Maximum % SPL in feed 35% (delisting n&*, air permit)
Minimum % SPL in feed 25% (air permit)
Maximum total kibi feed rate24 tpfa each (tir permit)
. Compacted tons per cy in landfill 1.49 (.67 cy per ton)
a) Aranial capacity limitations bued on delisting limit ©f300,000 eyaad
CSP landfill operating data indicating 1.49 torn par cy.
300,000 x 1.49 ¦ 441,000 tooi
b) Annual plant outpot at 24 tpb each kila, 2 kiln operation, 85% uptime on
idlaa, and 365 day par yaw operation.
24 tph x 2 kilos x .85 uptime x 24 hows/day x 30 days=357,000 tons per year
SPL capacity at 34% ot total food-.34 *357,000 tons per year.
-121,500 torn per year.
Therefore, total plant output, under tbtttated ccndMoot.il well within oar delist landfill
p«nit aod air penult limitations.
2-13
-------
2.2.3
Recycling Technologies for K088
Summary:
Three coram enters provided information about recycling technologies for K088. Ausmelt
Technology Corporation believes that EPA has mischaracterized its submerged lance technology
for recycling K088 wastes. The Ausmelt technology is not a pilot scale destruction/treatment
process, but is a proven and effective reclamation technology that can be used to recover
materials from spent potliners for further use. (29-pp.7-22) Ormet Primary Aluminum
Corporation has received confirmation from the Ohio EPA that its Vortec K088 recycling
technology is legitimate recycling. (67-pp.2,10-12) Barnard Environmental, Inc. states that it
intends to use the Terravit vitrification technology to recycle spent aluminum potliners into
beneficial glass products. (113-pp.l-4)
Response:
EPA acknowledges these comments. However, EPA has included in its capacity analysis
only those technologies which are currently accepting wastes for treatment.
Comments:
• .Ausmelt Technology Corporation (29-pp.7-22)'
• Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67-pp.2,10-12)
• Barnard Environmental, Inc. Environmental (113-pp.l-4)
2-14
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 7
development of technologies for the recovery and/or treatment of
metal-bearing wastes. Ausmelt has developed a submerged lance
technology that:-can be used for the reclamation and treatment of
spent aluminum pot liners. Ausmelt thus has a direct and
substantial interest in the Phase III proposed rule, which seeks to
establish treatment standards under the RCRA land disposal
restrictions program for spent aluminum potliners.
III. EPA Has Mischaracterized Ausmelt*s Technology
Ausmelt applauds the Agency's recognition of Ausmelt's
submerged lance technology as a potential method for recycling
spent aluminum potliner wastes. Ausmelt believes, however, that
EPA may have mischaracterized certain aspects of its submerged
lance technology. In particular, Ausmelt objects to the
characterization of its technology as mere pilot-scale
demonstrations. Ausmelt also believes EPA has failed to recognize
the reclamation aspect of its technology and thus has mistakenly
characterized the technology solely as a treatment process.
2-15
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 8
A. The Ausmelt Process Is Proves And Effective Technology
1. Overview Of The Ausmelt Process
Austnelt's technology has garnered significant attention
and praise and has been amply described in the technical
literature".34" In brief, the technology is a revolutionary
pyrometallurgical system originally developed for processing
metallurgical ores and concentrates. The process utilizes a
versatile bath smelting technology with applications in many waste
treatment and recovery fields at low capital and operating costs.
Heavy metals recovered from wastes by Ausmelt1s technology may be
recycled to mainstream uses. The slags and other residues
generated by the process are stable and suitable for use as
aggregate, shotolasting grit, or other applications.
' J.M. Floyd and D.S. Conochie. 1984. "Sirosmeh — the first ten years," Symposium on
Extractive Metallurgy, Melbourne, November 1984, pp. 1-8. (The Australasian Institute
on Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
4 B.W. Lightfoot and J.M. Floyd, 1985. "Chemical Optimisation of Smelting Processes,"
Smelting and Refining Operators Symposium, Townsville* May 27 - 31, 1985, pp. 69 - 76
(The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
B.W. lightfoot, K.R. Robilliard and R.W. Matusewiez, 1992, "Ausmeh Top Submerged
Lancing Technology for Smelting and Detoxification of Hazardous and Radioactive
Waste," Proceedings of the 1992 Incineration Conference, Albuquerque, May 11 - 15,
1992. (Ed ME Wacks) pp. 771 - 778, (University of California, Irvine, CA).
6 J.M. Floyd, W.E. Short and P. J. King, 1993, "Ausmeh Development of Submerged Lance
Technology," High Intensity Pyrometctfiwgy, London, The Geological Society.
-------
•Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 9
Ausmelt's technology
centers on a simple lance
through which process air and
fuel are delivered beneath the
surface of a liquid slag bath.
The steel lance is protected
from the furnace contents by a
coating of frozen slag which is
maintained by the cooling effect
of the combustion gases passing down the lance. The tip of the
lance is normally well below the static slag level of the furnace
contents, which results in the process gases being injected deeply
into the slag, creating very turbulent conditions in the bath.
These conditions promote high mass and energy transfer rates and
ensure the smelting capacity is high per unit volume of furnace
capacity.
The Ausmelt furnace is characterized by flexibility, ease
of operation, low capital and operating costs, and significant
environmental advantages. Fugitive off-gases and dust carry-over
2-17
Metal Tapbole
-------
Commenter: Ausmeit Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 10
are minimal and furnace conditions can be controlled to generate
slag products that pass the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure {TCLP5.
2. Ausmeit fs Technology Has Bees Successfully
Implemented In Several Countries And Applications
Ausmeit's technology has been applied successfully to
many processes(see following tables) , including zinc fuming from
slag, recovery of cobalt and platinum group metals from slags,
recovery of zinc from residues, slags and dusts, smelting and
processing complex ores and concentrates, steel plant dust
processing, zinc leach residue smelting, iron making, and nickel
laterite smelting. The process also has been applied for the
recovery of copper, nickel, lead, zinc, tin, and precious metals.
It also can recover metallurgical wastes such as leach residues,
blast furnace slags, emission control dusts, and, of particular
relevance here, spent aluminum potliners.
2-18
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 11
Table 1_- Commercial Applications of Ausmelt Technology
in Metal Production
'AJUUUUUUWUMaflWBM
StsiiiK^P^v^
Broken Hill Associated
Smelters, Australia __
Recovery of Silver
1,000
Operating since 1989
Metaleurope,
Nordenham, Germany
Production of lead
metal from secondary
lead materials and lead
concentrates
90,000
Under Construction
Funsur SA, Peru
Production of tin metal
from concentrates
30,000
Under Construction
Hindustan Copper,
India
Precious metals
recovery from anode
slimes
1,000
Under Construction
Stillwater Mining,
Montana, USA
Production of high
grade platinum matte
from ore
1,000
Under Construction
Tsumeb Corp, Namibia
Production of lead
metal from secondary
lead materials and lead
concentrates
120,000
Under Construction
2-19
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 12
Table 2 - Commercial Applications of Ausmelt Technology
in Waste Treatment
v
-------
Comraenter: Ausraelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 13
materials. In 1991 Korea Zinc commissioned Ausmelt to design
three furnaces at its Onsan plant. One 100,000 ton per year
Ausmelt furnace is attached to Korea Zinc's lead smelter and is
treating the slag for two purposes: (l) to recover the zinc and •
lead remaining in the slag (and, in so doing, render the slag
non-hazardous and suitable for sale to cement manufacturers) ,* and
(25 to enhance the total metal recovery capabilities of tlie "Korea
Zinc plant.
Heavy Metals Removal from Jarosite c Residues
A second smelter system has been designed for Korea
Zinc that will treat 120,000 tons per year of residues generated
by the existing zinc processing technologies at the plant.
Jarosites, primarily leach residues, goethite, and steel plant
dusts also can be treated in this smelter. Ausmelt's technology
offers an economical vehicle for treating these materials, not
only to recover metals values from them, but also to generate
non-hazardous slags and other residues.
Heavy Metal Removal from SAF Ousts
Ausmelt's technology can separate the toxic metals
2-21
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 14
found in electric arc furnace
-------
Commenler: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 15
currently involved in designing and constructing five smelters
around the world, all scheduled for commissioning in 1995. For
example, South Australia's Minister for Mines and Energy in
February announced plans for a demonstration pig-iron plant to .
precede at a full scale facility. Ausmelt's patented technology
will be utilized to produce the pig iron at the Arckaringa, South
Australia facility. Ausmelt also will build the 2 metric ton per
hour facility. The three-way joint venture also includes the
development of an integrated, conventional steel-making plant
utilizing the pig iron as a feedstock. Base-load power would
come from a cogeneration plant of Meekatharra Minerals Ltd.'s
Arckaringa Coal.
Ausmelt also will design a furnace system for Tsumeb
Corporation of Namibia to replace its existing sinter plant and
blast furnace operation, a key to the Tsumeb lead plant
modernization program.7 Implementation of Ausmelt's technology
at Tsumeb will enable continued lead production at the smelter
based on concentrates from various sources and secondary
materials from the Tsumeb copper smelter. Plant capacity will be
7 RWE Australian Business News, January18, 1995,
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation • •.
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 16
about 30,000 tons per year of lead, about half the design
capacity of the smelter plant blast furnace system it will
replace.
\
As part of a major expansion of its operations,
Stillwater Mining Co. (Nye, Montana) has selected Ausmelt to
design and supply a smelting furnace and lance system for its
smelter at Columbus, Montana.* Stillwater operates the only
platinum group, metals mine in North America and is to double its
daily ore processing capacity. The smelter produces a high-grade
matte which will eventually be refined using leaching to separate
copper and nickel from the platinum group mine facility. The
Ausmelt plant is expected to reduce unit costs at the smelter.
The contract was awarded following completion of a series of
pilot plant trials at Ausmelt's pilot unit located at the
Colorado Mineral Research Institute, Golden Colorado. In these
trials the system produced a barren slag and a high-grade matte.
Engineering is to begin this year and Ausmelt will also be
responsible for construction supervision, startup and training.
Smelting is scheduled to begin in October 1995.
8 The Mining Journal, January 13, 199§r^echnology Today Section.
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 17
Ausmelt was commissioned to install a smelter at the
Rio Tinto Empress nickel refinery. The smelter is now operating
above initial design rates. The technology will be part of
modernization at the 90,000 tons per year Metaleurop Weser Blei'
lead smelter at Nordenham, Germany. Ausmelt smelter technology
allows flexibility in raw material feeds plus compliance with
strict German environmental regulations governing emissions to
atmosphere, soil and water.
B. The Ausmelt Process Can Reclaim Materials
From Spent Potliners
EPA's description of the Ausmelt process, although
technically accurate, omits one important point: the process is
not solely a thermal destruction/treatment process,- it can
recover materials from spent potliners for further use. As noted
above, Ausmelt's pyrometallurgical process has been applied
successfully to many processes, including zinc fuming from slag,
recovery of cobalt and platinum group metals from slags, recovery
of zinc from residues, slags and dusts, smelting and processing
complex ores and concentrates, steel plant dust processing, zinc
leach residue smelting, iron making, and nickel laterite
smelting. The process also ha^^een applied for the recovery of
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation ,v. k,
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 18
copper, nickel, lead, zinc, tin, and precious metals. It also
can recover metallurgical wastes such as leach residues, blast
furnace slags, emission control dusts, and, of particular
relevance here, spent aluminum potliners.
Ausmelt has been working with Alcoa of Australia on
joint trials utilizing Ausmelt1s top submerged lance technology
to process spent potliners. In addition to destroying the toxic
organic constituents in the waste,' the process achieves a major
recovery goal. The process recovers slag based materials, and
fluorides, which may be reused in the aluminum smelting process.
The production of fluorides from the processing of
spent aluminum potliners clearly is a form of reclamation, and
should be recogriized by EPA as such. In fact, the Washington
State Department of Ecology has determined that a process that
recycles spent potliners into metal alloys, metal oxides, and
slag-based products, such as mineral wool fiber, is an exempt
2-26
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 19
recycling activity.9 Moreover, U.S. EPA Region IV lias determined
that such processes qualify for the metals reclamation exemption
under the BIF rule.10 Although these determinations are, of
course, site- and circumstance-specific, and recognizing that
each owner or operator of a facility must determine independently
whether the facility is conducting legitimate recycling, EPA
should acknowledge that such reclamation generally is considered
legitimate recycling. EPA also should correct its facts
regarding the reclamation potential of the Ausmelt process.
C. Ausmelt*s Technology las Distinct Advantages Over Other
Reclamation Or Treatment Processes
Ausmelt believes its submerged lance technology has
several distinct advantages over other spent potliner processing
technologies, including certain technologies listed by EPA in the
proposed Phase III rule. Comparisons may be made with
alternative technologies on two basic factors: the efficacy of
9 See letter from Thomas Eaton. Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction
Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, to Mr. Don Ryan, etal, February
15, 1994.
10 See letter from Joseph R Franzmathes, Director, Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA
Region IV, to Mr. C. Tom Phillipp. The exemption from the BIF standards for smelting,
melting, and refining furnaces is founjijf 40 C.F.R. Section 266.100(c).
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 20
the process and its cost.
Suspension smelting has been proposed and is in use for
several waste streams. There are three inherent disadvantages in
suspension smelting when compared with Ausmelt's bath smelting
technology. The.first disadvantage is that the reactions take
place as the feed material transits the flame zone; the process
thus is susceptible to fluctuations in feed rate and feed
quality. The second disadvantage is that the process will
inevitably generate a substantial quantity of dust during
smelting. This dust will contain hazardous constituents and also
will contaminate the oxide product, diluting the zinc and lead to
low levels. The third disadvantage to suspension smelting is
that the combustion and de-entrainment zones need to be so large
that the furnaces by necessity are quite large. The Ausmelt bath
smelting furnace is more compact, which provides several
advantages over suspension smelting. First, the small size of
the Ausmelt process makes it easier to contain the furnace gases.
Second, due to its smaller size, it is logistically easier to
operate.- The third advantage is that the smaller surface area
means that heat losses and fuel costs are lower.
2-28
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 21
Rotary kiln incineration historically has not been very
efficient at removing heavy metals from the feed stock. For
example, the slags produced from rotary incineration often fail
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure* (TCLP) due to
lead. Ausmelt's technology can easily separate lead from these
slags, guaranteeing that they pass the TCLP for lead.
Electric arc furnaces have been promoted as a
technology suitable for treatment of spent potliners and similar
wastes. There are, however, two disadvantages with this
technology. First, the method of removal of heavy metals is by
volatilization. For the metals to be removed from the slag a
sufficient quantity of gas thus must be available. In an
electric furnace the only route for exit of the metals is from
the surface of the slag. In a bath smelting system, such as
Ausmelt's, the injected gases provide a ready path for the
elimination of heavy metals. A second disadvantage with electric
arc furnaces is that mixing the slag in an electric furnace is
less efficient than in a bath smelter, which results in lower
overall reaction rates.
2-29
-------
Commenter: Ausmelt Technology Corporation
Comment Number: 29
Page Number: 22
Plasma furnace technology is excellent for applications
requiring high temperature and very strong reducing conditions.
In large applications, however, the extra complexity and cost of
plasma systems are not warranted, particularly in situations
where very high temperatures are not required. Moreover,
satisfactory operation of plasma systems is susceptible to
fluctuations in feed flow rate and composition. If either of
these parameters is off specification for the time that the
feedstock is moving through the reaction zone, part of the
product also may not meet specifications. Transferred arc plasma
systems are not suited to the removal of heavy metals from slags
and encapsulate metals rather than recovering them.
2-30
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
2
Ormet recently received confirmation from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio
EPA") that the technology it has developed with Voitec is legitimate recycling, and Oamet
has committed significant capital to bring the recycling facility into operation as expeditiously
as possible. The basic process has been described in previous communications with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA" or "EPA"), including written correspondence
in August 1994 (Attachment A to these comments). Ormet's completed construction
schedule of the recycling facility is Attachment B to these comments. Ohio EPA's recycling
determination is Attachment C to these comments.1
As discussed below, Ormet believes that in light of the ongoing development and imminent
implementation of recycling, as well as treatment, alternatives to that developed by Reynolds
Metals Company ("Reynolds") and the Aluminum Company of America ("ALCOA"), the
1 Ormet has also submitted a delisting petition to U.S. EPA regarding its recycled glass product to ensure
maximum flexibility in dealing with die glass product. Information submitted to support the delisting
petition and in correspondence to the Waste Management Division confirm among other things that the glass
product meets or exceeds the standards applied in granting the delisting petition of Reynolds Metals
Company for treatment of K088, See, 56 Fed. Ree. 67,197 (1991). Ormet has been advised that due to
budgetary constraints, U.S. EPA will not consider the pending delisting petition. Ormet intends to continue
to pursue the delisting unless and until the issue is rendered moot by other agency action. However, the
agency's consideration of K088 as inherently waste-like at the same time that it lacks the capability to
address the Ormet delisting petition highlights the need for a flexible approach to the regulation of spent
potliner. Unless there is flexibility in terms of timing and recognition of the limited hazard generally
associated with spent potliner, unwarranted regulation will result and a significant segment of the industry
will be placed at an unfair competitive disadvantage and there will be a chilling effect on efforts to develop
legitimate recycling.
2-31
-------
action was is response to the lack of other regulations on the burning of low-heating value
wastes to produce acid gas. (Wastes with high heating value are already regulated because,
in part, these wastes are burned for energy recovery. 55 Fed. Reg. at 17,864.)*
Furthermore, wastes burned in HAFs are some of the most toxic generated. 56 Fed. Reg. at
7141. K088 does not possess the high toxicity of such secondary materials.
C. Even If K088 Is listed As Inherently Waste-like, the Ormet Vortec Process
Should Be Exempted Because It Will Pose No Substantial Threat to Human
Health or the Environment.
Chemical analysis of Ormet's product clearly shows that it presents no threat to human health
or the environment. Ormet's recycling facility will be located on-site and use a closed feed
system. Therefore, there is no potential for harm from transportation or storage of Ormet's
K088. In this instance, listing K088 as inherently waste-like would actually increase the
transportation and storage risks because, for the near future, Ormet would have to ship its
wastes to the Reynolds/Alcoa Gum Springs, Arkansas facility.
Nor will the Ormet/Vortec process itself create any environmental or safety concerns. Air
emissions will be de minimis, consisting primarily of a minute amount of particulate, in the
form of silica and alumina, and fluoride that is not vitrified. As noted previously, these air
emissions will be effectively handled with existing technology. As with other similar
3 Regulating a material as inherently waste-like would be redundant where the material is
already regulated because it is burned for energy recovery, fias 52 Fed. Reg. 16,983,
17.091 ri9R7Y
-------
H^v-iinicsj uxiliCi. will UC iequiicu 1U uumn* Oil
-------
Commenter: Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
Comment Number: 67
Page Number: 12
on whether or not to list K088 as inherently waste-like should not change or upset the
specific decisions, past and pending, with respect to Onnet's facility.
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Barnard Environmental, Inc.
113
1
Barnard Environmental, Inc. (BARNARD) has obtained an option from Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories to license its Terravif* technology. BARNARD intends to use
this vitrification technology to recycle spent aluminum potliners into beneficial glass
products. Information on Terravif' and BARNARD'S project summary is enclosed. In
this process, spent aluminum potliners [K088] are used as an ingredient in the industrial
process. The process does not involve reclamation or recovery of distinct components.as
end products. Because the spent aluminum potliners are being used as feedstocks in a
production process, we believe that they do not meet the definition of a solid waste
pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2:
These activities ordinarily will not be considered to involve waste management
because they are like ordinary production operations or ordinary usage of
commercial products." (50 FR 619; January 4, 1985).
2-35
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Barnard Environmental, Inc.
113
2
BARNARD understands EPA's concerns that the spent aluminum potliners will be over-
accumulated or spilled or leaked before recycling occurs. We submit that our proposed
production practices mil use spent aluminum potliners as if they are commercial products.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has looked at this production
process favorably thus far and concurs with our regulatory interpretation. At the time of
this writing, BARNARD is working directly with Ecology representatives to develop
mutually agreeable ^ife handling methods for the spent aluminum potliners to ensure
adequate protection of human health and the environment We plan to schedule delivery of
the spent aluminum potliners to our glass making facility using a standard industrial "just in
time" approach: that is, we will schedule the shipment from the producers to our facility so
the spent aluminum potliners will routinely be processed within 24 hours of arrival.
As evidence of our commitment and as an added precaution, BARNARD will comply with
Ecology's requirements for the handling of recycled dangerous wastes (WAC 173-303-
120[4]); these requirements state that the recycling process is "generally subject to
regulation only up to and including storage prior to recycling". Ecology's requirements
include Required Notices, Security, General Inspection, Personnel Training, Preparedness
and Prevention, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, Emergencies, Facility
Recordkeeping, Facility Recording. This commitment to properly manage the spent
aluminum potliners will soon be formalized with Ecology in the Request for Recycling
Determination submittal to Ecology.
As stated previously, the process that will be undertaken by BARNARD uses spent
aluminum potliners as an ingredient and not a solid waste. Consequently, we strongly
disagree with U.S. EPA's consideration of designating spent aluminum potliners as
"inherently waste-like". Such a designation is in conflict with the existing regulations
governing secondary materials and their use. If spent aluminum potliners were regulated as
"inherently waste-like", recycling ventures such as ours would be severely curtailed; we
would probably not be willing to pursue a Part B Permit for this facility, given the extra
time and cost involved. Furthermore, an "inherently waste-like" determination for spent
aluminum potliners would likely forever end scientific research in innovative recycling
technologies to beneficially use the resources available in K088.
As in any traditional glass melter, Terravif" must use heat to vitrify raw materials to
2-36
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Earnard Environmental, Inc.
113
3
produce glass products that have a wide range of beneficial uses. Heat is not meant to
destroy the PAH or cyanide components; in fact, Terravif* uses these components in its
gta« mainng process. The constituents of spent aluminum potliners, including its
hazardous constituents, are very similar to the raw materials used in glass manufacturing.
For example, fluorides are used to make glass more durable (The Concise "Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology. Erk-Othmer, 1985)(e.g. Coming Ware?*); cyanide can be used as
a reducing agent to free up fluorine ions to react with Be+J and Al+3 to form BeF, and
AIFj which are typically used in manufactitrin^ to Incwaq* durability.
One of the products we expect to produce from the Terravif" process will be glass roofing
granules. These roofing granules could be applied to built-up roofs or asphalt shingles.
Although thie data are not yet available, we expect the glass roofing granules to be harder
than the typical gravel and slag used for roofing granules (as determined by using ASTM D
1865-89, Standard Test Method for Hardness of Mineral Aggregate Used on Built-Up
Roofs). This roofing material is more durable than traditional roofing granules.
Hie glass could also be made into ceramic roofing tiles that meet ASTM C 1167-92b,
Standard Specification for Clay Roof Tiles. These roofing tiles would be an effective
substitute for asphalt shingles. Spent aluminum potliners typically have concentrations of
PAHs in the parts per billion range while asphalt products including roofing shingles
commonly have PAHs in the parts per million or parts per thousand range. Contrary to the
assumption presented in 60 FR 11723, PAHs qts. found in raw materials or products for
which the glass/ceramic made from spent aluminum potliners would be substituting.
We understand that die designation of "inherently waste-like* is used for certain secondary
materials that are typically so dangerous that they should be regulated as solid wastes
regardless of how they are recycled. For example, EPA has designated certain dioxin-
containing wastes as "inherently waste-like". The current NIOSH and RTECS data on the
acute toxicity of cyanide, benzo(a)pyrenel benz(a)anthracene, and chrysene compared to
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin indicate a substantial difference, with dioxin repre-
senting a far more toxic compound. Furthermore, the bioaccumulation, biomagnification,
persistence, and bioavailability characteristics of dioxin are far more consequential than
either cyanide or PAHs, both of which are naturally occurring and degrade (albeit more
slowly for PAHs). We question the wisdom of adding cyanide and PAHs to EPA's
2-37
-------
Commenter: Barnard Environmental, Inc.
Comment Number: 113
Page Number: 4
"Inherently waste-like" category when an alternate means by which they can be regulated
exists. We understand that EPA's right to designate "inherently waste-like" materials
implies a discretional responsibility to properly manage wastes that represent a substantial
hazard to human health and the environment. Given the ubiquitous nature of PAHs and
cyanide, we believe using this important discretional authority is inappropriate.
The preamble also requests comments regarding the development of air emission standards
under the Clean Air Act as an alternative to die "inherently waste-like" designation. We
believe that this approach is by far a more appropriate means by which to maintain EPA's
authority and responsibility regarding the protection of human health and the environment
The purpose of the Clean Air Act is to control potential discharges to the air; EPA's
apparent concern is regarding die potential emissions from alternative processes that could
use the spent aluminum potliners. In our case, Ecology's air staff have already been
involved in the testing of this process and, depending cm air analytical results, could be
involved in permitting this process as an air source under the Operating Permit program.
In closing, we reiterate that BARNARD disagrees with the designation of spent aluminum
potliners as "inherently waste-like" because it would arbitrarily classify this material as a
solid waste regardless of whatever recycling processes are applied. We contend that if a
recycling process does not involve the generation of separate end products, the secondary
material is not a solid waste. Furthermore, the basis for this possible designation assumes
that target contaminants are not found in the raw materials or products for which the
potliner products are substituting. As indicated above, we believe that this is also a faulty
assumption.
2-38
-------
CHAPTER 3:
ICR AND TC WASTES
This rule establishes treatment standards for all ignitable, corrosive, and reactive (ICR)
wastes, organic toxicity characteristic (TC) wastes, and newly identified TC pesticide wastes
(collectively referred to as ICRT wastes) that are managed in: (1) wastewater treatment systems
that include surface impoundments and whose ultimate discharge is subject to CWA; (2) "zero-
dischargers" who, before land disposal of the wastewater, treat the wastewater in a CWA
equivalent system; or (3) Class I non-hazardous underground injection wells subject to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. Co mm enters
addressed seven issues related to the capacity analysis for these wastes:
• Additional Industries Should Be Included in Capacity Analysis;
• Using the Current Definition of "Point of Generation" While Applying the Phase
HI LDR Rule Will Burden the Industries Unnecessarily;
• Stormwater Impoundments Should Be Excluded From the Phase HI LDR Rule;
• Are Land-Based Units Other Than Surface Impoundments (e.g., Sumps, Sewers,
Trenches etc.) Also Affected By the Phase III LDR Rule?;
» MTR Requirements for Wastes Under Variance;
• Logistics; and
• Variance Determination.
3.1 Additional Industries Should Be Included in Capacity Analysis
Summary: '
Two commenters expressed concern that the capacity analysis performed for the proposed
Phase III LDR rule did not include a few industries that generate or manage decharacterized
ICRT wastewaters. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. pointed out that the preamble discussion
did not cover the operation of carbon regeneration units and recommended that EPA provide a
specific exemption for the spent activated carbon regeneration industry to ensure that this
industry continues service to treat hazardous waste without unnecessary and overly burdensome
regulatory requirements. (19-pp.l-2) Florida's Department of Environmental Protection noted
that EPA left non-manufacturing industries out of the capacity analysis discussion. (2-p.5)
Response:
EPA recognizes that the impact of the Phase III LDR rule will not be confined to the 16
industries that are defined in the Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions, Phase III - Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and
Spent Potliners, and that the number of affected industries and quantity of affected wastes may be
larger. Because EPA is granting a capacity variance for decharacterized ICRT wastewaters covered
in this rule, any additional quantities of affected wastes only confirm the need for a capacity
variance by all affected industries. Industries not covered in the capacity analysis background
document will also be impacted by the Phase III rule if ICRT wastewaters are generated and
managed in such a way as to trigger this rule. Thus, after the expiration of the capacity variance,
these wastes will have to meet LDR treatment standards.
-------
Comments:
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2-p.5)
• Elf Atochem North America, Inc. (19-pp.l-2)
3-2
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number.
Page Number:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2
5
Section IV D.pg. 11715 - Point of Generation
Tim regulated community includes solid waste treatment facilities and service industries as well as
manufacturers. You are leaving non-manufacturing facilities out of the discussion.
A lot of the steps proposed in this rale would be unnecessary if EPA would clear up some of their
current definitions and eliminate conflicting sfctfons of the rules.
It is sometimes difficult to ^iffrrwiriatc between that accumulate prior to treatment or
disposal and those that treat or dispose without accumulating. The provisions of262.10(b) and
3-3
-------
Commenter: Elf Atochem
Comment Number: 19
Page Number: 1 & 2
II. DISCUSSION
A. ThP Phase III LDR Rules Do Not Account For The Operation Of Carbon
Rftoaneration Units. And Should Provide for A Specific Exemption For
The Carbon Regeneration Industry
Atochem operates a spent activated carbon regeneration facility in Pryor,
Oklahoma* The Pryor plant receives spent activated carbon used by a variety of
industries as part of those industries' pollution control systems. Pryor then
regenerates the spent activated carbon for reuse through a process which includes a
rotary kiln. Thus, the Pryor plant performs an important and necessary function to
insure that spent activated carbon is treated by an environmentally beneficial method,
and provides a tremendous environmental protection benefit.
While the Pryor plant does not accept spent activated carbon regulated as
hazardous due to TCLP metals, it may receive spent activated carbon containing a
variety of organic hazardous constituents from formerly characteristic waste streams.
It is essential that EPA recognize that the application of any LOR rule to the carbon
regeneration industry that requires the tracking of hazardous constituents from all the
customers' ancestral waste streams is a tremendous, if not impossible, burden on the
industry. Moreover, this burden would not render any net environmental benefit
because the destruction efficiency of the rotary kiln regeneration process and
regulated controls adequately destroy organics regardless of ancestry, and the vast
majority of the spent activated carbon that is regenerated is sold as product rather
than being disposed of as in traditional waste treatment scenarios.
It is unlikely that the Agency considered the impact of the Phase III LDR
proposed rule on the spent carbon regeneration industry during the development of
the proposed rule, but it is essential that EPA do nothing to damage the spent carbon
regeneration operations as part of the Phase III LDR final rule. It is clear that the
Phase III LDR rules must take into account the unique characteristics of the spent
activated carbon regeneration industry, and adopt a program which makes logical
sense as applied to that industry. Thus, EPA should carve out the spent activated
carbon regeneration industry as a separate category in the final Phase III LDR to insure
that this vital industry continues to perform its very important and environmentally
beneficial service without unnecessary and overty burdensome regulatory
requirements.
3-4
-------
3.2 Using the Current Definition of "Point of Generation" (POG) While Applying the Phase
III LDR Rule Will Burden the Industries Unnecessarily
Summary:
Out of nearly 70 commenters who expressed their preference for a variety of alternative
POG definitions for attaching LDRs and other RCRA regulations, approximately 30 industrial
commenters addressed the general impact of the current POG definition on their operations.
These operations include oil recovery from water and wastewater (American Petroleum Institute
and five petroleum refineries); boiler cleaning and ion-exchange regeneration (11 representatives
of electric power utilities); recycling of spent antifreeze generated at automobile Service centers
(three representatives of the antifreeze recycling industry); disposal of parts cleaning wastewaters
at large facilities (American Airlines Inc. and The Boeing Company); and the management of
containers used for commercial recycling of non-hazardous solvents spent at different industries
(Safety Kleen Corporation). A few commenters in the chemicals manufacturing industry also
identified specific process operations that will be affected by the proposed rule. These operations
include pre-treatment of process wastewater, rinse water and rain water collected at process units
for manufacturing hydrogen cyanide and acetone cyanohydrin (Rohm and Haas); manufacture of
pulp and paper using the kraft process (American Forest and Paper Association); removal of
solvent contamination from deionized water and demineralized water in pharmaceutical
manufacturing batch processes (Merck & Co., Inc.); and effluent polishing in surface
impoundments (Union Carbide Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation).
Generally, these commenters suggested that the current definition of POG will cause
unnecessary regulatory burden without providing any benefit to human health or the environment.
These burdens include monitoring a large number of waste streams and pretreating large
quantities of wastewater, which in turn would lead to increased pressure for a two-year capacity
variance. While most of these comments do not fully explain how the impact on treatment.
capacity may be reduced by using any of the alternative definitions of POG, some chemical
manufacturers (Albemarle Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, and Occidental Chemical -
Corporation) have provided estimates of the volumes of wastewater that will be affected and cost
estimates for complying with the proposed rule under the current definition of POG.
Response:
EPA recognizes the practical limitations associated with attempting to develop a definition of
POG that fully considers the wide range of production processes that are utilized by different
industrial sectors. Additionally, the Agency appreciates all of the data submitted by commenters to
facilitate the adoption of a more manageable definition of POG.
In the proposed rule, EPA discussed possible changes that could be made to the definition of
POG for attaching LDRs: The Agency plans to issue a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on this
issue and solicit public comments. The Agency will analyze these comments and may take final
action on this issue in the upcoming Phase IV rulemaking. EPA is not finalizing any changes in the
current definition of POG at this time.
3-5
-------
Comments:
• Sun Company Inc. (7-p.2)
• Florida Power and Light Company (12-p.l)
• Duke Power Company (15-pp.l-2)
• The Valvoline Company (26-p.2-3)
• Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (30-p.2)
• Rohm and Haas (32-pp.3-4)
• Antifreeze Coalition (39-pp.3-4)
• American Petroleum Institute (42-pp.33-35)
• General Electric Company (45-p.28)
• Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (46-p.l4)
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (47-pp.l-2)
« Department of Energy (52-p.20)
• American Forest and Paper Association (54-p.l2)
• International Business Machines Corporation (57-p.2)
• Union Electric Company (64-p.l)
• Northeast Utilities Service Company (72-p.2)
• ¦ Safety Kleen Corporation (74-p.3)
• American Airlines Inc. (75-p.l5)
Merck & Co., Inc. (77-pp.2-3)
BP Chemicals (78-p.3)
• Albemarle Corporation (84-pp.l-2)
• Salt River Project (85-p.l)
• Chevron (87-p.4)
• Texaco Inc. (90-p.3)
• Phillips Petroleum Company (91-p.2)
• Union Carbide Corporation (95-pp.l0-13)
• Occidental Chemical Corporation (99-p.2)
• Detroit Edison Company (115-p.l)
• Pennsylvania Electric Company (122-p.l)
• The Boeing Company (L5-pp.l-2)
3-6
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Sun Company, Inc.
7
2
Sun is a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API)and endorses all their written
comments on the Phase in land Disposal Restriction (LDR) rule as wdl as the information
supplied relative to the Phase IV LDR rule scheduled for proposal in June, 1995. These
comments are related to, although not Embed to, the need to exempt wet -weather (stormwater)
impoundments from Phase m and IV LDR requirements, the support afUSEPA*s proposed
classification of aggressive biological treatment (ABT) systems as Best Demonstrated Available
Technology, and the classification of the point of generation for solid waste as after oil recovery
in an oil-water separator.
-------
Commenter: Florida Power and Light Company
Comment Number: 12
Page Number: 1
EPA is proposing to
revisit the problematic role that RCRA's LDRs apply to hazardous waste at the "point of
generation", ix* at the very moment a waste is created. This rule has produced substantial
confusion within the regulated community, especially in the case of aqueous waste streams
generated within a single unified industrial process, wherein the completion of the process — not
the generation of distinct individual streams during the process — has traditionally and correctly
been viewed as the "point of generation" by members of the regulated community. The agency
is to be commended for endeavoring to bring practicality and common sense to this issue.
As the agency is well -aware after meeting with various interested parties regarding this topic,
including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG, of which FPL is a member) on
behalf of the electric utility industry, an overly broad interpretation of the "point of generation"
concept would "trigger a host of potentially disproportionate consequences, without necessarily
furthering any of the protective objectives of the LDR program." J&, at 11715. The benefits to
human health and the environment of such an interpretation are incommensurate with the costs
it imposes upon the regulated community. In particular, inappropriately identifying the "point
of generation" as the moment when an individual component of a multi-step stream from a single
process is first produced not only presents severe practical and legal complications (see jd. at
11715), it also improperly encroaches upon the industrial manufacturing process, which Congress
has made abundantly dear is outside of RCRA's jurisdictional scope.
3-8
-------
mmenter: Duke Power Company
omment Number: 15
.'age Number: 1
EPA is proposing to revisit the problematic rule that
RCRA's LDRs apply to hazardous waste at the "point of generation" - ift„ at
the moment a waste is generated. This rule has created substantia!
confusion within the regulated community, especially in the case of aqueous
waste streams generated as part of a single industrial process, wherein the
completion of the process - nol the individual generation of distinct streams
during the process - has traditionally and correctly been viewed as the point
of generation by many members of the regulated community. EPA's
proposal to revisit and clarify this position in the final LDR Phase III rule will
Bring much needed order and rationality to the LDR regulations and the RCRA
program generally.
As the Agency is well aware after meeting with various interested parties
regarding this topic, including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
("USWAG") on behalf of the electric utility industry, an overly broad
interpretation of the "point of generation" concept would "trigger a host of
potentially disproportionate consequences, without necessarily furthering any
of the protective objectives of the LOR program." lsL at 11715. In
particular, inappropriately identifying the "point of generation" as the
moment when an individual component of a multi-rinse stream from a single
process is first produced riot only presents severe practical and legal
3-9
-------
Commenter: Duke Power Company
Comment Number: 15
Page Number: 2
complications ism id* at 11715), it also improperly encroaches upon the
industrial manufacturing process, which Congress has made abundantly clear
is outside of RCRA's jurisdictional scope.
3-10
-------
Commenter: ' The Valvoline Company
Comment Number: 26
Page Number: 2
Valvoline wholeheartedly agrees with the statement presented in the NPRM that
"the point of generation rule could lead to situations where prohibitions would attach to
particular characteristic wastestreams and trigger a host of potentially disproportionate
consequences, without necessarily furthering any of the protective objectives of the LDR
program." See 60 FR11715. One of the options presented by the Agency for comment is
to redefine the point at which the land disposal prohibitions attach for similar streams
generated by similar processes.
3-11
-------
Commenter: The Valvoline Company
Comment Number: 26
Page Number: 3
Takes to the extreme, the point of generation interpretation could become
ridiculous. A laboratoiy generating spent solvent from cleaning of laboratoiy glassware
would have to characterize each batch of spent solvent after individual cleanings rather
than being allowed to accumulate the spent solvent and characterizing the accumulated
volume for dQSposaL Valvoline's affiliated company First Recoveiy (a division of Ecogard,
Inc.) who collects used oil would have to characterize each batch of filter draining!
(typically oil covered rocks, leaves and other debris) taken from the hose on the collection
trade after each individual used oil pickup rather than be allowed to
filter draining, then characterize them. There are numerous similar examples, none of
which Valvoline believes that EPA intended. The existing regulations currently allow for
representative samples of accumulated waste to be taken for purposes of waste
characterization, and it is at the point of appropriate waste characterization that the
determination should be made whether the LDRs attach to the waste.
3-12
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
30
2
Texas Utilities requests clarification of the "Streams from a Single Process" point of generation
option to be consistent with the legislative history of RCRA. The legislative histozy of RCRA
«ni»w« clear that the aggregation of related streams which occur within the normal pazt of the
process is permissible and that regulation of in-process waste constitutes an impermissible
intrusion upon the manufacturing process. Streams from a single process are not "generated"
until the single process is complete and the inter-related streams from the process have been
aggregated. A number of utility waste streams are comprised of individual rinses or batches
produced from a single process. The individual batches are generated within a single unit
process and are logically and appropriately viewed as part of the "normal pot of the process
that results in the waste*.
3-13
-------
Commenter: Rohm and Haas
Comment Number: 32
Page Number: 3
Rohm and Haas suggests thai the final Phase HI and Phase IV
rules be written so that a generator may characterize die waste water to the
purpose of assessing the applicability of die Land Disposal restrictions either 1)
at the point of generation for each waste, or 2) within the treatment unit or
storage tank where waste streams that contain similar underlying hazardous
constituents or hazardous constituents that require a similar treatment process
3-14
-------
Commenter: Rohm and Haas
Comment Number: 32
Page Number: 4
are aggregated lor the purpose of non-land based treatment prior to land
disposal and ultimate discharge under a Clean Water Act permit Additionally,
the underlying hazardous constituents would have to be amenable to the chosen
treatment method.
This scheme would continue to allow the aggregation of similar waste
types, ensure that effective treatment took place before land disposal, and relieve
unnecessary the regulatoxy burdens of a strict point of generation approach.
3-15
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Antifreeze Coalition
39
3
Impact of Point of Generation Determination
A determination that the "point of generation" of spent
antifreeze is when the antifreeze is drained from a radiator
would have negative consequences for the motor vehicle service
industry. If the industry cannot rely on the wealth of existing
negative TCLP data of spent antifreeze sauries taken from drums,
it may have to undertake another costly and time-consuming round
of testing.
Any conclusion that some spent antifreeze, as generated, has
a hazardous constituent above the regulatory level, would have a
severe negative inqpact on the motor vehicle service industry and
on the emerging antifreeze recycling industry. Even if the spent
antifreeze, as commingled in collection drums, is non-hazardous,
the small business "generator" would apparently be required to
meet the stringent requirements for on-site storage of hazardous
waste.
*
Further, even if the spent antifreeze, as collected in
drums,, is non-hazardous, some percentage of spent antifreeze'
generated at each service facility may have to be counted as
"hazardous waste* for purposes of determining the facility's
generator status. If even a small percentage of spent antifreeze
"generated" is "hazardous," the facility'a generator status may
change.
3-16
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Antifreeze Coalition
39
4
For exanple, a facility that otherwise would be classified
as a Exempt Small Quantity Generator nay be
reclassified as a Small Quantity Generator, with significantly
increased regulatory'requirements. Small Quantity Generators ;
must manifest off-site shipments, meet container and tank
standards, develop a contingency plan, provide personnel
training, and meet marking and labeling requirements.
Similarly, a facility that otherwise would be classified as
a Small Quantity Generator may be reclassified as a "large
quantity* Generator, with Increased regulatory requirements.
"Large quantity" generators must meet bi-annual reporting
requirements, must develop a more comprehensive contingency plan,
must provide more comprehensive personnel training, must meet
more stringent container and tank standards, and are subject to a
shorter accumulation period for on-site storage. The shorter
accumulation period is particularly onerous for motor vehicle
service facilities in rural areas, where regular pick-up of
"hazardous waste" is very expensive.
If the motor vehicle service facility that "generates" spent
antifreeze "generated" no other hazardous waste, placement in a
different generator category would not be as significant a
problem. However, many motor vehicle service facilities generate
sniall quantities of other hazardous wastes, such as solvents used
for parts cleaning and used paint. The quantities are often so
small that the facility would qualify as a Conditionally Exempt
Small Quantity Generator, unless some of the spent antifreeze
generated at the site must be counted toward determining
generator status.
Further, the characterization of some percentage of spent
antifreeze as hazardous would trigger land disposal restriction
regulatory and notice requirements for the motor vehicle service
industry. All of these requirements would impose additional
zcszs and burdens on this industry, composed largely of. small
businesses, with little or no benefit to public health or the
environment. Faced with these costs and burdens, many motor
vehicle service facilities would likely cease changing motorists'
antifreeze.
3-17
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 33
V1XX. wf umamxmtian.
The petroleum refining industry is in the business of
converting the hydrocarbons contained in crude oil into a variety
of products. In order to maximize the amount of product-produced
from each barrel of crude, any hydrocarbons that can be
recovered, including hydrocarbons in the wastewater collection
system, are captured and reused as a feedstock. Consequently,
the point of generation for streams in the wastewater collection
system which have recoverable hydrocarbons does not occur before
the point at which recovery of hydrocarbons for reuse ceases.
See, AMC v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1177, 1181 (D.C. Cir. 1985); See also.
\
53 Fed. Reo. 519 (Jan. 8, 1988) (Amendments to the Definition of
Solid Waste); Don Clay letcer to Aoele Buchman, June 14, 1991.
While it is API's position that solid waste is not generated
until all the recoverable hydrocarbons are removed, regardless of
whether API's position on the point of generation is adopted by
Z?A, is appropriate for the Agency to change the point at
3-18
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 34
which the LDR's attach to the point of aggregation of waste
strains from the production to the same or similar products, in
other words the OA the "Battexy Limits* approach.
• • Contrary to EPA's assumption, this "Battexy Limit"
approach is not difficult to apply. Most industrial facilities
can easily determine which processes 'are associated with making
a single product or related group of products* and battery limit
will not be' difficult to implement. For exasple, while API does
not believe the process sewer manages any hazardous waste, the
API separator is an easily detexmined battexy limit for petroleum
refinezy. In cases whwre similar waste streams are aggregated
for centralized treatment, this approach would ease compliance
while providing adequate protection to
Indeed, this approach would be an even more logical
application for the petroleum industry in light of changes in oil
and process water management resulting from the Benzene Waste
NSSHAP (BWN). Petroleum refining consists of a sequence of
processes which convert crude oil or other hydrocarbons into a
slate of products consisting primarily of fuels. Many of. these
processes discharge water to the process sewer. However, because
ci tz.2 SKii, aany sources of oil to the process sewer, and water
screams with relatively high levels of constituents, have been-
segregated from the process sewer. Since the relatively highly
concentrated streams have been segregated ttam the sewer, this
has reduced the variation of constituent concentrations being
managed in the sewer system. Consequently, it makes sense to.
3-19
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 35
attach the LBRs after these similar streams have been aggregated.
Therefore, API supports CH&'s Battery Limit concept.
Is any case, EPA should continue to recognize that
accumulation of wastewater (with some incidental dilution) is
part of the production process and is necessaxy to achieve
effective treatment. Regardless of the approach taken "by EPA,
this should continue to be part of the regulatory scheme.
3-20
-------
Commenter: General Electric Company
Comment Number: 45
Page Number: 28
Tht UDR Phase 111 preamble notes that CMA has auggested a "point of
aggregation* rule for eharaetaristie wastewaters discharged to in-plant sewer
systems. Under tha proposal, tha determination whether a wastestream was
hazardous would be made at tha point of aggregation, rather than the point of
generation. Q£ strongly supports this proposal, and urges EPA to define the point
of aggregation to-minimize the cost impact on plants.
3-21
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
46
14
As EPA itself has noted, an overly broad interpretation of the point of generation
would "trigger a host of potentially disproportionate consequences, without necessanly
furthering any of the protective objectives of the LOR program." M. at 11715. And as
USWAG and others in the regulated community have advised EPA, the imposition of
the LDR"requirements and other RCRA controls on the subparts of a waste stream at
the point that the subpart is first produced, but before the process itself or the waste
stream is complete, is contrary to the realities of manufacturing process and results only
in significant regulatory compliance questions ami burdens for the regulated
community. Included among these complications is the regulation of industrial
processes and subcomponents of a waste stream that "exhibit characteristics only for a
short time or... intermittently" and the imposition of monitoring requirements on
numerous separate internal process streams. Jtf. Such an interpretation of the "point of
generation" principle under RCRA intrudes upon the manufacturing process, which is
both beyond RCRA's jurisdictional reach and, if left unchecked, establishes troubling
precedent for the RCRA program generally.
3-22
-------
Commenter;
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
47
1
EPA is proposing to revisit the
problematic rule that RCRA's LDRs apply to hazardous waste at the
"point of generation*—i.e.. at the moment a waste is generated.
This rule has created substantial confusion within the regulated
community, especially in the case of aqueous waste streams
generated as part of a single industrial process, wherein the
completion of the process—not the individual generation of
distinct streams during the process—has traditionally and
correctly been viewed as the point "of generation fay many-members
of the regulated community. CPA's proposal to revisit and
clarify this position in the final WR Phase XII rule will bring
much needed order and rationality to the LDR regulations and the
RCRA program generally.
As the Agency is well aware after meeting with various
interested parties regarding this topic, including the Utility
Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") on behalf of the electric
utility industry, an overly broad interpretation of the "point of
generation" concept would "trigger a host of potentially
disproportionate consequences, without necessarily furthering any
of the protective objectives of the LDR program." Id. at 11715.
In particular, inappropriately identifying the "point of
generation" as the moment when an individual component of a -
multi-rinse stream from a single process is first produced not
only presents severe practical and legal complications fsee id.
3-23
-------
Commenter: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Comment Number: 47
Page Number: 2
at 11725), it also isproperly encroaches upon the Industrial
manufacturing process, which Congress has made abundantly clear
is outside of RCRA's jurisdictional scope.
3-24
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Department of Energy
52
20
b. The options for defining "point of generation" presented by EPA in the proposed rule
focus oa industrial «nd manufacturing processes. In evilming potential approaches for
modifying tlie current point of generation-approach, however, consideration must be given to
ofeer types of waste generation activities that will be imputed by any revision. One such
activity which is distinctly (Efferent from industrial ftciliiy processes is the generation of
wftf streams Drop laboratoiy operations.
As EPA is sware, laboratoiy operations generate a large number of small volume residual
solutions, and can routinely generate certain characteristic wastes (e.g^ discarded analytical
samples that are corrosive for various reasons). Some degree of accumulation should be
allowed prior to making an LDR determination for such analytical laboratoiy wastes. It
would be unrealistic, cost prohibitive, and extremely burdensome to consider each analytical
procedure yielding a residual solution in a laboratoiy as a point of generation for new waste
(and as a result require waste characterization for each small volume of laboratoiy waste
generated). A common sense approach for laboratory waste management would be to allow
collection of compatible residual solutions at a common collection point, with this collection
point constituting the point of generation for new waste. Laboratoiy practices would dictate
(for obvious reasons) that only compatible waste streams be aggregated. If necessary,
volume and/or time limits for.aggregation could be established.
DOE believes that in the case of laboratory operations, the additional burden of segregating
small volume streams to ensure compliance with tie land disposal restrictions and dilution
prohibition is unwarranted given the nature and quantity of waste involved. Applying die
LDR standards based upon the composition of aggregated laboratory waste streams is both
practical and appropriately protective of human health and the environment Thus, in
making LDR determinations for wastes generated by analytical laboratoiy operations, DOE
recommends that an approach similar to die proposed "battery limits'1 option be adopted
3-25
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
American Forest and Paper Association
54
12
>
As noted In the Preamble, the current approach
could require generators to test or apply knowledge to hundreds
or thousands of wastestreams, which nay exhibit a characteristic
of hazardous waste for only a short period of time within the
physical confines of an industrial facility. This circumstance
creates considerable monitoring difficulties, results in
substantial regulatory burdens if even a small part of a combined
waste stream once exhibited a hazardous characteristic, and does
not contribute to protection of human health and the environment,
because many of these wastestreams are quickly decharacterized
within process sewers or drains within a manufacturing facility.
Simplification of the point of generation approach by adopting
each of the alternatives suggested by commenters is, therefore,
warranted.
3-26
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
57
2
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systea regulations do not
require flow aeasureaest or eheaical usage quantification at a tool
level. Therefore, so provisions have bees Bade to allow the
accumulation of data on the composition and volume of waste flows at
tools. EPA states is the proposed role that mositorisg at potentially
hundreds of points of generation would be unnecessarily burdensome and
is not being proposed. IBM agrees that it is not practical to Monitor
flows and chemical discharges at this level. The cost is aanpower and
dollars to install and track computerized flow measurements, collect
chemical-use data per tool and correlate the different eheaical recipes
with the data would be esoraous. This effort would sot providing detail
that would allow IBH to deaonstrate compliance with the UTS
requirements.
3-27
-------
Commenter: Union Electric Company
Comment Number: 64
Page Number: 1
EPA proposes revisiting the problematic approach that LDR treataent
standard* apply to hazardous vast* at thm "point of generation* or
tha moment a wast* is generated. This proposal has eraatad
substantial confusion within the regulated community, especially in
the ease of aqueous waste streams generated as part of a single
industrial process, wherein the completion of Che process, not the
individual generation of distinct streams during the process, has
traditionally and correctly been viewed as the point of generation by
many members of the regulated community. EPA's proposal to revisit
and clarify this position will hopefully bring sane degree of
rationality to the LDR regulations and the RCRA program.
As the Agency is well aware after meeting with various interested
parties regarding this topic, including USWAG on behalf of the
electric utility industry, a too broad interpretation of the "point
of generation¦ concept would "trigger a host of potentially
disproportionate consequences, without necessarily furthering any of
the protective objectives of the LDR program." Id. at 11725. In
particular, inappropriately identifying the -point of generation• as
the moment when an individual component of a multi-rinse stream from
a single process is first produced not only presents severe practical
and legal complications (see id. at 11725), it also improperly
encroaches upon the industrial manufacturing process, which Congress
has made abundantly clear is outside RCRA's jurisdictional scope.
Senate Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 66 12983).
3-28
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Northeast Utilities Service Company
72
2
The imposition of
LOR requirements and other RCRA controls on the subparts of a waste stream at the
point that the subpart is first produced, but before the process itself or the waste stream
is complete, would result In significant regulatory burdens totally incommensurate with
any environmental gains. As the agency recognizes, regulating waste streams or
subcomponents that "exhfoit characteristics only for a short time or intermittently" (60
FR 11715) raises practical problems (e.g. monitoring and testing of hardplped, dosed
systems)-and may "trigger a host of potentially disproportionate consequences without
necessarily furthering any of the protective objectives of the LOR program." Jji
3-29
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Safety Kleen Corporation
74
3
Safety-Kleen is encouraged by
the EPA's acknowledgment of the difficulties inherent in the current approach to defining
point of generation. Safety-Kleen agrees that the point of generation definition for
wastewaters should be modified to reflect the normal and necessary aggregation of waste
streams. Each of the proposed alternatives is an improvement over the existing definition;
3-30
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
American Airlines Inc.
75
15
The LDRs should apply at the point of
aggregation - i.e. just prior to centralized treatment To require otherwise would require constant
characterization and monitoring of all waste, streams (e.g. to detect changes from hazardous to
nonhazardous or vice versa). It is simply infeasible to continually characterize every wastewater
stream - especially such things as wash racks and sinks used to wash and rinse metal parts.
American his literally hundreds of such locations dispersed throughout its facility, many of which
generate different wastes at different »***»*«
3-31
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Merck & Co., Inc.
77
2
Merck supports EPA's attempt to mom narrowly define the point at which LOR
treatment standards attach to hazardous wastes and believe this "point of
accumulation" approach should be extended to CWA systems involving only tank
treatment as well as the CWA systems involving surface impoundments that are
subject to this rule. EPA should strive for a simple and effective point of attachment for
LORs that would also allow the most environmental benefit Merck believes that the
attachment of LDRs at the point of accumulation of waste streams from a single
process would be the most appropriate approach.
3-32
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Merck & Co., Inc.
77
3
The attachment of LORs for an accumulated waste stream within a single process
would relieve the excessive analytical and record keeping burden associated with the
present point of generation approach. Because the manufacture of a particular
product Is generally characterized within a factory area for the purpose of tracking
product manufacturing costs, it is not difficult to identify the boundaries of a
manufacturing process from which wastes could be aggregated. Furthermore, due to
stringent regulation of the pharmaceutical industry by the FDA, equipment cleaning and
. batch production control records would facilitate compliance with Ms proposed LOR
determination approach and reduce the potential for impermiss&le cfiiution with waste
streams from other processes.
3-33
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
BP Chemicals
78
3
3) BP Chemicals urges the Agency to adopt the "Battery Limit*" option for the point of
determination.
BP Chemicals supports the point of generation option in the proposed rule referred to
as "BattaryUmlts" and urges the Agency to adopt this option in the final rule. We
believe this option offers significant logistical advantages and cost savings to the
regulated community without any advene impact to the effectiveness.of the LDR
program. Our major production facilities have literally hundreds of points where
waste streams are generated and writ the production process. Waste streams can
be continuously generated from tha production process or generated intermittently
from batch units or maintenance activities. Many of these wastestreams are
aggregated in piping, sumps and/or tanks for treatment prior to surface discharge or
underground injection. It is important to note that in our chemical plants, most of
the aggregation systems have been or are being modified into "closed systems" for
air emission controls reasons in compliance with the Clean Air Act Hazardous
Organic NESHAP and RCRA Subpart CC rules. It is also important to note that these
decharacterized I CRT wastes themselves are relatively low risk strums. The
reduced monitoring and recordkeeping burden offered by this option is more than
justified given the actual risks posed by the streams.
The Agency is soliciting comments on this option because of concern that the limits
do not seem to be graphically self-defining. We do not see any problems with
defining what constitutes 'Battery Limits". Within our plants this definition is easfly
definable and manageable. For example, in' our acrylonitrile production processes,
we consider Battery limits to be the reactors,, recovery section and purification
section used to synthesize and recover acrylontaile and coproducts. AH of the
vessels and columns comprising Ms production process are hard piped and located
in dose proximity. Waste streams are in of themselves substantially similar as they
contain the same subset of underlying hazardous constituent's. Other production
processes which produce products used by the acrylo process or use acrylonitrile as
feedstock have separate, definable battery limits and would therefore constitue new
points of generation.
3-34
-------
Commenter: Albemarle Corporation
Comment Number: 84
Page Number: 1
Point ofgenenttionofhazirfous wastewater streams has always been a difficult
determination. Albemarle's fecilities generally discharge two or more wastewater streams from *
single process unit to a rommon sump. The wastewater from thesump is then discharged after
treatment to other tOass I non-haztrdous injection wdl or NPDES permitted out&fl. Some of
the wastewater streams that exit the process units prior to being combined with other wastewater
3-35
-------
Commenter: Albemarle Corporation
Comment Number: 84
Page Number: 2
streams in the sump may be hazardous due to the corrosive characteristic (D002). If there are any
hazardous constituents in any of the D002 streams, the mass loadings of these constituents are
general^ very consistent over a long term average even thoujgi concentrations may vary within a
normal range over time. These same conditions exist at points where wastewater streams from
process units are combined just prior to entering the headworks of wastewater treatment systems.
It would seem to be very appropriate to determine the point of generation and compliance with
Universal Treatment Standa^ (UTS) met at these collection points. This approach would
significantly amplify treatment and monitoring requirements. Om ofcnir facilities has
apprmriiMtriy 33 poeea ftrrami that would require analyses fig htarrfnm The
cost for sampling and analyses would be $150,000. Tins cost would then be repeated as often as
monitoring is required tytta regulations. Ifthe point of generation were farther upstream, at the
outlet of each process step, the monitoring costs would be ever greater, with absolutely no
benefit
3-36
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Salt River Project
85
1
EPA
is proposing to revisit the problematic rule that JOA's LDRs apply to hazardous waste at the "point of
generation" fi e., at the moment» waste is generated). lie nitehw created substantial confusion within the
regulated community, particularly in the case of aqueous waste streams generated as part of a single industrial
prwfff. therein tKc fOTwiplarinn nf thft proem — wtf th* individual generation t?f diycTCtC WliFte TtTgaiBS
during the process-has traditionally and correcth-been-viewed as the point of generation by in any members
of the regulated eomrnimhy. EPA's proposal to revisit and clarify this position in the final LDRP„ase HI mJe
will hrmg winch ne**4eri imtfhrmity ami mrinwalily tr» tha T DR regulating «yjj the PCF A pmgram
EPA is well aware after meeting with various interested parties on this topic, including the Utility
Solid Waste Activities Group fUSWAG") on behalf of the electric utility industry, that an overiy broad
interpretation of the "point of generation" concept would "trigger a host of potentially disproportionate
consequences, without necessarily furthering any of the protective objectives of the LDR program." & st
11715.
3-37
-------
Commenter: Chevron
Comment Number: 87
Page Number: 4
4) Chevron supports setting the exit from primary oll/water/solids separation
(and similar battery limits for non-refining facilities) as the point where LDRs
attach to characteristically hazardous or decharacterized waste streams.
It has been Chevron's and the oil industry's long standing position that the point of generation for
streams in the wastewater collection system which have recoverable hydrocarbons is the point
which the hydrocarbon recovery ceases. The is consistent with Chevron's position that a
hazardous waste determination is not made until after the recoverable hydrocarbon product is
removed.
While EPA may disagree regarding the point of generation, it is appropriate that the LDRs not
attach until refinery primary oil/waier/soiids separation is accomplished. At this point, wastewater
is separated and aggregated for treatment In this context, Chevron supports CMA's battery limit
approach because it applies the LDRs to the point of aggregation in a reasonable common sense
manner.
i
3-38
4
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Texaco Inc.
90
3
The EPA* interpretation of the court's decision (CWM c EPA,
976 F. 2d 2) ignores thai the court only stated that dilution is not to be allowed as a means of
trmsitino hazardous constituents, and instead die EPA leaped to die conclusion dial all aggregation
of wastewaters with variable concentrations of hazardous constituents Is prohibited regardless of
what treatment takes place. Such t prohibition ftom aggregation of wastewater streams could
result is significant costs to industry as it may be interpreted to unnecessarily require separate
treatment for each individual wastewater stream.
3-39
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Phillips Petroleum Company
91
2
Th* nntnf nf nanaratlnn fnr hvdrocarbon.h«arino straama commin?l«H
in B. iGQlte^liQn sy&tfifli_i&-tfaft_QQiHl—at_3wfaioh. hydf6c&rhop
concent.
In order to maximize the amount of product refined from each barrel of crude oil
and provided to market, any hydrocarbons that can be recovered, including those
. in wastewater collection systems, are typically captured, separated, and reused as
a petroleum product or feedstock. Until streams containing recoverable,
hydrocarbons have completed the recovery process O.e. all recoverable product is
removed], a waste has not been generated. The point of generation of a solid
waste should therefore be at the completion of oil recovery. Notwithstanding the
aforementioned point of generation issue, it makes sense that LDRs attach at a
"battery limit" [i.e. the point of aggregation of streams from processes that are
"associated with making a single product or related group of products'] rather than
the point of generation for individual streams from related processes that are
subsequently commingled for centralized treatment.
3-40
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Union Carbide Corporation
95
10
IV.D. EPA should use the production process battery limits as the point of
generation for wastewater from production units.
Union Carbide appreciates EPA's efforts EPA efforts, under tight time constraints, to -
discuss the point-of-generation issue in the preamble. EPA's discussion is thoughtful
and cogent.
Union Carbide recognizes that there the practical problems of definition and dilution
need to be overcome to use a battery limits approach. But on the balance, Union
Carbide believes that the battery Jimits approach is the most practical
3-41
-------
Comraenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Union Carbide Corporation
95
11
The problems associated with the other two approaches are:
The sheer number of points of generation. Union Carbide estimates that plants
A, i and C have over 3,000 points where wastewater is first excess to the
process.
Most identification effort would be focused on insignificant and intermittent
streams. Over 90% of these streams are small or intermittent streams which are
incidental to the process, such as analyzer vents and maintenancejwashes.
It is difficult and expensive to use the EPA protocol GC/MS methods to analyze
more concentrated wastewaters to the UTS levels. The multiple dilutions and
column fouBng drive the average cost to $4,000 to $5,000 per sample, more than
4 times the cost of applying these analytical methods to the cfilute wastewaters
for which they were originally designed. Union Carbide's experience applying the
methods to concentrated wastewater is described in attachment 5.
A battery Imits approach will reduce the analytical work to a manageable level In
addition, it would tend to appropriately screen out minor characteristic wastewater
streams, focusing attention on high volume, high mass contributors of hazardous
constituents.
Union Carbide encourages EPA to continue to work with industry to develop a practical,
battery limits approach which focuses attention and efforts on the few streams that
make the most significant contributions to combined wastewater toads.
IV.D. EPA should use the "similar wastes from similar processes" as the LOR
point of generation for product rityma and rtwdtng.
Union Carbide has been evaluating the commercial feasibifity of recovering ethylene .
glycol from spent automotive antifreeze (Union Carbide is the world's largest producer of
ethylene glycol). The antifreeze removed from most vehicles is.nonhazardous, but
some antifreeze removed from some vehicles exhibits the toxicity characteristic for lead.
When antifreeze is collected from multiple vehicles (for example at a service station),
the mixture is invariably nonhazardous.
In this case It makes good sense to classify a mixture of "similar wastes from similar
processes" as the point of generation for both 261 and 268 (LOR) purposes. Application
of UTS landban restrictions to water removed from spent antifreeze would significantly
and adversely affect the economics of recycfing, even though the water removed by
Union Carbide's process would be nonhazardous.
IV.D. EPA should establish alternate POO, Points of Compliance and/or Pollution
Prevention Compliance Options for UIC Systems that Practice Water
Conservation Prior to injecting Wastewaters
3-42
-------
Commenter: Union Carbide Corporation
Comment Number: 95
Page Number: 12
Union Carbide supports the following comment submitted by Allied Signal:
EPA Should Establish Alternate POG, Points of Compliance and/or Pollution Prevention
Compliance Options for UIC Systems that Practice Water Conversation Prior to Injecting
Wastewaters.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency provided its opinion that facilities that
inject decharacterized wastes into Class I nonhazardous injection wells do little to treat
their wastes prior to injection beyond dilution. Therefore, the Agency believes that the
characteristic wastestreams should be prohibited at POG and that such wastestreams
must be decharcterized and treated to UTS prior to commingBng with other wastewaters
or injection. AlliedSignal disagrees with this approach as it is proposed because it may
penalize fadfities which property manage wastewaters for purposes of recovery.
UOP, a company operated as a partnership between AlliedSignal and Union Carbide,
operates a catalyst manaufacturing plant in Shreveport, Louisiana that employs about
three hundred people. This facility operates a Class 1 nonhazardous well system to
dispose of wastewater from its facility. However, prior to injection, UOP goes to great
lengths to reduce the amount of wastewater injected through the well The facility sends
all of its process waters to an on-site water recycle,facility to recover water tor reuse in
the facility. Over the last ten years, the Shreveport facility has invested over $29 million
in its water recycle system to improve water conservation. Today, the water recycle
plant employs advanced methods of water treatment in its water recovery operations
such as dissolved air flotation, filtration, and evaporation/condensation to recover up to
90 per cent of the process waters tor reuse in the facility, UOP believes that operation
of the water recycle system meets the original intent of many of the US environmental
statutes including RCRA, PPA, and CWA by conserving natural recourses through
resource recovery. However, Union Carbide believes that the UOP Shreveport
recycling efforts are in jeopardy of being penalized under the proposed Phase III
treatment standards for Class I nonhazardous wells for practicing effective water
conservation.
Under the different proposals tor estabishing POG, UOP could be considered to be
generating hazardous wastestreams that are subsequently commingled with other
process waters and managed in the facility's water recycle unit Since the purpose of
the water recycle unit is to recover water, the resulting wastewater stream that exits the
water recycle for injection is a nonhazardous, but not necessarily UTS constituent-free
. brine solution. Under the proposed regulatory scenario, the Shreveport system may be
considered to be out-of-compBance with the treatment standards because it would
commingle prohibited wastestreams and it may not treat all underlying hazardous
constituents of the commingled wastewaters to UTS prior to injection.
To provide reBef to fatifities ice the UOP Shreveport fadBty that practice effective water
conservation, Union Carbide would Ike the agency to consider two different proposals to
modify the treatment standards for Class I nonhazardous injection wells:
3-43
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Union Carbide Corporation
95
13
1. Establish POG for systems practicing advanced water treatment for water
conservation at the point where wastewaters exit the recycle or recovery operations
for disposal. We believe this is a justified modification since it would recognize water
conservation efforts of facilities as an effective means of pollution prevention; or as
an alternative.
2. The agency should not prohibit ICRT wastestreams from systems that practice
advanced water treatment for water conservation and that point of compliance for
these systems be established at "end-of-pipe" and that water conservation efforts be
included as a means of meeting the pollution prevention compliance option.
3-44
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Occidental Chemical Corporation
99
2
D. Selection of the point of generation for wastewater should bo as flexible as possible.
In large chemical production complexes, the "battery emits' definition proposed by CMA
is a practical way to simplify compliance determination*, in other smaller facilities
when only a few points of generation exist, It may be reasonable to evaluate individual
pieces of equipment EPA's main concern seems to be with the possibility of dilution
that may occur to meet LDR standards. Dilution is not Hfcely to occur because CWA
standards already prohibit dHution by rule, as wefl as by the majority of NPDES permits
and POTW agreements. Furthermore, raw water purchase or treatment is expensive,
as is treatment of each gallon of wastewater.
3-45
-------
Commenter: Detroit Edison Company
Comment Number: 115
Page Number: 1
EPA Is proposing to revisit the problematic rule tint RCRA's LDRs apply to
hazardous waste at the "point of generation"—is., at the moment a waste is
generated. This rule has created substantial confusion with the regulated community,
especially in the case of aqueous waste streams generated as part of a single industrial
process, wherein the completion of the process—n&the individual generation of
distinct streams during the process — has traditionally and correctly been viewed as the
point of generation by many members of the regulated community. EPA's proposal to
revisit and clarify this position in the final LDR Phase in rule will bring much needed
order and rationality to the LDR regulations and the RCRA program generally.
As the Agency is well aware alter meeting with various interested parties regarding this
topic, including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") on behalf of the
electric utility industry, an overly broad interpretation of the "point of generation"
concept would "trigger a host of potentially disproportionate consequences, without
necessarily furthering any of the protective objectives of the LDR program." 14 at
11715. In particular, inappropriately identifying the "point of generation" as the
moment when an individual component of a multi-rinse stream from a single process is
first produced not only presents severe practical and legal complications (see id. at
11715), it also improperly encroaches upon the industrial manufacturing process,
which Congress has made abundantly clear is outside of RCRA's jurisdictional scope.
3-46
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Pennsylvania Electric Company
122
1
EPA is proposing to revisit the
problematic rule that RCRA's LDRs apply to hazardous waste at the "point of generation" - i.e., at
the moment i waste is generated. This rule has created substantial confusion within the regulated
community, especially in the case of aqueous waste streams generated as part of a single industrial
process, wherein the completion of the process — not the individual generation of distinct streams
during the process - has traditionally and correctly been viewed as the point of generation try many
members of the regulated community. EPA's proposal to revisit and darify this position in the final
LDR phase HI rule will bring much needed order and rationality to the LDR regulations and the
RCRA program generally.
As the Agency is well aware alter meeting with various interested parties regarding this topic,
including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") on behalf of the electric utility
industry, an overly broad interpretation of the "point of generation" concept would "trigger a host
of potentially disproportionate consequences, without necessarily furthering any of the protective
objectives of the LDR program." H At 11715. In particular, inappropriately identifying the "point
of generation" as the moment when an individual component of a multi-rinse stream from a single
process is first produced not only presents severe practical and legal complications fsee id. at 11715),
it also improperly encroaches upon the industrial, manufacturing process, which Congress has made
abundantly clear is outside of RCRA's jurisdictional scope.
3-47
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
The Boeing Company
L5
1
Boaing believes that EPA lias constructed three good models
for industry procassas and should prasarva all thraa
models in tha final rula. Each of tha thraa models can be
useful depending on the design of thft operations. For
instance, in complax multi-stage operations, the process
could be designed for batch or continuous hard piping
operations. No single model alone completely describes
the conditions in industry.
Additionally, although EPA*s proposal mainly cites waste
water examples, Boeing understands the proposal would also
cover the point of generation for nonwastewaters.
Clarification on this point would be helpful.
Modal 1 - Wastestreams from similar streams generated by '
similar processes
At Boeing, cleaning the surface of an aircraft is an
example of model one. The cleaning process includes
generation of waste wipe solvent from various steps. Each
of the cleaning operations produces rags affected by
similar waste constituents. Simultaneous cleaning
operations are performed and the waste is aggregated for
disposal at one location. Other manufacturing operations
are not included in the waste determination. Models two
and three do not correctly characterize the wastestreaa.
Model 2 - Stream from single process
An example of model two would be waste from sump
operations. Hastes, such as coolant, from machining
3-48
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
The Boeing Company
L5
2
operations for different parts are collected to common
sump locations. Although the parts are not in the same
process operation, the wastes have similar
characteristics. The sump is the first accumulation point
for the waste from the machining operation. Neither model
one or three would accurately describe this waste
generation process.
Model—3 - Single manufacturing process step
Finally, for the wastestream from our tank line
operations, model three would best describe the
wastestream. In a tank line operation, aluminum is
treated in a series of process tanks containing acids,
bases, and rinse water. The waste is either accumulated
for off-site disposal or discharged into the on-site
wastewater treatment facility. If the waste determination
process was conducted at the aggregation point, sampling,
monitoring, and handling would be reduced. To avoid
possible dilution from non-related operations, a site-
specific process description based on normal operations
could be used to identify the wastestream.
3-49
-------
3.3 Storinwater Impoundments Should Be Excluded From the Phase III LDR Rule
Summary;
Eleven commenters (American Petroleum Institute, BP Oil Co., Chevron, Chemical
Manufacturers Association, Exxon Chemicals Americas, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Mobil Oil
Corporation, National Petroleum Refiners Association, Phillips Petroleum Company, Shell
Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company, and Texaco Inc.) believe that stormwater
impoundments should not be affected by the Phase III LDR rule. Excluding stormwater
impoundments from the Phase III LDR rule may affect the need for alternative wastewater
treatment in some industries.
Two of these commenters (Chemical Manufacturers Association and Texaco Inc.) have
specifically requested EPA to clarify this issue in the final rule. Five commenters (American
Petroleum Institute, BP Oil Co., Mobil Oil Corporation, National Petroleum Refiners Association,
and Phillips Petroleum Company) suggested that significant regulations already exist to ensure
that stormwater impoundments pose minimal risk. Eight commenters (American Petroleum
Institute, BP Oil Co., Chevron, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Mobil Oil Corporation, National
Petroleum Refiners Association, Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company) also
felt that alternatives to land-based stormwater impoundments — such as tanks — are very expensive
and cannot be justified by the minimal risk reduction that would be achieved. Five commenters
(American Petroleum Institute, BP Oil Co., Exxon Chemicals Americas, Exxon Company, U.S.A.,
Mobil Oil Corporation) discussed the alternative of segregating wastewater from stormwater
where there is insufficient land remaining to consider a tank-replacement option and felt that this
alternative is prohibitively expensive. One commenter (BP Oil Co.) felt that if stormwater
impoundments have to be replaced with tanks, it is absolutely necessary that a four-year retrofit
period should be provided. A twelfth commenter, the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County,
feels that the impact of the Phase III LDR rule will be substantial as numerous facilities within its
service area manage rainwater in ponds and lagoons.
Response:
EPA believes that the Third Third court decision requires underlying hazardous constituents
(UHCs) present in wastewaters at concentrations exceeding a minimum threat level be destroyed,
removed, or immobilized before the wastewater is discharged at end-of-pipe. Pursuant to RCRA,
EPA has the authority to regulate all land-based disposal units. However, impoundments only
receiving stormwater from areas segregated from process units will not be affected by the rule since
the stormwater should not contain any UHCs.
Comments:
• Exxon Company, U.S.A. (21-pp.l-10)
• Mobil Oil Corporation (23-p.2-4)
BP Oil Co. (27-pp.2,3,6)
• American Petroleum Institute (42-pp.l3-15)
• National Petroleum Refiners Association (60-p.l)
• Chemical Manufacturers Association (66-p.l7)
• Exxon Chemicals Americas (82-p.7)
3-50
-------
Chevron (87-p.4)
Texaco Inc. (90-p.2)
Phillips Petroleum Company (91-p. 1-2)
Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company (11 l-p.1-3)
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (L14-p.l)
3-51
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
21
1
i- Stormwatar Impoundment* arm unloue and do not require additional controls
Thi size of a facility's stormwatar impoundments is a function of tha amount of rainfall tha
facility racaivas and tha facility's runoff area. Thara' ara two typas of stormwatar
management systems. Tha first typa of systam convays stormwatar that is segregated
from procass wastawatar through a dedicated stormwatar sewer system. Thesa systams
do not racaiva dacharactarizad pracass wastawatar and ara excluded from tha Phasa 111
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). Tha sacond typa of systam eonvays stormwatar mixad
™ith process wastewater through a combined stormwater/wastawater sewer systam. Tha
mixtura is managad either in tanks or stormwatar impoundmants. Stormwatar
impoundmants normaBy oparata in parallel with biological traatmant impoundmants during
rain events. Stormwatar can ganarally be dischargad undar a Claan Watar Act (CWA)
permit or procassad in a biological traatmant unit in tha facSt/a wastawatar treating plant
Tha discussion below outlines why stormwatar storaga impoundmants racaiving
stormwatar mixad with procass wastawatar ara unique and should not ba subject to
additional controls.
A. Description of stormwatar impoundmants at Exxon's rafinarias and co-
locatad petrochemical plants
Exxon utilizes a common sewer system for conveyance of both stormwatar and process
wastawatar at aach of its four rafinarias (two of which heve larga cotoceted
patrochamical plants oparatad by Exxon Chamical Amaricas that sand wastawatar and
stormwatar to tha refinery). At Exxon's Montana refinery, annu* rainfaB is low enough
that stormwatar impoundmants ara not required. Othar Exxon rafinarias in Louisiana,
Taxas, and Cafifomta hava larga stormwatar impoundments that intermittently store
stsrmwctar mixad with decharsctsrizsd process wastewater.
1. Stormwatar surface impoundments receive decharactertzed process
wastawatar
During dry weather, Exxon's rafinarias and co-tocatad patrochamical plants manage
decharactarized process wastewater in their Aggressive Biological Treatment (ABT)
units. Dacharactarizad process wastawatar results from tha aggregation of smal
streams of characteristicafly hazardous wastawatar (generafly with low laachabla
3-52
-------
Commenter: Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Comment Number: 21
Page Number: 2
levels of benzene) with numerous strum* of non-hazardous wastewater. During
rain •varus, this decharactaiized process wastewater stream ls_furthar aggregated
with stormwatar and managed in stormwatar Impoundments (except at Exxon's
Montana refinery, as notad above). With thasa layers of aggregation, both the
concentration and mass loadings of Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs)
become even lower and tha Influent to tha stormwatar impoundment is generally
below Urwersal Treatment Standards (UTS).
2. Stormwatar impoundment management strategy calls for impoundments to be
empty whenever possible
Because the objective of the stormwatar impoundments is to receive rainfall, Bocon
operates them at minimum levels whenever possible. As soon as a rain event
ends, the dean stormwatar is either dsrectfy discharged under a CWA permit or
processed through the bioiogieal wastewater treatment system.
3. Stormwatar generally meets CWA discharge permit parameters without
additional blotraatment
-x«srr?efr -
The stormwat*- uaUty Is generaly good^toecause of the low concentrations and
minimal mass sidings of UHCs in the decharactertzed procass wastewater. The
low UHC concentrations result because only a fraction of the stomiwatar was
decharaetarized process wastewater, and only a fraction of the decharacterized
procass wastewater was formerly hazardous. The formerly hazardous procass
wastewater usuaflyfonta'ms nominal teachable levels of benzt r Stormwatar
normally meets rr£WA discharge permit parameters witnc^ any additional
biotraatment This gives the facffity the option to directly cfischarge the stormwatar if
it meets CWA discharge permit Bmits, or process the stormwatar through the
wastewater treatment plant
4. Summary table of Exxon's Impoundment management systems
The table below summarizes key factors about Exxon's stormwater and wastewater
impoundment management systems. Exxon owns and operates approximately 45
acres of stormwatar imDoundments 18acrasof ABTImDoundmanta. and 375 acres
¦me w§ eiwiiiivTaMWi Htspwram iwi wew vnee w rHv s NiWrwwiMiiiviMVf wt§ ms vi w ¦sim vmp
of biological impoundments downstream of ASTa.
3-53
-------
Table LA.4 • Exxon's Surface Impoundment Management Systems
Refinery Location
Louisiana
Texas
CaHfotnla
Montana
Total
(Rounded)
Co-tocaled patrociMmlcai plant sharing
refinery stonmvatur and wastewater
treatment systems?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Refinery slza (Barrels/Day)
424.000
386.000
128.000
44.000
1.000.000
Acreage of stormwaler impoundments
11.4
25
8.3
0
45
Acreage of Aggressive Biological
Treatment (ABU units
3.S
10
Tanks
4
18
Acraaga of Motogical treatment
Impoundments downstream of ABTs
0
350
1.7
24.5
375
Pieeniaoe of Mma stormwatar
Impoundments are at minimum levels
90
75
80
Not applicable
Percentage of Nme stormwater meats
CWA dscharge permit parameters
without treatment
60
100
80
Notappficable
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
21
4
B. Stormwatar impoundments have many unique features
The purpose of this section is to present several masons why stomiwatar
impoundments am unique whan compered to othar types of impoundment*. Tha
uniqueness of stofinwatar Impoundments reduces thair risk to human haaith and tha
environment and decreases tha naad for edtftional controls such as mars or laachata
collection systems.
1. Water and sludge quality have Improved significantly as a result of tha Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) rule, Primary Sludge Listing, and tha National Emission
Standard Jar Benzene Waste Operations
As a result of three significant regulations premuigatad in the last five years, tha
quaWy of refinery and/or co-tocated petrochemical stormweter and wastewater has
improved significantly. EPA's historical level of concern about stormwatar surface
impoundments should be lowered as a msult of these regulations. These three
regulations are tha TosddV Characteristic fPQ rule, Primary Sludge listing, and
National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations.
The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule promulgated on March 25, 1990 resulted In
significant recusions in the level of benzene and other hazardous constituents In
wastewater. The Primary Sludge Listing premuigatad on November 2, 1990
required Bom and others to perform a one-time sludge removal from
impoundments end convert the impoundments to non-hazardous service under
Delay of Closure previsions at 40 CFR265.113.d-e. AddWonaly, many oiy refinery
ppocsss wuiflwiur snviiit wtfi rBfocnw que or suracv vnpounoncnis uptuiim
of Aggressive Biological Treatment units (ABTs). Finaly, tha National Emission
Standerd for Benzene Waste Operations PfaniMkwttd on January 17. 1993
resulted In segregation and treatment of benzene- containing wastewater across
rvnfMvm m pcuuuwnioi purns* in m proem w axnpcyMig wnn vw NvoonM
EffilssiQii Slmdfd far gmarift Wistft Qotfitoi most othtf oroinic
(such aa toluene and xylene) ubiquitous in refineries and/or co-located
petrochemical plants were controtted in wastewater stripping equipment or removed
prior to entering a surface impoundment
These regulations have significantly reduced the risk to human health and the
environment from surface impoundment i, AddMonal controls on surface
3-55
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
21
5
impoundments, wastewater, or wastewater sludges art neither necessary nor coat
•Ifacta*.
2. Size of atoemwatar impoundments
As noted in Table LM above, Exxon has 45 acres of stonnwatar Impoundmanls at
Its four refineries and two co-tocatad petrochemical plants. The sheer size of the
impoundments makes any regulation requiring adtftionai controls very costly. After
considering the minimal risk from these impoundments, Exxon urges EPA to not
promulgate aiiy additional controls far them.
i stniiiiwatar imooundments provide surae protection far waatawatar taafamit
wIViii#iwwiaewi eeaepp^papepapaeeaeeea^a piwinw wv^pw •*w4ml IlkA «mmmuA ld» aAafllukaBAji aj) fcif r»lr» »
BhP iM QIvUnfflArlwii AuQQ0nll|) «v0 WW S wmwm UHMWyM Of DwOyiCliy
vofliOQ snoniy onor oomg storoQ ii mo upriiMiw impourarntni to unws nm
Uttie chance of migrating out of the stormwatar Impoundmenti The (ntannlttant usa
of a stonnwatar surface impoundment pm^Hea an axoeient rationale far thair
¦in 1 —i —alM BkakAA Rt Bm ¦¦ am * — — ~*~ — * —
•xompuon rfofn ony rnsso iv iwor iracnsio co0ocsonfvqunnion&
3-56
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company. U.S.A.
21
6
5. Oachaiactartaad preeaaa waatawatar h predominantly non-o«y
In tha Primary SSudga Listing, EPA pravidad gwinl information for typical rafinaiy
wattawatarstraamathatdonotindudaoi. Thata ttraamt induda coofing watar,
staam turbina watar, boaar biowdewn, «Ulppad waatawatar, and water traatmart
plant ffltarbadcwath. T7* Exwrc Baytown, Taxat Complax hat attimatad that norv
oOy wastawatars from iiasa aourcaa conatituta ovar 70% of tha da8y avaraga flow
procasa waatawatar flow.
Tha dacharaetarizad proeasa waatawatar rasutts from aggregation of amafl straama
of charectarttticafly Huarrtwis waatawatar wHSi iwmarous norvhazardoua
waatawatar streams. During rein avants, dacharadartzad precast waatawatar ia
hathar aggragatad with atomiwatar and managad bt atormwatar impoundmanta.
Wtth thaaa tayara of aggregation, tha ratuWng ttormwatar Influant ia ganaraly
baiow UTS md tha mi» ioatfngs of hazartioua eonatttuanta antaring tha
impoundmant at* minimal.
«. Stormwatar Impoundmant influant sxcaada UTS for only abort partoda, Ifatal
Tha ratio of preeaaa waatawatar to itormwatar ia highaat during tha first taw
minutaaofarainavant. It ia during thit briaf parted that tha concantration of UHCt
it typical Nghatt and might, tamporarty, axcaad UTS at tha Mat to tha atormwatar
tfnpounamtnL eyoconi Biyiovn^ • i txn vwpcx sufipiu its swuiwiw
impoundmant Wat for banzana avary two hour* during a rain avant Tha ratutta
ganaraly show tha first aampia axcaacfing tha UTS lavai of 0.14 ppm for banzana
with tubaaquant tampiaa baiow tha 0.14 ppm UTS lavaL A eompoaita banzana
aampia takan avaiy two hours throughout tha storm ia also baiow tha UTS lavaL
Exxorfa California rafinarv alto aamoiaa ita atomiwatar impoundmant Mat avarv two
hours and doaa not oanaralv arraarl tha- b+nzan* UTS iavai for anv aamsia.
Aamaatim of tha Btpeui waxtawatar with oiicttv laware tha
wwwmWKmw Wr BWi WORM a v w wWHMVNI llliWpRIT a# WBP
I
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
21
7
7. EPA should exempt RCRA Subtitle C May of Closure surfaoe Impoundment*
' from additional Phase IV LDR controls
has m total of sight impoundments that am regulated undar tha RCRA
9-^wu c program as a result of either tha TC rule or tha Primary Sludge Listing.
Five of ttiaaa impoundments manage stornwater and firae are ABTa. For each of
tha eight Impoundments, Exxon has chosen the Daisy of Closure eompfianoe option
outfined in 40 CFR 26S.113.d4. To comply with Delay of Closure, Boon has
removed hazardous wastewaters and hazardous sludgas to tha extant practicable.
In adtfSon, tha impoundments hava baan converted to non-hazardous sanies in
order to alow thalr eortinuad operation.
Exxon maSzas thai tha ThW ThW opinion appsars to alow continued usa of
Subtifls 0 impoundments only. Presumably, this Is bacausa tha court was not
famiar with the Delay of Closure provisions. Nevertheless, Exxon encourages EPA
to lacogniza that an impoundment operating undar RCRA Subtitle C Dslay of
Closure provides a higher level of human haaBh and environmental protection than
a Subtitle D impoundment. Tha stringent groundwater monitoring, dosur*. and
oost^lesuro care leounenients TlT,fllft*,f in 40 CFR Part 205 Subpart G provide
protection over and above Subtitte D standards. Exxon requests that surface
impoundmants operating undar Subtitie C Delay of Ctosura be exempted tan
additional controls promulgated during tha Phast IV LDR.
t. EPA recognized tha unique nature of stormwstsf mixed with process
¦wastewater during the Primary Sludge Listing.
consideration of stomiwatar impoundmants intormHtont"* managing low
laveis of process wastewater is not precedent sotllnQ for EPA in the Primary
SHrigt \ ttHi^ vvat wastTiar Impoundments receiving predominantly stormwatar
wars exempted from the fisting definition.
Tha Aeenev atmwi with the commentsrs that starmwitar units thai naive
process wastewaters in this manner (from sewer systems where stormwatar
and process wastswatsr ara c^mingled^, and do not receive any prooasa^
wastewaters or oly cooing wastewaters during dry waalhar flow, do not
routinely generate sludges that are simlar In composition to ttta primary
treatment sludges subject to todays I slings. 55 FR 46374 (November 2,
1990).
3-58
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
21
8
The mm logic used In the Prime* Sludge Listing should be mad to exampt
slmnwaler impoundments from adtSttonai Phase IV LDR controls.
& Clarify that etormwater storage Impoundmente wlU not be impacted by ttM
Phase IV LDR
• ¦ in the pnr:4 to tie Phase HI LDR, EPA discusses treatment impoundments only
malting no mention of storage impoundments such m thosa used to manage
tlormwatar. -y example, when (Sscussing the Phase IV LDR, EPA says that
« « JnflUtty Mi M IDi v CVvwi BIS um ITim 01 pfOpQMQ WMrffNI
equivalency requirements wMa keeping In mind the upcoming LDR Phase IV
rule which must consider sludges, leaks, and air amissions from treatment
mrface Impoundment*. COFR 11709(March2. 199SL Emohasisadded.
Similar references, occur repeated^ throughout the Phase U LDR preamble.
ppa'i leek of discussion regarding storage imooundments imofes thai EPA does not
intend to consider these Impoundments Irs the Phase IV LDR. Exxon requests that EPA
dsrifu that r -rnwatsr itnrade imaou* »s!ts wB be exempt fioiu Phase IV LDR
requirements i^Kausa of their low lew. o> txiK to human health and the envlronmonL
D. No reasonable altemative exists to stomtwater Impoundments
Stomiwatar imooundments an vital components of Exxon's CWA*penniited faeffltiea.
Exxon support SPA'S comments that
Surface t" vndments have tiaffilhmalv provided an aiiuiiiooifciu advantaoe -
^ip%pi ¦ p* ' m mipp pphp p wpp w *ip ^p wm p vi p ^pp hmv wi vse vp^e ™
in eddWori. % nw energy, martenence and cons&uction costs * in that, they
offer e means of "equBbralmg" end "equsBxinfl^tho relatively frequent variations
in dMU eomoosMiQns of w"**" wastes Jli.. aoanoaiad waala stream).
60 Fit 11718 (March 2,1995).
Exxon beleves that these Impoundments should not be raguMed under the Phase IV
LDR. The analysis below demonstrates that Stare are no cost effective altsmatta9 to
these impoundments. Replacement wtfli tanks orratrofltting them to MHrntan
TechnologicalRequlriments (MTR) Is praMaHfvely expensive and irtgnt not be feasfife.
Alternatives. seoreoation of tftrharaf******** process wastewater lium st&rmwstar
generaRy requires a completely now sower systam that is also prohfelttvely expensive to
3-59
-------
Commenter: Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Comment Number: 21
Page Number: 9
„ to*) m M*mw milifor ptttOftie»T*,"< Dtarft. Reeoarizina
these Iwpa costs end the mMmai risk, EPA should alow continued use of nocrowatar
jmpffiinriBMwfr m*I mt fjiunuipete addMonai stormwatar Impoundment controls In the
Phase IV LDR.
1. Replacement of stonnwater impoundments Is no* cost effective or feasible
In 1992. API employed a contractor to estimate the costs for closure of surface
impoundments and their niHfprrrt replacement with tanks. Untt tptf *******
gifMKtc to vw pMRwum fwnng i««ny tot ftiuuMfiiM snpounonim fiptaCMMfll
fifyiftfft ty wwiiiM'iftf Boon has taksn thos* gonsric unit cost factors
•nd estimated a one-time cost of J70 Mend ongoing costs of S4M/year for the next
30 yiin to npiaca storniwror impounamvnts wt tonics. tmm costs oo not
Include the large pumps required to transport stormwatar or the Independent power
suppBes necessary to make the large pumps avaBafcle during a power outage.
These costs are prohfcttivo considering the low rtsk of stormwater impoundments.
ini well Ulf IUmhiiKBN II IIM U»«l tMKKnrnm
Tsbfts • Costs to Cfosa EsdoemiPs Stortiwifstow IfnDouvi^fYisnfcB as
LBJnZnSS InO SHsDHiflM nvfMGSIflSrc WID1 •SlmS
Deeerfptfon
Unit Cost
(Rounded)1
Acreage of
Exxon
Impoundments
ToialCoet
(Rounded)1
Landfli Closure (One time)
750kS/Acre
45
S35M
TtfiK RSQiaGSfflSfll tUn^iiilMii
750kS/Acre
45
$3511
Total Costs fOne^me)
S70M
#j.
Tenk operations end
maMenance, groundwater
monitoring, poet closure care
(Onooino for 30 years)
85 .
kJ/Aoe/Year
45
$4 Wyr
1 k«1,000 and M«1f000,000
•e wii twHi biwiuuw lynfmncy asm
' * ffywitpf flf tltf hymmdrntnts It their eNWy tff' tlttr "^y
large volumes In smaBer plot speoe than lanfcs. At eech Exxon fecJtty where the
t Phase IV LDRs might require stonnwatar Impoundments to 'be replaced, new
3-60
-------
Commenter: Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Comment Number: 21
Page Number: 10
Tniltf eonswiw subetanlialy mom plot spaoe then the enisling
togMundments. The Guf Coast refineries are surrounded by neighborhoods,
^ 9m Mhoed of tnowsing tw nlkwiy «m It bw.
Z Segregation at rfecfearactaftaMl proemm wastewater from atoimwatar it not
COS* IU9UIM
The previously Umik tertttir. watar that produces decharactarized process
wastewater contains km levels of TO constituents (generaly benzene). These
strums gsneraly have low flownles but are located throughout a refinery and/or
ctHOcnio pnDCMmoi pnnL iiiiyBpiiBiiw^wy oruw^jiy oograggwo from
other non4mardouswasiewatsro or from stormwater.
On the basis of puMdy eveiabie cost MOrmaSon from othar raflnertea, Exxon
would estr-itte a cost In excess- of $400 If for segregation of decharactarized
process wastewater from stofm*atar lor our four refineries and two co-located
patrechamleal plants. Imposing such large costs to address minimal risks h not
reasonable. Addtflonaly. costs of this magnttude seriously threaten the economic
ytoMWy «l f ff«f *tmir immtbmmA BeCBUaeOfthe
aggressive nature of bioiogiMl hoatmoi* in en AST urtt, tt is unHcely thet
segregation would measurably improve the quafty of watar being clscharged.
summary, *non i no iiiipwii wmnwi si im conanuM optraon c* AUNiiiwntr.
NttpounorMfn. oiCNsi Mwiii iuiummi vr^ounanwrn npnKMMix wn wn nor
•sgmgelioo of witowtor from ttewwiif it ood iffoctly. EPA thould not piomuiQabi
Phase IV LDRs that mandate addBfenal controls.
IL EPA ahouki deatanata Aooreeeive Blotooteel Treatment unHa f ABTal aa Beat
Deiiioiat/aieq Avanaoio Technology cbdati tot process wastewater m>m
rsnnenee ana co-ioca^fq gf ff9Snf TTwCit Pffng
By cheosing AST as BOAT for refinery and petrochemical wastewaters, &9A would adept e
cost effective and proven technology that meets UTS whle minimizing analytical
-------
Commenter;
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Mobil Oil Corporation
23
2
B m—OTi'imm wi nw (MMiiNiiMwrt ennvnr n iv rmiirnnif
Llrv InnfVnirnin li iHiiMyiLliJMafflM fRBBI
•ZHASKJUj
Duringswrin ivuii, cotnbtaad rafinaiy proctc wastawatar and ttonowttsr runoff above tin
capacity of the iifiaey wantwuar 1""'^^ pint nan bt for *f*T
during diy wsatbsr wbw tbars is txctst wastcwnv traatmaot capacity. This process is
CUMSCSBflSJF to ®WOld OWfttffMlsiSltf tb# WSStCWStMT tmtBMOt Jtltftt duilD^ ft StCMTBI 6VCQt»
rwnlfwig wi myjfqaiy qj| yffftKfyy atnl tfinwi qyjjfr CfflftftqUftlt pfliTlMi ftflllTF
10 meat NFDES discharge limits. His efficacy of tb# refinery la&d based ABT'Dill 1m
equally crucial to imwhwiuhh its performance nbtiw lo achieving UTS ecprivilency, and
thus, a means of divining combined ptocM wastewater and stonnwatar (La. wot weathef
flow) during ttuim events must ba intiflliiMd Many refineries, particularly tboia dut an
older, larger and/or in geogiaplucal regions which rscshre high «vwy rainfalls, utilixs land
3-62
-------
Commenter: Mobil Oil Corporation
Comment Number: 23
Page Number: 3
bmd impeandmi to provide contaminant far wm weather flow.
• Lead baaed wa« weather flow ia>po«8!dB»aB« are iahanaliy low risk becauae:
o They only taceive aad couubb wet wealhar flow during a stonaevaat sad the subeeqaaat
period required to wotk-offtbe contained inventory through At wastewater treatment
pint *
o Wet weather flow is primarily storm water tad dm contains only low conmitrnions of
UTS caosBtaaa. The UTS is only likely to baeweedadfer a vagr short period of time
curly is a stonn aweat whan any hydrocarbon that is tnppad is low spots in the sewer is
hf maimmMmf &m than, £uiiti« an ia place to ay to faeovar das
hydrocarbon before it tangs * laad baaed unit In ibaevenrthat some sauill quantity of
hydrocarbon does evade recovery sad enter Aa impoundment, procedures an m plan to
insure piumpt imovaL wonseqncany, me «v wanner how frsuiinefl ta me
impoundment is a vety dtltaa mixture. Although none of Mobil's wet waathar flow
impouadmeats an so penaittad {one has m-emergeacy diedurge permit), many such
fgipOVBflHf'I'T 111 luUDMQr pCRSZuM IQr UUIU (lUFBirp OX WBB IS pllOOBIIBWf
stonirwttar. fftftnfMftWTw tF—mimt piunt «¦¦»¦
aad werfceff such wet weather volumes, aad becaan Mobfl has had considerable saoeass
ia tedacinc its watar Bsa/tresttnaBt needs, Xlofail has choeaa to treat wet wetther flow
ranter man seac a permit to
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Mobil Oil Corporation
23
4
weather flow followed by treatment is more protective. At one of Mobil's refineries that
is located geographically in * region that rarely experiences extras storm events and
cunentiyutili» a one acre land based wet weather flow impoundment, there is sufficient
land available to enable a tankage replacement option. However, the cost of such an
option is ffttnried at $10 million
o In situations where there is insafficfcnt laid resuming to consider a tankage replacement
option, precluding the use of wet weather flow impoundments implies • requirement to
reengineer die refinery's sewer system ao as to segregate process jQow and stonnwater.
As a practiral matter, this means fee installation of* new process sewer to isolate process
wastewater, leaving the existing below giade sewer system for stotmwater flow. WMe
this is dearly an ideal solution to this ami many refinery sewer related issues, and is the
way many newer refineries are constructed, it is prohibitively expensive to retrofit an
existing fiuility to provide for segregated sewers. In response to the potential impact of
SWN and RCRA TC on wastewater flow impoundments, Mobil evaluated the option of
segregating process and stoimwater sewea at one of our larger refineries located in a
geographical region subject to high avenge rainfall and severe storm events. At that
time, costs for the segregated sewer alone amounted to almost S200 million. Closure of
the 60+ toe wet weather flow impoundment also had significant potential cost import,
with eftimafee varying between S10 million and $20 million, depending on the closure
method utilized. Consequently, the Agency should continue the policy established with
die Primary Sludge Listing rale and exempt wet weather flow impotmdments from IDR
Phase IE & IV requirements. To do otherwise would achieve only the most minor
reooctioG m nst null sscmrasi tnny itisgt con sqcb ft result cannot m jusofiM by
any otqective analysis.
3-64
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number;
BP Oil Co.
27
2
2. Stnrrnwaier Pond Exemption
• Wet weather flow stormwater impoundments should be exempted under this rule. similar to the
tmtnarv sludge wet weather flow exemption.
BP Oil currently has* wet weather flow stonmvater pood at eadi of its two Midwesteni refineries.
These refineries, typical for facilities of their age, have combined sewers which receive stonawater
combined with dechararterized process water during major storm events. We recently construe^ /
replacement tanks to meet primary sludge, Toxicity Characteristic (TC) waste, and Benzoic Waste
NESHAP requirements. The remaining combined-flow stormwater impoundments receive wet
weather flow during major storm events only. The replacement tank capacity precedes the
impoundments. The impoundments receive flow only during storm events; therefore, they are not
primary sludge impoundments. The influent to the impoundment is not TC waste; the water and
the sludges in the impoundments are not TC wastes.
These stormwater ponds are used very infrequently. Since the replacement tanks were put into
service in 1994, there has been only one occasion when combined process/stormwater has entered
the ponds. Further, this was a precautionary measure and was not absolutely necessary because of
lack of tank capacity. Since 1994 was a relatively dry year, it is estimated that overflow to the
stormwater ponds will occur approximately once or twice per year.
At both refineries, any stormwater altering the impoundments is transferred to die aggressive
biological treatment system for treatment prior to discharge. This transfer is made as soon as flow
conditions permit, since water levels in the impoundments are kept low to provide needed capacity
for the next storm event Both ponds have been designed with emergency spillways, so there could
3-65
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
BP Oil Co.
27
3
be direct discharae from the poods. His would occur only in as extreme emergency condition,
however, under terms of the NFDES permit.
of influent water which could flow to the impoundments have been obtained at both
Influent water quality is expected to be in the raqge of 0.16- 0.3 mg/l benzene (a typical
constituent) - well below TC levels, but higher than UTS levels at least for initial periods of flow.
gytwpix of impoundment sludges constituent levels below UTS levels, and typical sludge
data are summarized in attached Table 1.
It makes little common sense to spend tens oftnilliaos of dollars to construct tanks to replace these
impoundments that will be used only ooce or twice a year and that represent very low risk to the
environment Space constraints fix construction of additional tanks would be an issue at our
refineries as weU as the cost and problems of pumping die significant quantities of stoimwater
which must be managed during a stoitn event if a gravity-flow sewer system cannot be utilised
The cost of installing segregated sewer systems at these refineries would be prohibitive. Therefore,
the CTiyriwg storrawater impoundments provide needed flexibility for handling stoimwater flows in
a cost-eSectiveteanner.
It should be noted that these comments refer to wet weather combined-flow stoimwater ponds only;
it is assumed that poods which receive stonnwater only will not be affected by these proposed rules
since that flow contains no "dccharacterizcd" wastes.
If wet weather flow stonnwater impoundments would have to be replaced with tanks under these
proposed rales, it is absolutely necessaiy that a four-year retrofit period be provided. As
mentioned above, these will be even move complex projects that the primary sludge/TC/Benzene
Waste NESHAP pood replacements. The proposal is not clear whether the four-year tune frame,
allowed under 40CFR 265221(h), will be provided.
3-66
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
BP Oil Co.
27 '
6
Table 1
Summary of Analyses, 12/01/94
Wet Weather Tkm StomwattrPond Stoke
•
Rarrmle-TCLP
Extract ms/l
X20-IMI
Concentration. *ng/l
Metals
Arsenic
<0.1
5.0 TCLP
Barium
0.5>4
•
7.6 TCLP
Cadmmm
<0.05
0.19 TCLP
<0.05
0.86 TCLP
<0.05
03? TCLP
Mercury
<0.002
0.025 TCLP
Selenium
<0.1
0.16 TCLP
Silver
<0.05
0.30 TCLP
Volatile Oreanics
<0.025
03
10
Carbon Tetrachloride
<0.025
03
6.0
Chlorobeazene
<0.025
03
6.0
Chkiiufutiu
<0.025
03
6.0
1,4 Dichlorobenzcne
<0.025
03
• 6.0
12 Dicfaloroedume
<0.025
03
6.0
1,1 Dicfalorocthvlene
<0.025
03
6.0
Methvi ethyl ketone
0.050
1.0
36
Tetrichlorocaliylcne
<0.025
03
6.0 ,
Triddoroethyiene
<0.025
03
6.0
Vinyl chloride
<0.025
03
6.0
SemfVoIadle Oreanics
o-Cresol
<0.04
0.8
5.6
m & p Cresol
<0.04
0.S
5.6
2,4 Dinitrotoluene
<0.04
0.8
140
<0.04
0.8
10
HexachJon>-l,3-buad»ene
! <0.04
0.8
5.6
hexachlon«hane
<0.04
0.8
30
Niuobeaaene
<0.04
0.8
14
Pentachloropfaenol
<0.08
1.6
7.4
Pvndmc
<0.04
0.8
16
2,43-Trichiorouhcnoi
<0.04
0.8
7.4
2,4.6-Trichloroohenol
1 <0.04
0.8
7.4
3-67
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
American Petroleum Institute
42
13
Because many petroleum refineries are located in arui that
receive large amounts of rainfall, saost facilities have extremely
large stormwater iapoundments. Shese iapoundment* generally fall
under two classifications. On* type of system are those
connected to segregated storm sewers. These systems would sot
receive any process water, and therefore would not be covered
under either the Phase III or IV LDR rules. Ifce second type of
system is stormwater impoundments which receive relatively small
amounts of process water which may contaih decharaeterized
# »
wastewaters* along with stesmwater. (Hereinafter referred to as
¦wet weather flow impoundments* J. wet weather flow impoundments
further break down into two different types. Sometimes the
mixture of storsvater and process rater is retained in the basxn
and fed back through the wastewater treatment system at a
• * .
controlled rate. Za other eases, the mixture of process water
3-68
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
American Petroleum Institute
42
14
and stommter is sufficiently clean so eh* mtar is directly
discharged. Separate stormwater impoundments ara necessary so
that the large amounts of water managed during a storm event will
not £lood tha wasca treatment system and intarfara with tha
efficiancy of tha aggrassiva biological treatment unit. Also, by
diverting a larga flow of water it helps a wastewater system
maintain its affluent discharge limit, especially for total
suspended solids (TSS)*
Wet weather flow impoundments are fundamentally different
from process water impoundments considered under this rulemaking.
Typical wet weather flow impoundments would only receive waste
water infrequently, in some cases only one or two days a year.
These impoundments contain water anywhere from 3 to 9 months
during the year.' with the typical total use period being 6
months. Further, if the UTS are exceeded at all, they are only
exceeded for short, transient peaks at the beginning of storm
events when the proportion of process water to stozm water is the
greatest. Consequently, there is limited total loading of UTS
constituents into wet weather flow impoundments. Because of the
very low levels of UTS constituents that ,find their way into such
* •
impoundments, tha environmental risk posirt by these units is
small or nonexistent.
Compared to tha relatively low risk posed by wat weather
flow impoundments, the cost associated with alternative forms .of
management for stormwater is extremely high. As suggested in the
previous section, replacing the very large acreage of wet weather
3-69
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 15
flow inpoundments would be extremely mxpmMivm. Further, this
does not include the cost of pumping the very large amounts of
water that need to be managed during heavy storms, as well as the
backup generators which would be necessary toaallow the punps to
work in storm events during electrical outages. Installing a
segregated sewer system as-an alternative means of preventing
impacts from the Phase HI and Phase IV l&R rules could -cost
individual facilities as high as $250 million. Because of the
low risk associated with these units, and high cost of
alternative means of managing storawater, EPA should exespt wet
.weather flow impoundments from the Phase III and Phase* IV rules.
k similar finding was made in the F037 and F038 (Primary Sludge)
listing. 55 Fed. Reo. 46374 (Nov. 2, 1990). The environmental
benefits offered by these units, by insuring the cuality of the
wastewater treatment in the process wastewat- *tment system,
when balanced with the very minimal risk and u.gn cost of
alternative means of configuring the stormwater management
system, suggest that these units should be exenpt from these
rules-;
3-70
-------
Commenter:'
Comment Number:
Page Number:
National Petroleum Refiners Association
60
1
There is no need for additional regulation of surface impoundments managing stormwater
and decharacteiized process wastewater.
This rulemaking should not address surface impoundments managing stormwater mixed
with decharacteiized process wastewater doe to significant regulations already in-place which
ensure that these units pose minimal risk. These regulations are: 1) the Toxicity Characteristic
rule promulgated Maich2S,1990; 2) the Primary Sludge listing promulgated November 2,1990;
and. 3) the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations promulgated Jacvssy 17,
1993. Collectively, these Tnfamgirtng* resulted in significant reductions in fcenzer :vels in
refinery wastewater and the removal of sludge from surface impoundments.
Also, due to the segregation and treatment of benzene-containing wastewater, other
hazardous constituents are also stripped from the water, notably toluene and xylene. Given the
detailed regulations already addressing risk from these surface impoundments, an additional
rulemaking would be duplicative and costly, while providing no tangible improvements in water
quality or risk reduction.
3-71
-------
Commenter: Chemical Manufacturers Association
Comment Number: 66
Page Number: 17
CMA requests that EPA clarify m the final phase ID rule that its provisions do not
apply to j'^i ini 11 fc! osr statms hazardous iufsste hiii fi^f § i f i
imprwiwi^TTi^nHtj rrr t»nV While CMA has received verbal assurances on this point
tea EPA staff, a written explanation wfll predude future misunderstandings with state
and regional staff.
3-72
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Chemicals Americas
82
7
8. Stormwater Surface impoundment Exemption: ECA Recommends that
Stormwater Surface Impoundments tie Exempt from LDR Phase lll/IV
Regulations
A major issue for large industrial complexes is the potential RCRA regulation
of surface impoundments managing stormwater and decharaeterized process
wastewater. For example, at one Exxon chemical plant in Texas process
wastewaters are not segregated from stormwater. During storms, excess
stormwater aril decharaeterized process water which cannot be sent directly
to the wastewater treatment system (without flooding the system) is sent to a
stormwater surface impoundment located in the adjacent Exxon refinery.
From the surface impoundment the combined streams can either be
discharged through an NPDES permitted outfall or returned to the
wastewater treatment plant during dry weather conditions.
Given the low mass loadings of UHCs in a stormwater surface impoundment
the low risk" associated with the stormwater and decharaeterized
wastewaters, the high cost of segregating process and stormwater sewers,
and the significant capital cost required to replace stormwater impoundments
(which cover 25 acres at the Texas facility) with a tank system, ECA
recommends that stormwater systems with surface impoundments that have
an NPDES discharge permit be exempted from the LDR Phase III and IV
regulations.
3-73
-------
Commenter: Chevron
Comment Number: 87
Page Number: 4
5) Stormwater impoundments which receive smsil amounts of process water with
previously characteristic waste during storm events should be exempt from the
Phase III and Phase IV rales.
A number of Chevron facilities are located In areas that receive large amounts of rainfall. These
facilities have stonnwater impoundments which am used to manage large quantities of stormwatcr
nmoft These impoundments can receive relative gmaB, intermittent quantities of process water for
limited amounts of time during storm events.
Because Chevron's stormwater impoundments are regulated by NPDES direct discharge permits
and pose negligible risks, they should be exempt from the Phase HI and Phase IV rales. The
negligible risks associated by these units would not justify the large cost and technical difficulty
associated with alternate of Trtanaptng large quantities of stormwater.
3-74
-------
Commenter: Texaco Inc.
Comment Number: 90
Page Number: 2
EPA should also clarify that this rait does not apply to stoimwater impoundments that receive
wet weather flow. During stnnn events, some petroleum refineries divert dilute quantities of
decharacterized wastewater to stonnwaier impoundments to avoid overloading their wastewater
treatment system. These dilute quantities of decharacterized wastewater are then either managed
bade through the wastewater treatment system following die storm event or directly discharged,
depending on the facilities operating and/or permit conditions. This refinery operating practice
was recognized during EPA1* primaiy sludge listing determination which excluded these
impoundments. EPA should exempt stonnwater impoundments which receive wet weather flow
due to the vety low risks this refineiy operating practice presents compared to the potentially high
of regulating such impoundments.
3-75
-------
Commenter: Phillips Petroleum Company
Comment Number: 91
Page Number: 1
Stormwater impoundments that receive stormwater. alono with lesser
amounts of previously characteristic wastewater, during storm events
should he exempt from I PR Phase III and Phase IV rules.
Facilities that lack fully segregated sewer systems may, curing large storm events,
experience dilute overflows of process water into stormv ater impoundments.
Before dilution, the small volume of process water (i.e. relative to the large amount
of stormwater), may have exhibited a characteristic of hazardous waste. In the
final rulemaldng for F037 & F038 (petroleum refining primary sludge wastes), an
exemption was provided for "wet-weather" flow because in its dilute form, the
3-76
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Phillips Petroleum Company
91
2
stormwater potentially containing primary sludge posed little threat to human
health or the environment. Similar logic should apply in the case of stormwater
potentially containing small amounts of previously characteristic wastes. Phillips
recommends that the final rule clearly stipulate that "wet-weather" flows are not -
subject to LOR Phase 111 or Phase IV rules.
3-77
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company
111
1
STORMWATER IMPOUNDMENTS
Stormwater impoundments which receive process water with previously
characteristic waste during storm events (wet weather flow impoundments) should
be exempt from the proposed Phase 111 and pending Phase IV rules. These wet
weather flow impoundments manage extremely small amounts of process
wastewater from petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants and distribution facilities.
The negligible risk posed by these wet weather flow impoundments do not Justify the
large cost and technical difficulty associated with alternative means of managing the
large quantities of stormwatar at these facilities.
Based on quick survey of a number of our facilities we have the following data which
supports our position that additional reguletion of wet weather flow impoundments in
not necessary.
3-78
-------
Commenter: Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company
Comment Number: 111
Page Number: 2
¦ Sludge Anaiyaia
Data available from one location - 0.1 to 0.2 ppm benzene (total)
¦ Procasa WuUwalir Underlying Hazardous Constituent Analyses, and
Typical Dilution Factors for Mixtures of Storm water and Procasa Wastawatar
Data available from two locations -
Tha concentration of the chemicals in the process wastewater.
*:Ethyibanxma -
.v'<;Toluanr.":
Xylftnct
MBC
tJOOkChEMRI
1
0.7
2.6
3.9
NA
Location
-
0.00157
NA
0.460
NA
8.77
Unit > ppm
NA - Not avalabia or not da
tactai
With the dilution factor - tha concentration of the chemicals expected in the
stormwater impoundment.
¦
SI3II
Toluene
Mac*--
Factor .
Location
0.2
0.14
0.S2
0.78
NA
1 to 8
0.0000788
NA
0.0228
NA
0.438
1 to 20
Unit - ppm
NA - Not avaiable or not datKtad
¦ Number of Days Wet Weather Flow Impoundments Manages Commingled
Bow
Data from two locations -
Location #1 • 150 days per year
location #2 «170 days par year
Note: Managing watar includes tha time required to transfer the water back
to the wastewater treatment train.
3-79
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company
111
3
¦ Quantity of Stermwater that is Traatad vs. Oiraet Discharged
Data from thirteen locations - (4 co-located refinery and petrochemical plants,
2 refineries, 7 chemical plants)
For all locations, 100% of storm water that is commingled with untreated
process wastewater is treated prior to discharge.
3-80
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
L14
1
The Districts believe the <«npmt of the proposed LDR~m nil on tf^lTtn dischaiysn *uy ten
been unde«»tiraated ia EPA* analjds of the rale. The Districts leftOate at loot Often iadastrial
wastewater discharges which wastewates la ponds and ¦ put of ftwfr Water,
An prctrcatmem systems. At bast sevenl-of these pond* hold wastewaters that at one time have had
characteristics of haardoas waste. Moreover, the namberolfndimrfai wastewater dischargees within
the Districa* service area which msnage rainwater in ponds aad lagoons is considerably higher than
fifteen. • *
U a strict intervention of the definition of suttee impoundment (as feua* at 40 CFB. 260.10) is
used, the Districts cook! hive liten&f hundred* of within its service ares which are
considered to have ssrfrce impoandmeats. mkbecsasemaiycrf thefrdllties within the Districts'
service area have benns in oetdoor areas that aiensedftir spill containment, into wMdi rainwater ttO§
during wet periods. There axe ako a larpnosaber of bdUtkuhat have sadergroottdssmpt and pits
used to mUea wastewater fcr transfer to other parts of the facilities tor treatment.
3-81
-------
3.4 Are Land-Based Units Other Than Surface Impoundments (e.g., Sumps, Sewers,
Trenches etc.) Alsoi Affected By the Phase III LDR Rule?
Summary:
EPA did not specifically address sumps, sewers, and trenches as land-based units in the
proposed Phase IE LDR rule. However, these components of a wastewater management system
may be considered land-based units at some facilities and may, therefore, be affected by the rule.
Seven commenters (Albemarle Corporation, Allied Signal Inc., The Boeing Company, General
Electric Company, Hoechst Celanese, International Business Machines Corporation, and Rohm
and Haas Company) indicated that these units were being used at their facilities to collect liquid
wastes. An eighth commenter (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) indicated that
even though wastewaters may contain hazardous constituents below de minimis levels at the
POTW headwords, high concentrations of wastes may exist in sewage systems resulting in
contamination of aquifers.
Response:
With the implementation of land disposal restrictions, EPA is establishing treatment
standards that will substantially diminish the toxicity of hazardous waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term
threats to human health and the environment are minimized. To this end, EPA has specified that
the Phase III LDR rule applies to facilities where ICRT wastewaters are decharacterized, managed in
land-based units, and discharged to CWA or equivalent systems. EPA's intent is to ensure that the
decharacterized wastewaters are also treated to remove, destroy, or immobilize the underlying
hazardous constituents (UHCs) before the wastewaters are discharged at end-of-pipe. EPA believes
that surface impoundments, lagoons, and other land-based units being used to store or treat
decharacterized wastewater before discharging it to a surface water body or POTW will be most
significantly affected by this rule. EPA also believes that sumps and sewers are primarily considered
to be parts of a wastewater treatment facility (or wastewater treatment units) which meet the
definition of tanks or tank systems (40 CFR 260.10) and, therefore, will not be affected by the Phase
III LDR rule. However, trenches and other wastewater treatment units that do not meet this
definition (e.g., because they are made of earthen material) would be affected if other conditions are
met (e.g., the UHCs at the end-of-pipe exceed UTS). The Agency expects that the need for a two-
year national capacity variance will be further confirmed if several facilities are found to be using
sumps, sewers, or trenches (which can be categorized as land-based units) for wastewater
management on-site.
Comments:
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2-p.3)
• Allied Signal Inc. (ll-p.3)
• Rohm and Haas Company (32-pp. 1-2,attachments)
General Electric Company (45-pp.5-6)
• International Business Machines Corporation (57-p.3)
• Albemarle Corporation (84-pp.l-2)
• Hoechst Celanese (L2-pp,3-5)
• The Boeing Company (L5-pp.l-2)
3-82
-------
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number: 3
Waste waters may contain de minimus levels of hazardous constituents when they reach the
headworks of a POTW. However, high concentration wastes are often released into the sewage
systems, and there is documented contamination of aquifers from releases from sewage pipes,
sumps and other areas exempt from RCRA as parts of WWTUs. Honeywell, in Clearwater
Florida has an extensive solvent plume from a sump that received electroplating rinse waters. The
solvent was spilled from a vapor recovery unit within the plating room, drained to a sump, which
had a hole in the piping caused by plating chemical corrosion. Florida only found oat about the
plume because the facility self reported. The RFI conducted by EPA under HSWA required no
investigation of the sump, even though the hole was the size of a fist and would have been easily
seen by a visual inspection if one had been required. General Components, a printed circuit board
manufacturer also has ground water and soil contamination from leaks from the sewer piping.
Florida is just beginning to leam the scope of contamination caused by releases from concrete
sewage pipes downstream from dry cleaners.
Existing regulatory language is unclear regarding the status of wastewaters, wastewater treatment
units and POTWs. Section 40 CFR 261.3 (aX2Xiv) excludes wastewaters mixed with certain
hazardous wastes if the discharge is subject to the Clean Water Act 40 CFR 26l.4(aXi)(u)
excludes wastes mixed with domestic sewage and discharged to a POTW. 40 CFR 261.4(a)(2)
together with 265. l(cX10) and the definition of wastewater treatment unit excludes wastes treated
in wastewater treatment units subject to the Clean Water Act 40 CFR 40 CFR 268.1(e) occludes
de minimus losses of hazardous waste from LDRs if discharged to waste water treatment systems.
Prior to finafiration of the proposed regulation it is especially important to clarify these sections for
zero dischargers that operate without NPDES permits. The CWA program does not care about
what wastes go into a zero discharge system. As loag as the wastewater does not reach surface
waters, they don't care if ground water is being contaminated.
3-83
-------
Commenter: Allied Signal
Comment Number: 11
Page Number: 3
3 Practical Implementation Problems Mandate the Agency's Selection of the "Battery Limits" Point of
Generation Concept
Facilities which have designed wastewater treatment systems to accommodate wastestreams consolidated
from different processes typically rely upon scores of tanks and other vessels, miles of hard piping and
dorns, if not hundreds of floor drains, sumps and other initial collection devices for collection and
transportation. In many cases, this equipment may be located in inaccessible areas, making access to a
"true" theoretical point of generation located in such areas impossible. Thus, while the influent to such
centralized treatment facilities can be dissected to some degree "on paper," it can never be practically
tracked upstream for "point of generation" purposes to each individual process vessel, column, or other
piece of equipment. Typically, the smallest influent to a centralized wastewater treatment system that can
be isolated is a combination of process waste streams associated with making a single product or related
group of products. Individual wastestreams from the process are similar due to the similarity of chemicals
being processed and used. Normally, this combination of wastestreams is generated within a relatively
small geographical area.
For example, at one of AlliedSignal's manufacturing facilities, a number of different nitrogenated organic
chemicals are produced. Wastestreams resulting from all of the processing and waste handling steps
involved in the manufacture of these products are routed to one tank. This stream is then sent to a central
neutralization facility. Wastestreams associated with the manufacture of two non-nitrogenated oiganic
compounds are similarly routed to a separate collection tank before being transported to the same central
neutralization facility.ITiere is no access to die individual waste streams associated with each of the
products' manufacture. These streams are hard piped into the main collection tank for each process. The
outlet of each of these production area wastestream collection tanks aught to be considered the "battery
limits" of the process with respect to wastestream generation and ought to be considered the point of
generation ("POG") of these wastestreams.
AlliedSignal notes that a generator of a wastestream that exhibits hazardous characteristics at the battery
limits location could choose to segregate each of what could literally be thousands of individual
wastestreams at the point each such stream is first generated. In such a case, if it is possible, the generator
should be allowed to to treat the UHCs in each stream separately, and if Acre is no other hazardous waste
stream contribution to the battery limits location, consider that the requirements of LDR Phase III have
been met.
3-84
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
The Generation and Treatment of Corrosive Waste Water Containing Cyanide
Rohm and Haas is a world class manufacturer of methyl methacrylate
(MMA), a monomer used in the manufacture of Plexiglas™. This useful
compound also finds Its way into automobile light lenses, floor polishes, laundry
detergent, and numerous other goods. Rohm and Haas also operates ah
integrated manufacturing facility for the production of hydrogen cyanide (HCN)
and acetone cyanohydrin (ACH) as precursors to MMA and other products. The
plant is located on the ship channel outside of Houston, Texas.
The HCN and ACH process generates large volumes of waste water.
Some of the waste water streams are hazardous at their point of generation
because they exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity, and some of those
hazardous waste streams contain significant concentrations of cyanide HCN is
also used in the manufacture of various amines in the Primenes™ area. Some of
the internal streams from the Primenes™ area are characteristic for corrosivity
and contain cyanides. All of the waste water from the units that manufacture or
use cyanide-bearing materials is collected in one large tank identified as the
91357 tank, and are treated to remove ammonia and cyanide. Rohm and Haas
proposes that the contents of the 91357 tank would be an aggregation point that
would be sampled to determine the applicability of the land disposal restrictions.
EPA has requested comment on the composition of internal residual
streams in order to determine how frequently such streams are similar. 60 Fed.
Reg. 11716. Partly in answer to that question, and partly to support Rohm and
Haas' suggestions for lowering the impact of Phases II and IV, three diagrams of
the internal feed streams to the 91357 tank are attached. Appendix 1 is a diagram
that shows the major feed streams to the 91357 tank. The areas marked N3/4,
N5/6, N7/8 are HCN and ACH manufacturing units. The area marked
Primenes is the amines production area. The area marked API 95453 is a
separator in the waste water sewer that can be diverted to the 91357 tank in the
Rohm and Haas Company
32
1
3-85
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Rohm and Haas Company
32
2
event that the sewer water contains or may contain cyanide The areas marked
Caustic and Sulfuric Acid are raw materials used lor pH adjustment of the
contents of 91357, The area marked NH3 Recycle and Tank Farm is an
aggregation of process waste water from the recycle of ammonia used in the
production of HCN and storm water that falls on the tank fann where cyanide
bearing materials are stored.
Appendix 2 is a diagram that shows more detail of the N-7/N8 area,
which is one of the feed streams to the 91357 tank. Each of the streams marked
A, B, C and D can at times have a pH below 2 and cyanide as high as 6%. As the
diagram illustrates, all of the waste water from this azea contains cyanide and
therefore is sent to the 91357 tank. Appendix 3 shows a detail of the Frimene
waste water system. The waste water in this area generally has a high pH and
that can go above 125, and contains cyanide at levels as high as 9000 ppm.
3-86
-------
Commenter: Rohm and Haas Company
Comment Number: 32
Page Number: Attachment
3-87
-------
Commenter: Rohm and Haas Company
Comment Number: 32
Page Number: Attachment
00
CM
m
a
s
UJ
m
t*
u.
M
3-88
-------
Commenter: Rohm and Haas Company
Comment Number: 32
Page Number: Attachment
_ sr
II i
2 f ; I
A I I •
2 t n
CL
<
0
%
>.
co
0
to
5
B
to
CO
0
c
0
£
11] 111
?!•Ii*i
i s s!!8*
3-89
-------
Commenter: General Electric Company
Comment Number: 45
Page Number: 5
10. EPA's "point of aggregation" approach for regulating
characteristic wastestreams discharged to plant sewers should be modified. GE
believes that neither the narrow definition of "point of aggregation" (i.e.* all
wastestreams from s single process) nor the broader definition of the term (i.e.(
3-90
-------
Commenter: General Electric Company
Comment Number: 45
Page Number: 6
wastestreams from a group of processes related to making a single product or
group of related products) gives sufficient consideration to existing wastewater
collection and treatment systems. Hie least burdensome approach to defining the
point of aggregation for existing plants would be based not on processes or
products, but on the locations of existing sumps, manholes/tanks or other units
which are accessible for sampling and waste characterization, regardless of the
various products or processes that generated the wastes. Under GE's proposal,
the point of aggregation would be defined as the first readily accessible sampling
point downstream of a process or group of processes. GE notes that although this
proposal is somewhat broader than CMA's, it is much narrower than EPA's
California List point of aggregation proposal {defining the point of aggregation at
the point immediately before centralized waste treatment), and well within the
concept that EPA's RCRA jurisdiction begins when a secondary material is no
longer within the "normal part of the process that results in the waste."
3-91
-------
Commenter: International Business Machines Corporation
Comment Number: 57
Page Number: 3
In bob* IBM facilities, gravity drain systea from the aanufacturing
facilities are used. In these systeas the initial point of collection
would be the building wall of the aanufacturing line. There is little
initial aggregation in snaps or collection tanks near the process as
described in the proposed rule.
IBM believes that the discussion of "Battery Liaits" proposed by CMA is
aost practical for the current design and operation of electronics
aanufacturing facilities. Discharges froa buildings are separated by
aanufacturing line. Despite the variability at the tool level (please
see discussion above), the coaposite waste streaas generated by each of
these sources are stable and reflect noraalized waste flows and
coaposition froa the aanufacturing processes.
Defining the process waste, flows froa a aanufacturing process as the
point of generation allows coapllance aonitoring at a liaited number of
locations and affords both the -ulated coaaunity and EPA the aost
practical point froa which to k.. .»ure coapliance with RCRA treatment
requirements (see discussion btlow under Recordkeeping). Generator
knowledge of process cheaical usage, reaction products and contaainants
can be used to establish possible UTS constituents which can be
monitored for coapliance at these points.
In support of this option, it is clear that the legislative history
provides as acceptable those activities that occur in the noraal process
of production (EPA reference, H. Rep. No. 198, 98th Congress 1st
session). .The seai-conductor aanufacturing process within the building
walls can be viewed as eleaents of a single process resulting in a
single waste streaa which can be effectively aanaged and regulated.
3-92
-------
Commenter: Albemarle Corporation
Comment Number: 84
Page Number: 1 ~ •
Point of generation of hazardous wastewater streams has always been a difficult
determination. Albemarle's facilities generally discharge two or more wastewater streams from a
single process unit to a common sump. The wastewater from the sump Is then discharged after
treatment to either a Class I non-hazardous injection well or NPDES permitted outfall Some of
the wastewater streams that exit the process units prior to bong combined with other wastewater
streams in the sump may be hazardous due to the corrosive characteristic (D002). If there are any
hazardous constituents in any of the D002 streams, the mass loadings of these constituents are
generally very consistent over a long term average even though concentrations may vary within a
normal range over time. These same conditions exist at points where wastewater streams from
process units are combined just prior to entering the headworks of wastewater treatment systems.
3-93
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Albemarle Corporation
84
2
It would seem to be very appropriate to determine the point of generation and compliance with
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) met at these collection points. This approach would
significantly amplify treatment and monitoring requirements. One of our facilities has
approximately 35 process streams that wouldrequire analyses for hazardous constituents. The
cost for sampling and analyses would be $150,000. This cost would then be repeated as often as
monitoring is required by the regulations. If the point of generation were farther upstream, at the
outlet of each process step, the monitoring costs would be ever greater, with absolutely no
benefit
3-94
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
L2
3
First, with regard to where & facility must meet the NPDES alternative limits ("[G]enerally, at the
end-of-pipe") h is important to note that under today's CWA regulatory scheme various and
distinct NPDES compliance points often exist at a single CWA facility. For such facilities, simply
stating that the alternative limits must be met "generally at the end-of-pipe" ignores this current
reality and creates confusion. For example, Hoechst Celanese has an organic chemicals
manufacturing facility located in Bishop, Texas. Process wastewater generated at the facilitv;-
regulated under several subparts of the OCPSF Effluent Limitation Guidelines as set c
CFR 414. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) has a NPDES permit issued by I
Treated process wastewater exits the final clarifier of the WWTP at Outfall 101. See c
attached as Attachment B. The facility's NPDES permit specifically authorizes discharge from the
WWTP at Outfall 101, which is the regulatory compliance point for all OCPSF technology-based
effluent limitations contained in the NPDES permit. Once the treated effluent passes through
Outfall 101, it then traverses the property in an earthen channel that collects rainfall runoff and
ultimately joins with channelized utility waters (non-contact cooling tower blowdown and boiler
blowdown). The commingled treated process wastewater, stotmwater and utility waters discharge
from the Hoechst Celanese property via an Outfall designated in the NPDES permit as Outfall
3-95
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
L2
4
001. Water quality-based permit limits for certain metals and biomonitoring requirements apply at
Outfall 001. After passing through Outfall 001, the combined flow travels through an earthen
channel to San Fernando Creek.
As can be seen in the above description of our Bishop Texas facility, it is possible that there could
be more than one compliance point in a NPDES permit. Some of the underlying hazardous
constituents might be limited at the first Outfall and some might be limited at the second Outfall.
We believe this type of situation is not uncommon. In the case of our Bishop facility, in between
the two outfalls is an earthen channel, which raises a potential land disposal issue.1 With regard to
the Phase in proposal, we request that the agency confirm and clarify for the regulated
community the effect of separate compliance points for the same effluent stream.
Specifically we believe the Agency's intent is that as long as the facility meets the various NPDES
or pretreatment standard limits at the specified but separate compliance points established by the
CWA program, the treatment, storage or transport (through earthen channels, for example) of
ICRT wastes in land based units anywhere in the treatment train (upstream or downstream from
the compliance point) is not prohibited. In other words, in a facility like our Bishop, Texas
facility, if underlying constituent A were regulated at Outfall 101 (before the earthen channel) and
1 As explained in greater detail in a letter sent to USEPA in December 1994 (copy
enclosed as Attachment C for your reference), the interaction ofRCRA and CWA is becoming a
more complex issue, especially where a single WWTFs effluent stream is subject to more than
one compliance point. As indicated in the December 1994 letter, we believe USEPA should
recognize these situations and no longer rely upon a rigid notion of "end-of-pipe" compliance
points, especially when continued adherence to this rigid notion results in large compliance
expenditures with no real environmental benefit. At issue in the December 1994 letter is
whether the exemption from the definition of solid waste, found at 40 CFR 261.4(a), for industrial
wastewater discharges subject to regulation under section 402 of CWA attaches at Outfall 101 or
at Outfall 001. Since there is no further treatment or storage after Outfall 101 we believe the
exemption from the definition of solid waste applies at Outfall 101. While we have yet to receive
a definitive answer, we have received indications from the Agency that it may still cling to the
rigid and out-dated notion of the ultimate "end-of-pipe" for the applicability of the exemption and
thus the exemption would only apply at Outfall 001 after the earthen channel. If so, then in the
future, when the Bishop plant (as part of its efforts to eliminate the use of underground injection
wells) begins biological treatment of listed organic wastes, it will then have to replace the earthen
channel with an above ground pipe at great expense (estimated to be over SI million) in order to
avoid land disposal issues with regard to the earthen channel. This would be a very unfortunate..
result since the organic wastes are fully amenable to biological treatment in the WWTP and will
have been fully treated before exiting Outfall 101 (before the earthen channel) and, therefore, the
above ground pipe will provide no environmental benefit, despite its large costs. We continue to
request that USEPA revisit this issue.
3-96
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
L2
another underlying constituent, B, were regulated at Outfall 001 (after the earthen channel), then
as long as the facility meets the limit for A at Outfall 101 and meets the limitation for B at Outfall
001, then inground facilities anywhere in the treatment train are allowable for ICRT wastes.2
2 One way to address the dilemma outlined previously in footnote one would be to extend
this concept to the biological treatment of listed organic wastes as well. That is, one could treat
listed organic wastes in WWTPs and as long as the facility met a specific discharge limit for that *
organic waste at some appropriate CWA compliance point (not necessarily at a rigidly defined
ultimate discharge point) then land based channelization could occur further downstream in the
treatment train, but before the ultimate discharge point.
3-97
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
The Boeing Company
LS
1
Model 2 - Stream from single process
An example of model two would be vaste from sump
operations. Wastes, such as coolant, from machining
operations for different parts are collected to common
sump locations* Although the parts are not in the same
process operation, the wastes have similar
3-98
-------
Commenter: The Boeing Company
Comment Number: L5
Page Number: 2
characteristics. The sump is the first accumulation point
for the waste from the machining operation. Neither model
one or three would accurately describe this waste
generation process.
3-99
-------
3.5
MTR Requirements for Wastes Under Variance
Summary:
Four commenters state that decharacterized wastewaters should be allowed in non-MTR
units during the period of the variance. The American Petroleum Institute notes that it is
impossible to comply with MTRs immediately and suggests that the four year retrofit "clock"
should start on the effective date of Phase III since it is unfair to start it before notice is given
that additional requirements will apply. (42-pp. 11,12,35) The Chemical Manufacturers Association
states that the §268.5 should not apply to decharacterized wastewaters in CWA or CWA-
equivalent systems. (66-p.36) Chevron believes that §268.5 should not apply to decharacterized
wastewaters in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, but states that if it does, facilities should be
given a four-year retrofit window. (87-p.4) Hoechst Celanese Corporation asks that EPA clarify
that the §268.5 requirements do not apply to treatment or storage in CWA and CWA-equivalent
systems as part of the treatment train and notes that if the requirements so apply in such a
situation, the two-year variance will be non-existent for most landbased CWA or CWA-equivalent
facilities that do not already meet MTR standards. (L2-pp.7-8)
Response:
The regulatory language in the final rule for §268.39(f) has been modified so that
decharacterized wastewaters managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems may be placed in surface
impoundment that do not meets MTRs.
Comments:
• American Petroleum Institute (42-pp.ll,12,35)
• Chemical Manufacturers Association (66-p.36)
~ Chevron (87-p.4)
~ Hoechst Celanese Corporation (L2-pp.7-8) •
3-100
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 11
4. Should Anv Addition Reouirements Be Imposed On Non-
Hazardous Surface Impoundments, the Four Year Retrofit
Provisions of 3005(i)(6) Should Apply.'
If EPA determines that surface impoundments which manage
decharacterized ICET wastes must meet additional technical
requirements, then the full "four-year compliance period provided
by section 3005(j) must be available. The issue is governed by
the position adopted by EPA that section 3005(j)(6) provides that
lioii-MTR impoundments must retrofit or close within four years of
the date of identification or listing of the newly regulated
wastes. See, 57 Fed. Rea. 37218-22 lAug. 18, 1992). API
supported this interpretation in its February 24, 1992 comments
cn the proposed LDR for Newly Identified Wastes and Hazardous
Debris, 57 Fed. Reg. 958 (Jan. 9, 1992), and in its March 20,
1992 comments on the proposed Timing of Surface Impoundments
Retrofitting Rule, 57 Fed. Reo. 4170 (Feb. 4, 1992), both of
which are incorporated here by reference.
API believes the four-year retrofit period should run from
the effective date of the forthcoming revised treatment standards
for ICRT wastes. First, it would be both illogical and
inequitable to conclude the period would run from the initial
identification of the ICR wastes (well over four years ago).
3-101
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 12
since generators of such wastes will have no way of knowing that
their decharacterized non-hazardous wastes could not be placed in-
non-MTR surface impoundments. Thus, it would be impossible to
conply with that requirement now and unfair to start the clock
before notice is given that additional requirements will apply.
Second, beginning the four-year period from the date new ,
treatment standards take effect would be consistent with EPA's
conclusion in the Third-Third rule, that the period for variances
from a new treatment standard can begin at the time the new
standard is identified, given that for a change in the standard
is functionally equivalent to applying a standard in the first
instance (e.g.. triggers a need to find additional or different
treatment capacity). See, 55 Fed. Reg. 22594 (capacity variance
for K048-K052 transferred to Third-Third). The same analysis
holds for imposing MTR's under section 3005(j), i.e., the
affected parties would not know and could not begin to plan for,
nor undertake expensive and technically difficult retrofits or
replacements of impoundments until they became aware that the ¦ •
decharacterized ICRTs remain subject to section 3004 (m) treatment
standards.
3-102
-------
Commenter: American Petroleum Institute
Comment Number: 42
Page Number: 35 ,
IX. Miscellaneous Issues.
A. EPA Should Clarify That MTR's Will Hot Be Required For
Non-hazardous Surface Impoundments As Part Of The Phase
III Rule.
In Section 268.39(c) of the proposed regulations, EPA
requires that characteristic wastes that are subject to the
capacity variance must be ijnanaged in either a unit that complies
with MTR's, or a unit that is subject to the 4-year retrofit -
period of RCRA section 300.5 (j ) (6) . While it is clear from the
preamble to the rule that non-MTR land based units which manage
aecharacterized waste can continue to be used, the regulatory
language is somewhat ambiguous as to whether these non-hazardous,
non-MTR units can be used to manage decharacterized waste. EPA
should make clear that these units can continue to be used.
3-103
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Chemical Manufacturers Association
66
36
c. EPA should rename the §2685(h)(2) compliance
requirement for the two-year NCV for
decharacterized wastes in CWA or CWA-equivalent
systems.
The proposed regulatory language discussing the two-year NCV for decharacterized
wastewaters managed in CWA or CWAE systems (§268.39(c)) states that prohibited
wastewaters "may be disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements specified in §268Ji(h)(21." (emphasis added) Section
2685(h)(2) applies only to landfills and surface impoundments that receive hazardous
wastes, not to units receiving decharacterized wastes. This is clear from the opening phrase,
of the provision: "such hazardous waste may be disposed..." (emphasis added)
This interpretation is also consistent with (1) RCRA §3004(h), which only requires
prohibited hazardous wastes covered by a NCV to be placed in units meeting minimum
technology requirements (MTRs), and with, (2) §264/265 subpart F's reference in
§268.5(h)(2), which only applies owners or operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous wastes in land-based units.
3-104
-------
Commenter: Chevron
Comment Number: 87
Page Number: 4
6) EPA should remove the Section 268.5(h)(2) compliance requirements for
decharacterized wastes managed in non-hazardous CWA or CWA-equivalent
surface impoundments.
The Section 268.39(c) proposed regulatory language discussing the two-year national capacity
variance for decharacterized wastes managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent units notes that
prohibited wastewater "may be disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, only if such a unit is
in compliance with the requirements specified in Section 268.5(h)(2). Since 268.5(h)(2) only
applies to units complying with minimum technology requirements (MTRs) that receive "hazardous
wastes'* and not decharacterized wastes, EPA should clarify that MTRs do not apply. However, if
EPA does require for whatever reason that non-hazardous surface impoundments receiving
decharacterized wastes must met MTRs, then the full 4-year retrofit period provided in RCRA
3005(j)(6) should apply.
3-105
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
L2
7
B. Two-year Compliance Extension. We support the Agency's proposal for a two-year
national capacity variance for ICRT wastes managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems.
However, we are concerned about the regulatory language implementing the two-year variance.
At the proposal 40 CFR 268.39(c), the regulatory language indicates that for the two-year
variance period wastes subject to the rule "may be disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment, only if such unit is in compliance with the requirements" of 40 CFR 268.5(h).
Presumably the word "disposal", as used in the above quoted language, refers to ultimate and final
disposal as that term is used under RCRA, and is not meant to be used the way the term
"disposal" is used for LDR purposes in determining if land disposal has occurred. (It is our
understanding that any placement of prohibited wastes in a land based unit, whether for treatment,
storage or ultimate disposal is "land disposal" for purposes of the LDR prohibitions.) Thus,
USEPA should clarify that the limit on the two-year extension at 40 CFR 268.39(c), requiring
compliance with the minimum requirements of 4QCFR 268.5(h) for surface impoundments
-------
Commenter: Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Comment Number: L2
Page Number: 8
applies only to ultimate disposal and does not apply to treatment or storage in CWA and CWA-
equivalent systems as part of the treatment train. Otherwise, if the conditions on the two-year
extension are construed to apply to any placement in land based units, and not just to the ultimate
disposal, then the two-year variance will be non-existent for most landbased CWA or CWA-
equivalent facilities that do not already meet the standards of268.5(h),
3-107
-------
3.6 Logistics
Summary:
Seven commenters believe the two year capacity variance will not be adequate to replace
surface impoundments with tanks, modify wastewater treatment systems, etc. Monsanto Company
states that EPA should provide that case-by-case extensions are available for facilities seeking a
"no migration" variance or a "sheltering change" to a CWA discharge permit (24-pp.lO-ll)
Rohm & Haas Company states that they and others like them would need to get case-by-case
variances if only two years were given. (32-p.5) The Chemical Manufacturers Association states
that it is not practical to expect that EPA can modify all CWA permits within two years. (66-
pp.35-36) Eli Lilly and Company states that Indiana already has a backlog of 955 NPDES permit
renewal applications. (73-p.3) BP Chemicals states that it in their experience, modifying permits
takes longer than two years. (78-p.2) Union Carbide Corporation states that it usually takes three
to four years to upgrade a wastewater treatment system. (95-p. 10) According to Dow Chemical
Company, EPA is currently on a 5-year cycle for NPDES permit renewal. (96-p.3)
Response:
The Agency acknowledges these potential logistical problems. However, EPA notes that it
has no statutory authority to grant a national capacity variance for more than two years. If facilities
require a longer period to come into compliance, they should apply for a case-by-case extension to
the capacity variance. The formal procedures for filing a petition for such a variance are outlined in
§268.5.
Comments:
* Monsanto Company (24-pp. 10-11)
• Rohm and Haas Company (32-p.5)
* Chemical Manufacturers Association (66-pp.35-36)
~ Eli Lilly and Company (73-p,3) 1
BP Chemicals (78-p.2)
• Union Carbide Corporation (95-p.lO)
• Dow Chemical Company (96-p.3)
3-108
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Monsanto Company
24
10
G. Thp T .anpnaee of 40 CFR 268.5 Must be Expanded to Incorporate Cause for Approval
to Include Pursuit of Variances and Pennits.
The Agency should modify the language of 40 CFR 268.5 to specifically provide that
case-by-case extensions to the effective date of a prohibition are available for a) injection
wells seeking a "no-migration variance" or b) Clean Water Act dischargers legitimately
seeking a sheltering change to a discharge permit, as provided by this proposed rule.
In its discussion of the availability of case-by-case extensions to the effective date of the
prohibitions that will be imposed by this rule, the Agency is proposing to modify
"§148.1(c)(1) and §148.4 [to] allow Class 1 well owners and operators on a case-specific
basis to follow procedures of §268.5 to receive a 1 year-extension, renewable for an
additional year, from the effective date of the prohibitions, in order to acquire or
construct alternative treatment capacity." The change is in fact limited to §148.4, but
the proposed language indeed acts to extend the availability of case-by-case extensions
to non-hazardous injection well operations, by referencing the availability of §268.5
extensions.
Separately, in granting a National Capacity Variance of 2 years for this rule, the Agency
notes that such a variance is required "to allow facilities time to repipe and build on-site
treatment, or to modify their CWA permit." (60 FR 11712, emphasis added.)
Clearly, the 40 CFR 268.5 language should be modified to accommodate situations where
the facility is legitimately taking steps to obtain administrative relief from the LDR
requirements, as provided by the rules. These situations may involve a) sites which are
pursuing "no-migration variances" for hazardous or non-hazardous injection wells, or b)
which are pursuing permit modifications to qualify for the CWA-permit sheltering
proposed by this rule. (We note that, in fact, during the implementation of the 3rd 3rd
rule, that the Agency did allow case-by-case variances for sites legitimately pursuing "no-
migration variances" for hazardous wells.)
The Agency should act to explicitly expand the provisions of 40 CFR 268.5 to provide
3-109
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Monsanto Company
24
11
that such actions are legitimate causes for approval of petitions for case-by-case
extensions. The proposed rule, as written, offers no new language for this section.
3-110
-------
Commenter: Rohm and Haas Company
Comment Number: 32
Page Number: 5
EPA Must Ensure It Has The Resources To Process A Large Number Of
Treatability Variances
In the event that EPA does not adopt a suggestion similar to the one
presented here, EPA must be prepared to receive and process in a timely manner
a large number of treatability variances. Many generators, including Rohm and
Haas, currently operate waste water systems that pre-treat hazardous waste
water before discharge to surface impoundments. The pre-treatment alone may
not achieve the UTS levels, and final polishing or further treatment in land based
units may be required to meet the UTB or Clean Water Act permit limits. If the
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV severely impacts those land based units, the
generators will file treatability variances in order to have their existing pre-
treatment regimen declared sufficient to meet the land disposal restrictions
before discharge to the impoundments. Considering the cost of upgrading
impoundments or converting to tank based systems in order to meet Phase IV
requirements, EPA should expect a great deal of generator interest in treatability
variances.
3-111
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Chemical Manufacturers Association.
66
35
The proposed two year NCV will provide time for many '!ties to achieve
compliance with the new regulations by obtaining permit modiiio.. or completing
minor source reduction alterations. However, it is not practical to expect that EPA will be
able to modify all CWA permits within 2 years. In addition, facilities that replace
impoundments with tanks, or require major wastewater treatment renovations will likely
need longer than two years to complete major construction projects. Case-by-case
extensions will be needed for permit modifications, no migration petitions, etc.
While RCRA allows case-by-case extensions to facilities that can demonstrate that no
alternative treatment capacity exists in the United States and that binding contractual
3-112
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Chemical Manufacturers Association
66
36
agreements are in place for constructing treatment facilities. If a facility requires an
extension beyond two years to construct new facilities, a self-generated compliance
schedule placed in facility files and submitted to the appropriate state agency or EPA
should be adequate.
3-113
-------
Commenter: Eii Lilly and Company
Comment Number: 73
Page Number: 3
Finally, EPA discusses the possibility of facilities requesting revisions to their NPDES
permits to cover all underlying hazardous constituents that would be covered under
this proposed rule 60 Fed. Reg. 11712. L% agrees that this could be an option, but
is concerned over the length of time and resources involved with this option, as well as
the wQfingoess of the permitting authorities to include limits for constituents they
would not have otherwise regulated. It currently takes at least 180 days to revise an
NPDES permit application. Although this may be an option, the feasibility of it
appears questionable, particularly on a short-term basis. For example, in December of
1993 the Indiana Department of Environmental Managment (IDEM) estimated its
NPDES permit renewal backlog to be 955 applications, and also estimated that to
-------
Commenter: BP Chemicals
Comment Number: 78
Page Number; 2
Although we support the Agency's proposed approach of the three alternatives, BP
Chemicals urges the Agency to allow sufficient time for facilities to get their NPDES
permits modified. The two years offered under the National Capacity Variance is
insufficient. We anticipate many facilities will attempt to modify their permits. Past
experience tells us that the permit modification process may in fact take much
longer. Many state regulatory agencies authorized for the permitting process are
resource constrained and will probably not be able to act on ail of the permits within
two years. A mora workable approach would be to make the universdal treatment
standard effective with the actual issuance of the permit modification, but not less
than two years.
3-115
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Union Carbide Corporation
95
10
fV.S.2.b. Locations should also be eligible for up to two one year case by case
extensions.
Time will be needed to implement any facility modifications driven by the phase 111 land
ban proposal. Significant wastewater treatment system upgrades typically take 3 to 4
years to design and install.
Example: If plant C (attachment 3) were required to meet Universal Treatment
Standards at its point of discharge to its POTW, then a major, $40 million
wastewater treatment system upgraded would be required. Three to four years
would probably be required, particularly if source reduction alternatives were
studied. Plant C discharges over 8 million gallons per day to the POTW. We no
of no practical alternative that could be implemented on a short term for this large
volume of wastewater.
3-116
-------
Commenter: Dow Chemical Company
Comment Number: 96
Page Number: 3
Dow strongly supports the concept to allow each facility to modify its CWA permit to
allow for incorporation of appropriate permit limits or indicator limits. However, the
history of the CWA permit process is such that the variance time may be insufficient For
example, the CWA process allows extension of existing NFDES permits and continued
discharge if the owner/operator of the CWA permit submits its permit timely. 40 CFR. §
122.6(a). Given that NPDES permits are on a 5 year cycle, and considerable time may be
necessary to demonstrate the validity of existing indicator pollutants, prepare a permit
application, and integrate this requirement into the CWA permitting process, Dow
suggests that the two year national capacity variance be for the submittal of a permit
application. The variance should then continue, for timely submitted permit applicants
until their CWA permit is issued. The submittal of a permit application would transfer this
part of the requirement into the existing CWA program. Record keeping and exemption
from the other program requirements should occur during the period the permit
application is pending.
3-117
-------
3,7 Variance Determination
Summary:
EPA proposed a 2-year national capacity variance for characteristic wastes managed in
CWA or CWA-equivalent systems. Ten commenters support the national capacity variance: Texas
Utilities Services, Inc. (30-p.2); General Electric Company (45-p.30); Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (46-p.ll); Department of Energy (52-p.27); Chemical Manufacturers Association (66-p.35);
Eli Lilly and Company (73-p.9); Union Carbide Corporation (95-p.9); Occidental Chemical
Corporation (99-p.2); American Iron and Steel Institute (118-p.3); and Hoechst Celanese
Corporation (L2-p.7). Chemical Waste Management, Inc. supports the capacity variance but
believes it should not apply to off-site wastewaters decharacterized prior to deep-well injection.
(76-p.37) Two commenters Exxon Company (21-pp. 19-20) and Exxon Chemical Americas (82-
p.6) suggest that the effective date of the LDRs for these wastes should be either the CWA
permit renewal date or two years from promulgation of the rule, whichever is later. Another
commenter, Albemarle Corporation suggests a 3-year national capacity variance with an optional
one-year extension. (84-p.l)
Response;
EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for its capacity variance determination. EPA
notes that it does not have the statutory authority to grant a variance for more than two years.
Comments:
* Exxon Company (21-pp. 19-20)
* Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (30-p.2)
* General Electric Company (45-p.30)
* Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (46-p.ll)
* Department of Energy (52-p.27) ,
* Chemical Manufacturers Association (66-p.35)
« Eli Lilly and Company (73-p.9)
* Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (76-p.37)
* Exxon Chemical Americas (82-p.6)
* Albemarle Corporation (84-p.l)
* Union Carbide Corporation (95-p.9)
* Occidental Chemical Corporation (99-p.2)
* American Iron and Steel Institute (118-p.3)
* and Hoechst Celanese Corporation (L2-p.7)
3-118
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number;
Exxon Company
21
19
D. EPA should tie compliance with the Phase 111 LDR to CWA permit renewal
or two years from promulgation of the rule, whichever Is later.
EPA has proposed to provide a two year capacity variance for die Phase HI LDR in the
proposed rule language of 40 CFR 268.39.b. Because EPA has outlined a position
where CWA and RCRA can co-regulate under certain circumstances (60 FR 11712),
3-119
-------
Commenter.
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Company
21
20
the effective date of the Phase III LDR should, instead, tie to CWA permit renewal
dates. This will allow Phase III LDR issues to be addressed as part of the CWA permit
renewal process. Exxon recommends that EPA include rule language that will tie
compliance with the Phase III LDR to CWA permit renewal or two years from
promulgation of the rule, whichever is later.
3-120
-------
Commenter: Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Comment Number: 30
Page Number: 2
Texas Utilities supports the proposed two-year national capacity variance. We believe it is
essential to ensure implementation of the Phase in LDR standards.
3-121
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
General Electric Company
45
30
G. EPA SHOULD ESTABLISH A NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE
FOR ALL WASTEWATERS SUBJECT TO THE RULE
Finally, GE supports EPA's proposal to extend a national capacity
variance to formerly characteristic wastewaters that would be subject to the
proposed rule. Given the difficult compliance decisions that the rule would
propose on operators of surface impoundments, as well as the sampling that
would have to be performed before a compliance strategy could be developed and
the time needed to obtain a modified NPDES permit or to install control
technology, it is essenti - that affected facilities be provided a substantial amount
of time to come into c. alienee with the rule.
3-122
-------
Commenter. Utility Solid Waste Activity Group
Comment Number: 46
Page Number: 11
E USWAG Supports The Proposed Two-Year Capacity Variance.
USWAG strongly supports EPA's proposal to grant a two year capacity variance
for decharacterized wastes managed in CWA systems. 60 Fed. Reg. at 11734. in
many cases, because of the need to provide additional treatment or because of the
considerations being addressed in the Phase IV LDR rulemaking, facilities may need to
construct additional systems to provide preliminary treatment of characteristic waste
streams or may need to provide entirely separate treatment trains. The two year
capacity variance will provide a minimum time to determine the need for, design, and
construct such systems. Therefore, the proposed capacity variance is absolutely
essential to ensure an orderly implementation of the Phase III LDR standards, and, in
fact, for many facilities to be able to comply at all.
i
3-123
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Department of Energy
52
27
IX. ' Canaritr Determination!
DLB. Canaritv Analysis Results Sammiry
1. n. 11733. col.3 - n. 11734. coL 1 - EPA believes that some affected facilities wfll
need time to build alternative treatment capacity for decharaeterized ICR and TC
wastes subject to the Phase III LDR rule. To five such facilities the necessary
time, EPA proposes to grant a two-year national capacity variance for such
decharaeterized wastewaters.
DOE supports EPA's proposal to grant a two-year national capacity variance for
'decharaeterized wastewaters managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and Class I injection well
systems. DOE believes this time will be needed both to build alternative treatment capacity
and to obtain NPDES permit modifications where appropriate.
3-124
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Chemical Manufacturers Association,
66
35
a. CMA supports a short term national capacity
variance (NCV)fbr all wastes.
Time in addition to the 3 months proposed is needed to conduct all the necessary
sampling and analysis to determine if an area of a facility wffl be affected, Often,
statistically significant and seasonally variable effluent data is necessaiy to determine
compliance status. In addition, time is needed to evaluate pollution prevention options, to
prepare permit modifications, and in some cases to make the necessary off-site
- arrangements with commercial facilities.
b. CMA supports the proposed two-year National
Capacity Variance.
CMA agrees with EPA that sufficient commercial wastewater treatment capacity
does not exist to treat the huge quantities (billions of gallons per year for a single facility) of
wastewater affected by this rule. In addition, it would be neither practical nor safe to
transport these quantities of wastewater long distances on public highways even if capacity
did exist
3-125
-------
Comraenter: Eli Lilly and Company
Comment Number: 73
Page Number; 9
¦J
Two yew national capacity variance. Lilly fully supports a national capacity
variance for both direct and indirect dischargers, which EPA does propose in the
preamble, but does notbelieve two years is adequate. 60 Fed. Reg. 11712. It can
take up to 180 days to get a construction permit and up to another 180 days for design
and approval. LiSy suggests that a three year variance would be more appropriate,
and would be consistent with the three year compliance schedule currently offered for
NPDES permits. This would allow dischargers time to revise their NPDES permits,
redirect decharacterized waste streams, and/or rebuild a portion of theii- waste water
treatment fadfity.
3426
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. >
76
37
IX. CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES
CWM generally .supports the capacity variances proposed by the Agency; except that CWM
believes that facilities that receive off-site wastewaters that are decharacterized prior to
deepwell injection should not receive a capacity variance. CWM agrees that wastewaters
generated on-site represent such large volumes that a capacity variance is necessary;
however, there is currently available capacity for characteristic hazardous wastes that are sent
off-site to be decharacterized prior to deepwell injection.
3-127
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Exxon Chemical Americas
84
1
6. National Capacity Variance: ECA Supports the National Capacity
Variance Approach With Some Modifications
The following comments address the proposed National Capacity Variance:
• With the LOR Phase IV rule expected to address leaks, air emissions, and
sludges in non-hazardous CWA surface impoundments, both LOR Phase
Ifi and IV rules have the potential to significantly affect the operation and
facility requirements of CWA systems. Consequently, the effective date of
the two rules should be the same. Otherwise, the steps taken by industry
to comply with Phase III regulations may turn out to be inefficient/wasted if
Phase IV regulations require different operating steps or facilities. For
example, if a facility constructs or modifies a surface impoundment-based
biological system to meet the LOR Phase III requirements, Phase IV
requirements could potentially drive the facility to close the surface
impoundment and construct a tank system.
• Since UHCs may be monitored at the NPDES discharge point, and
selected treatment standards incorporated into the NPDES permit, the
effective date of the rule for each facility should tie into the NPDES permit
renewal date. Otherwise permits would need to be renegotiated at an
earlier date, or dual regulations would apply at the discharge point At
least five years should be provided to coordinate with the NPDES permit
renewal process.
• Based on the considerations indicated above, the effective date of the
rule should be either two years (national capacity variance), the effective
date of the Phase IV regulations, or the NPDES permit renewal date (up
to five years), whichever is later.
3-128
-------
Commenter: Albemarle Corporation
Comment Number: 84
Page Number(s): 1
Albemarle believes these proposed rules will require our facilities to evaluate our current
wastewater management and treatment systems in detail to determine if any additional treatment
-mil be required. As such, we are recommending that the rule become effective three years after
publication of the final rule with an option of bong granted a one year extension with sufficient
3-129
-------
Commenter: - Union Carbide Corporation
Comment Number 95
Page Number: 9
IV.BJLb. Union Carbide supports the application of a 2 year national capacity
variance for phase ill rules.
3-130
-------
Commenter: Occidental Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 99
Page Number(s): 2
It Specific
A "The proposed two year NCVis supported where time is needed to modify facilities.
Since time is required to fully evaluate existing facilities as well as upgrade equipment
OxyChem supports the National Capacity Variances (NCVs) offered in the proposal. If
the concept of battery iirr„1s is not adopted to allow more flexibility, the three-month
NOV for all affected wastes should be increased to six (6) months. Finally, simple and
readily available provisions for extending compliance schedules beyond the two-year
NOV are necessary. These allowances should not be tied to the case-by-case
requirements in section 268.5(h)(2), which apply only to hazardous wastes. OxyChem
agrees with EPA that it will not be practical to routinely truck large volumes of
wastewater to offisite treatment facilities.
3-131
-------
Commenter: American Iron and Steel Institute \i
Comment Number: 118
Page Number(s): 3
Finally, AISI supports EPA's proposal to grant a two-year
"national capacity variance" for deeharacterized wastewaters
subject to the Phase 111 rule. Facilities managing such
wastewaters in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, or in Class I
injection wells, likely will need time to come into compliance
with the rule's requirements.
3-132
-------
Commenter: Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Comment Number: L2
Page Number(s): 7
B. Two-year Compliance Extension. We support the Agency's proposal for a two-year
national capacity variance for ICRT wastes managed in CWA snd CWA-equivalent systems.
3-133
-------
-------
CHAPTER 4:
NEWLY LISTED WASTES
EPA proposed treatment standards for three groups of newly listed wastes: carbamate
production wastes, organogromine production wastes, and spent aluminum potliners. The final
rule establishes treatment standards for two of these groups, carbamate wastes and spent
aluminum potliners. Comments related to the capacity analyses for these two groups of wastes
are presented below. EPA will respond to comments on the capacity analysis for organobromine
wastes when treatment standards for those wastes are finalized.
4.1 Carbamates
EPA received nine comments on the proposed land disposal restrictions for carbamate
wastes: Dithocarbamate Task Force (38); Chemical Manufacturers Association's Underground
Injection Control Task Group (70); Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (76); Cytec Industries, Inc.
(125); and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (L3). Of these commenters, only one, FMC
Corporation (88), discussed the capacity analysis for surface-disposed wastes.
Summary:
FMC Corporation requested a national capacity variance for the K157 waste generated at
its Institute, West Virginia facility. The commenter argues that for site-specific reasons the
proposed LDRs for carbamates would impose unreasonable costs for minimal benefits and notes
that the company is not asking for a capacity variance for K157 wastes generated at other sites.
As an alternative, the commenter asks that the surface impoundment in which the K157 waste is
treated be granted an exemption under §268.4
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenter's. situation but believes that such a situation should be
addressed by a case-by-case variance rather than through a national capacity variance. Under
section 3004(h)(1) of RCRA, EPA can grant national capacity variances for certain wastes ifit
determines that there is a shortage of appropriate treatment technology for the waste. EPA has not
made such a determination and, as the commenter acknowledges, there is sufficient commercial
capacity to treat the wastes in question. However, the case-by-case capacity variance as provided for
under section 3304(h)(3) of RCRA, is designed for situations in which a specific facility requires a
variance from the LDRs. EPA notes that the formal procedures for filing a petition for such a
* variance are outlined in §268.5 and thai the commenter should follow these procedures if it wishes to
obtain a site-specific variance from the LDRs for K157 wastes. (The commenter may also request a
treatability variance under §268.44 ifit cannot meet the treatment standards for K1S7 wastes.) In
addition, EPA notes that the surface impoundment described by the commenter may be eligible for
an exemption from the MTR requirements under Section 3005(f)(6) of RCRA. In the Phase I Final
Rule (57 FR 37218), EPA clarified that surface impoundments managing newly listed or identified
wastes were allowed a four-year compliance period from the effective date of the listing to meet MTR
requirements. During the four-year compliance period, wastes that do not meet applicable treatment
3This document does rot address capacity-related comments for deep well injected wastes. EPA's
responses to those comments can be found in the general Response to Comments Document for Phase III
Wastes.
-------
standards may be managed in these impoundments, conditional on the surface impoundment
meeting Part 265 Subpart F ground-water monitoring requirements within one year.4
Comment:
• FMC Corporation (88-pp.29-32)
4 In the rule, EPA resolved an apparent conflict between Sections 3005(j)(6) and 30Q5(j)(ll) of RCRA
by determining that 3005(j)(6) is an exception to the requirements of 3005(j)(ll). This determination is
codified in 40 CFR 268.14.
4-2
-------
Commenter: FMC Corporation
Comment Number: 88
Page Number: 29
F.PA should grant a national capacity variance for the K157 waste generated at FMC's
Institute. West Virginia facility.
At its plant in Institute, West Virginia (property that FMC leases from Rhone-Poulenc and
that is located within the Rhone-Poulenc facility), FMC generates waste that has been newly
listed as K157 in IPA's February 9,1995 rule addressing carbamates 72 The effective date
for the listing is August 9,1995. Currently, that waste is piped to aNPDES treatment system
owned by Rhone-Poulenc. Rhone-Poulenc's system includes a surface impoundment
utilizing aggressive biological treatment FMC's contract with Rhone-Poulenc states that if
new regulations cause changes in the regulatory status of the wastes, Rhone-Poulenc can
refuse to accept the wastes. FMC does not have sufficient space at its leased facility to
construct it own wastewater treatment system, and the only alternative to Rhone-Poulenc's
system would be shipment offsite by rail or truck.
The Phase HI proposed rule includes a land disposal prohibition and treatment standards for
this carbamate waste, and the current proposal is for these requirements to go into effect 90
days after the publication of the final Phase III rule, while two-year national capacity
variances are granted for other wastes.73
This situation creates a substantial dilemma for FMC. Rhone-Poulenc's wastewater treatment
system does not currently satisfy the treatment standard for K157, and it would be extremely
expensive to alter the system to meet that standard. From a purely technical standpoint, it is
probably impossible to design, purchase the equipment needed, install and start up a tank
72 60 FR 7,824
73 Proposed 40 CJ.R. § 268.39(a); 60 FR11,742
4-3
-------
Commenter: FMC Corporation
Comment Number: 88
Page Number: 30
based biological treatment system before the end of 1996. Even if possible, it would be
tremendously expensive with only a short-term benefit, because Rhone-Poulenc currently
plans to shift to a tank-based system within two years due to other wastes covered by the
Phase IE rule. As suggested above, the only other alternative for FMC would be to ship the
waste ofisite for treatment elsewhere. FMC generates 2,350,000 gallons per year of
wastewater that would have to be shipped ofisite. This amounts to 130 railroad tank cars or .
295 tanktnicks. The disposal cost fortius material would be $242,000 per year and the
transportation cost would be $ 658,000, for a total of $ 940,000 per year.
To impose this tremendous expense for an interim period is clearly unreasonable. This is
particularly the case where FMC expects the upcoming HWIR rule to remove this waste from
coverage by Subtitle C of RCRA. It would be unfair and wasteful to require either extensive
retrofitting or ofisite shipment of a waste that may be exempt from Subtitle C requirements
within a short time.
To avoid the short-term imposition of unreasonable costs for minimal benefit, FMC urges
EPA to grant a two-year national capacity variance for K157 wastes generated at FMC's
Institute, West Virginia facility. FMC is not requesting a variance for K157 wastes generated
elsewhere. EPA has previously stated that it can take concerns of logistics into account in
determining whether to grant a capacity variance,74 and has demonstrated creativity and
flexibility in crafting variances to address real-world situations.75
74 55 FR.22,520 (June 1,1990)
^ 57 FR 47,772 (Oct 20,1992} ("generic" case-by-case vafWce for soils and debris)
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
FMC Corporation
88
31
In the alternative, FMC requests that EPA defer those particular wastes for a later
rulemaking, or make an interim finding that this particular waste from this particular facility
need not be prohibited from land disposal (at least pending the promulgation of the HWIR
rule).
Another possible solution would be to enable the Rhone-Poulenc surface impoundment to
qualify for an exemption under 40 C.F.R. § 268.4. The impoundment does not currently
qualify for this exemption, because it does not meet minimum technological requirements
("MTRs"). Although the impoundment is a Subtitle C unit, it has never been required to
meet MTRs, because it is exempt from those requirements under Section 300S(j)(3) of
RCRA (for aggressive biological treatment). It has never needed a 40 C.F.R. § 268.4
exemption in the past because it has never received any wastes that were prohibited from land
disposal.
EPA could address this situation by providing in the final rule that if a Subtitle C surface
impoundment that previously was not required to meet MTRs becomes newly subject to
those requirements because of newly promulgated land disposal restrictions, the owner of the
impoundment shall have four years to install the MTRs, and in the interim the facility is
required to satisfy all the other requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 268.4.
This approach would be consistent with the Agency's determination that when a waste is
newly listed or identified, it can be placed in a surface impoundment newly subject to
Subtitle C as a result of the additional identification or listing as long as it meets MTRs
within four years, as well as certain other requirements.76 The result should be the same for
™ 4*5
76 40 CIML § 268.14; 57 FR 37,218 (Aug. 18,1992)
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
FMC Corporation
88
32
a Subtitle C unit that becomes subject to MTRs for the first time as a result of land disposal
restrictions. EPA has recognized that the addition ofMTRs is costly and can take a
substantial amount of time.77 Congress was aware of this, and thus provided in Section
3005G)(6)(A) of RCRA that surface impoundments are generally to have four years to install
MTRs. This should be the case regardless of what regulatory change first creates the
obligation to install MTRs.
Accordingly, FMC requests that EPA (1) establish a national capacity variance of two years
for the K157 waste generated at its Institute, West Virginia facility, or in the alternative,
either defer the prohibition from land disposal for that waste to a later rule, or find that
prohibition is unwarranted; and (2) provide in the final role that if a Subtitle C surface
impoundment first becomes subject to the requirement to install MTRs as a result of newly
promulgated land disposal restrictions, hazardous wastes not meeting treatment standards
may continue to be' placed in the surface impoundment if (a) MTRs are installed within four
years and (b) all requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 268.4 other than MTRs are met
4-6
-------
4,2 Spent Aluminum Potliners
EPA received 25 comments on the proposed land disposal restrictions for spent aluminum
potliners (K088): Reynolds Metals Company (14); Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (22
and 81 - identical); Ausmelt Technology Corporation (29 and 53 - identical); Alumax Inc. (34);
The Fertilizer Institute (36); Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls
Aluminum Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (collectively "the Companies") (37);
Comalco Aluminum Ltd. (55); The Aluminum Association (61); Southwire Corporation (62 and
63); Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67); Ravenswood Aluminum (68); Environmental
Technology Council (69); Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (76); Enviroscience, Inc. (79); State
of Washington, Department of Ecology (112); Barnard Environmental, Inc. (113); Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste Management Program (120); Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (L6); Aluminum Company of America (L7); New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (L8); the US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines (L9); and Reynolds Metals Company (L15).
Fourteen of these commenters specifically address the capacity analysis. The remaining
eleven commenters addressed issues regarding BDAT treatment standards, regulatory status of
potliners, or the estimated cost impacts of this rule. Those commenters are addressed in the
other Response to Comments Documents found in the docket for the final rule.
The comments on the capacity analysis have been grouped into three main categories:
comments on K088 generation; comments on logistics; and comments on the capacity analysis and
variance determination.
4.2.1 K088 Generation
To determine whether to grant a capacity variance, EPA must first determine the quantity
of waste that requires alternative treatment as a result of the rule. For the K088 capacity
analysis, EPA estimated the annual generation rate of K088 wastes. Commenters addressed five
general aspects of the required capacity analysis:
Data on K088 generation;
Missing estimate for the Intalco facility;
Canadian generation;
K088 remediation wastes; and
Stockpiled waste;
«
~
4.2.1.1 Data on K088 Generation
Summary:
Five comments provided data on K088 generation. Alumax Inc. states that it has one
Canadian and three US plants that generate approximately 14,000 tons of K088 per year which is
currently'disposed, untreated, in Subtitle C landfills. (34-p.l) "The Companies" state that the
Reynolds' Troutdale facility should generate 3,500 tons per year and that this facility was not
4-7
-------
included in the capacity analysis. "The Companies" also note that EPA's estimate of K088
generation in other documents does not agree with the numbers provided in the capacity analysis.
(37-p.l 1,12) Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation states that it generates approximately 6,500 -
8,000 tons of K088 a year. (67-p.21) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality states that
two facilities in Oregon produce 4,400 metric tons of potliner each year.5 (120-p.l) Reynolds
Metals Company states that current industry estimates that 118,000 tons of K088 could be
generated by US primary aluminum smelters if all smelters were operating at full capacity and that
actual 1995 generation should be 89,000 to 94,000 tons. (L15-p.2)
Response:
EPA acknowledges the data on K088 generation and has incorporated it into the capacity
analysis for the final rule. EPA also acknowledges that it has provided other estimates of K088
generation in the past The variation in these estimates is due, in part, to the variability of K088
waste generation, which in turn is due to changing market conditions in- the aluminum sector. As
explained in more detail in the final capacity analysis background document, EPA is using the data
presented in the proposed rule, appropriately updated with the information provided in these
comments, as well as data extracted from the 1993 Biennial Reporting System to estimate a range for
the quantity of K088 waste generated in the U.S. on an annual basis.
Comments:
• Alumax Inc. (34-p.l)
• Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (37-p.l 1,12)
• Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67-p.21)
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (120-p.l)
• Reynolds Metals Company (L15-p.2)
5The comment states that 160,00 tons of K088 are generated each year. However, Roy Brower of the
Oregon DEQ stated in a phone conversation that this figure represented the amount of aluminum
generated each year and that the quantity of K088 generated each year was approximately 4,400 metric
tons.
4-8
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Alum ax Inc.
34
1
Alumax Inc. is a major integrated aluminum producer headquartered in Norcross, Georgia. We
appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
published on March 2, 1995 by the U.S. EPA entitled Land Dtsnoaal Restrictions- Phase HI;
Decharacterfzed Wastewaters. Carbabamatc and OrganobromSne Wastes and Spent Potliners
(40 CFR Parts 148 et aL) Docket # F-95-P43P-FFFFF. The proposed rule requests comments
on several issues related to the handling and disposal of spent potliner and this is the basis of our
comments.
Alumax operates one Canadian and three domestic primary aluminum reduction plants that generate
approximately 14,000 tons of spent potliner (K088) pa year. Presently this material is handled as
required by current RCRA requirements and disposed of untreated, in Subtitle C RCRA permitted
landfills. As a result of the current proposed rule, Alumax operations will be substantially impacted
and the following comments are meant to address our concerns with the rule and the impacts it will
have on our operations.
4-9
-------
Commenter:
Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number:
Page Number:
37
11
a. EPA Has Mistaken the Input Volume.
In the preamble to the proposed rules and in the BDAT
Background document, EPA has stated that the annual weight of SPL.
which will require treatment is 118,000 tons, see, e.g.. BDAT
Background Document, Table 3-1. According to the Background
Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions,
Phase III ("Capacity Document"), EPA made that determination
based primarily on 1990 data ("confirmed," in an unspecified
manner, by a 1992 Reynolds survey). However, a quick examination
of the actual data, contained in the Capacity Document shows
several deficiencies:
• First, the entry for the Intalco facility at Ferndale,
Washington shows zero. The actual generation of SPL
from this plant averages approximately 6,000 tons.
Second, the Exhibit does not include any entry for the
Reynolds facility at Troutdale, Oregon. According to
industry sources, that facility has 650 to 700 pots,
and should generate over 15 tons of SPL per pot, or
over 9,750-10,500 tons (about 3,500 tons per year)."
Third, Other information relied upon by EPA shows much
different numbers. For example, in its analysis of the
Reynolds petition to delist residual wastes from its
Table 3-1 of the BDAT Background Document, which is
based on 1991 data, lists Troutdale at 2,325 tons, and the
Intalco facility at 2,597 tons. Notwithstanding the difference
in tonnages for these two plants, the 1991 data shows roughly the
same total industry tonnage needing treatment as does the 1990
data. However, the difference between the individual facility
numbers in only two years' worth of data shows the significant
variability of the data, and argues powerfully for longer
averaging periods.
4-10
-------
Commenter:
Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number:
Page Number:
37
12
rotary kiln process in 1991, EPA reported that the same
23 facilities analyzed in the present studies generated
150,000-200,000 metric tons of SPL annually, see 56
Fed. Reg- 33002 (July 18, 1991) . Further, EPA has
reported that residues from cryolite recovery may need
treatment as well, with an annual volume of 30,000
tons.14
14 Sea, 56 Fed. Reg. 55182 (Oct. 24, 1991). Note that in
this Federal Register notice, the SPL annual figures are again
different from those currently reported.
4-11
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
21
4. The capacity being constructed or otherwise provided will be able to manage
all of the applicant's waste.
The Onnet/Voitec Facility will be able to manage all of Ormet's K088. Ormet produces
approximately 6,500-8,000 tons of K08S per year; the Ormet facility will have the capacity
to recycle approximately 8,000 tons of K088 per year.
4-12
-------
Commenter: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Comment Number: 120
Page Number: 1
mm Treatment Standards
Oregon has had a significant historic involvement in both the aluminum industry and the
waste potliner it produces. Two aluminum companies are located here, producing
approximately 160,000 metric tons of potliner per year. In addition, a treatment, storage and
disposal facility near Arlington, Oregon operated by Chemical Waste Management of the
Northwest, Inc. has historically managed substantial amounts of aluminum potliner waste by
land disposal.
Oregon has had a consistent regulatory focus on potliner waste over the year. In the early
years of waste disposal at the Arlington facility, the Department specifically evaluated and
pre-approved all waste streams, including potliner waste, disposed by landfflling. The
potliner was required to be managed and disposed in the same manner as hazardous waste
prior to EPA listing potliner as a hazardous waste.
In April 1984, Oregon adopted a sate rule listing potliner waste as a state-only hazardous
waste. The rulemkaing was intended to assure protective management of this voluminous
waste stream although it was more stringent than the existing federal standards. In June
1989, Oregon repealed the state-only hazardous waste designation for potliner waste and at
the same time adopted the federal rule listing K088 as hazardous waste.
The Department first permitted the Arlington disposal facility in March 1976. The facility
location was selected in part based on the arid climate (with an average rainfall of less than
nine inches a year), the geology, and the substantial depth to the first
groundwater aquifer below the facility, in excess of 150 feet Since 1976 tl
Department has authorized the facility to continue its operations.
The facility has historically land disposed potliner waste, both first cut and
second cut, in substantial quantities principally from aluminum production
facilities in Oregon, Washington, Montana and Canada. In the period 1991
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
(503) 229-5696
TOD (503) 229-6993
DEQ-l w
4-13
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Reynolds Metals Company
L15
2
Cones* ahHatamn Mostly estimates Indicate that 118,000 tons of K088 could cooo«ly»bJy b« gtaanfed
¦>' aimually by primary «lumlm*nim«JtmJoe«t*dk^ United StataLPieue note that thU estimate assumes
thai aB 23 prtaunyahmimraimelten located m the United States are operatic at flill capacity. Cuntotly,
UJ.pnn^s!s!miamsaKkntra<^en^alipprecdma^76H -80% capacity and, therefore, K088
gtnwalion during 1995 fa estimated by the aluminum Industry to be approximately 59,090 - 94,000 wu.
EPA illocM alio nptt Thai primary akta in um»mcto» are making good ptoyew toward iaeaxaains pot lif*
^Wohwfflocotia«» to »d^ annual rit»« of KOWgwwration. Reynolds supports and actively
participates in tbBseiwjxjiUuitpoIhitios pfBYcutfonoHUili-
4-14
-------
4.2.1.2 Missing Intalco Generation Estimate
Summary:
Five comments addressed the omission of Intalco's generation from the required capacity
estimate. Alumax Inc. states the 4,300 tons of waste generated by Intaico (Alumax) are not
included in the capacity analysis. (34-p.2) "The Companies" state that the Intalco plant generates
an average of 6,000 tons of K088 per year that were not included in the capacity analysis. (37-
p.ll) Southwire Corporation notes that waste generated by Intalco (Alumax) is not included in
the capacity analysis. (63-p.l) Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation states that waste generated
by Intalco should be included in the capacity analysis. (67-p.l8) Ravenswood Aluminum notes
that waste generated by Intalco (Alumax) is not included in the capacity analysis. (68-p.4)
Response:
EPA acknowledges the omission. The final capacity analysis does include Intalco's
generation of K088, based on the data provided by Alumax Inc.
Comments:
• Alumax Inc. (34-p.2)
• Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (37-p.l 1)
• Southwire Corporation (63-p.l)
• Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67-p.l8)
• Ravenswood Aluminum (68-p.4)
4-15
-------
Conimenter: Alumax Inc.
Comment Number: 34
Page Number: 2
Capacity Determination
In the proposed rale, U.S. EPA slates that there is adequate capacity for managing the spent potliner
generated by the primary aluminum industry. This we believe is information received from the
industry sources concerning the operation of the only treatment facility for K088 waste. EPA states
that the capacity of the facility (120,000 tons per year) is adequate and therefore ho capacity variance
is necessary for this waste.
Information presented in the capacity variance background document, shows a total generation rate
of 117,963 tons pa* year for U.S. primary aluminum facilities. The table shown in exhibit 4-2 does
not include the generation rate from Intalco (Alumax) which is approximately 4300 tons per year.
4-16
-------
Commenter:
Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number:
Page Number:
37
11
a. EPA Has Mistaken the Input Volume.
In the preamble to the proposed rules and in the BDAT
Background document, EPA has stated that the annual weight of SPL
which will require treatment is 118,000 tons, see, e.g.. BDAT
Background Document, Table 3-1. According to the Background
Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions,
Phase III ("Capacity Document"), EPA taade that determination
based primarily on 1990 data ("confirmed," in an unspecified
manner, by a 1992 Reynolds survey). However, a quick examination
of the actual data, contained in the Capacity Document shows
several deficiencies:
First, the entry for the Intalco facility at Ferndale,
Washington shows zero. The actual generation of SPL
from this plant averages approximately 6,000 tons.
4-17
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Southwire Corporation
63
1
B. EPA has understated the amount of K088 waste generated in the United
States
1. EPA's estimate of 118,000 tons per year does not include one major
aluminum facility, Alumax (Intalco).
4-18
-------
Commenter: Ormet Primary AJuminum Corporation
Comment Number: 67
Page Number: 18
EPA estimates that the BDAT standards to be promulgated will require additional treatment
capacity for approximately 85,000 tons. 60 Fed. Beg. at 11,734. Although at first glance
the additional capacity at the Gum Springs facility appears adequate, it is not It is
insufficient for several reasons. First, assuming arguendo that these numbers are correct,
which they are not, there is too small a margin for error. Second, EPA's calculations
underestimate the amount of K088 that will need treatment: a) EPA's estimate does not
include the 4,300 tons of K088 produced per year by Alumax (Intalco), a major aluminum
facility;
4-19
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ravenswood Aluminum
68
4
b. EPA Has Understated The Amount of KQ88 Waste
Generated In The United States
As stated above, the Capacity Background Document estimated that 118,000 tons per year
of K088 waste are generated by the domestic aluminum industry. This estimate was based only
on 1990 data (updated in 1992 by Reynolds and subsequently reviewed by EPA). This estimate
understates the actual amount of K0S8 waste generated because, as Exhibit 4-2 of the Capacity
Background Document shows, no specific K088 waste generation was attributed to one major
facility, Alumax (Intalco). Greater than zero (" >0") was listed for spent potliner production
from this operational facility.
4-20
-------
4.2.13 Canadian Generation
Summary:
Five commenters suggest that EPA include Canadian generation in the required capacity
estimate. Alum ax Inc. states that EPA should consider Canadian generation of K088 wastes.
There is approximately 10,000 tons generated by Reynolds Canada and 15,000 to 18,000 from
consortium owned and Alumax (Lauralco) primary generation plants. (34-p.2) "The Companies"
state that Reynolds is currently processing K088 from its Canadian plant and will continue to do
so. (37-p.l2) Southwire Corporation states that waste generated by Canadian facilities should be
included in the capacity analysis. (63-p.2) Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation states that
waste generated by Canadian facilities and imported into the US (25,000 to 28,000 tons) should
be included in the capacity analysis. (67-p.l8) Ravenswood Aluminum states that waste
generated by Canadian facilities should be included in the capacity analysis. (68-p.4)
Response
Because generation in foreign countries is not subject to the LDR treatment requirements
(unless it is shipped to the U.S. for land disposal), EPA does not consider foreign generation in its
assessment of the quantity of waste requiring alternative treatment technology. However, to the
extent that foreign waste utilizes domestic treatment capacity, it is incorporated into the estimate of
available capacity in the final capacity analysis (please refer to the final capacity analysis
background document for a more detailed discussion of this issue).
Comments: •
• Alumax Inc. (34-p.2)
• Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (37-p.l2)
• Southwire Corporation (63-p.2)
• Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67-p.2)
• Ravenswood Aluminum (68-p.4)
4-21
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
AJumax Inc.
34
2
EPA should also take into account the K088 waste generated by U.S. owned Canadian operations
that currently landfill K088 waste in U.S. Subtitle C facilities. Tins additional volume includes an
estimated 10,000 tons from Reynolds Canada and another 15,000 to 18,000 tons from consortium
owned ami the Alamax (Lauralco) primary reduction plants.
With the addition of Reynolds Canada generation, this takes the generation rate to 132,000 tons or
approximately ten percent above the rated capacity of the treatment facility. Addition of other
Canadian generators that have committed to contracts with die treatment facility ties up another five
percent of the capacity and raises the overcapacity level to fifteen percent
4-22
-------
Commenter: Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number: 37
Page Number: 12
• Fourth, we believe that Reynolds is presently
processing SPL from its Baie Comeau, Quebec plant at
the Arkansas facility and will continue to do so. This
tonnage is unknown, but is not included in the
calculation.
4-23
-------
Commenter: National Southwire Aluminum
Comment Number: 63
Page Number: 2
2. EPA has not allowed for spent potliner received by U.S. treatment
facilities from Canadian facilities.
4-24
-------
)
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
18
EPA estimates that the BOAT standards to be promulgated will require additional treatment
capacity for approximately 85,000 tons. 60 Fed. Reg. at 11,734. Although at first glance
the additional capacity at the Gum Springs facility appears adequate, it is not It is
insufficient for several reasons. First, assuming arguendo that these numbers are correct,
which they are not, there is too small a margin for error. Second, EPA's calculations
underestimate the amount of K088 that will need treatment: a) EPA's estimate does not
include the 4,300 tons of K088 produced per year by Alumax (Intalco), a major aluminum •
facility; b) EPA's estimate does not include any of the estimated 25,000-28,000 tons of K088
imported each year from Canadian facilities for disposal in the United States;
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
4-25
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ravenswood Aluminum
68
4
Further, the numbers EPA is using to determine the amount of spent potliner that will
require treatment do not include spent potliner that the Gum Springs facility might receive from
facilities in Canada. Specifically, Reynolds Metals Company, owner of the Gum Springs
facility, operates the largest primary aluminum manufacturing facility in Canada. Presumably,
spent potliner waste from Reynolds' Canadian facility will be sent to Reynolds* United States
facility for treatment. Any spent Potliner to be sent from the Reynolds' Canadian facility to the
Gum Springs facility has not been included in the EPA estimate. Hie 118,000 tons per year
calculation only includes spent potliner from domestic facilities.
4-26
-------
4.2.1.4 Remediation Waste
Summary;
Three commenters state that the capacity analysis should include K088 waste derived from
remediations. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation notes that EPA failed to account for
material generated from CERCLA or RCRA corrective actions. (22-p.l5) Southwire Corporation
states that the capacity analysis should include remediation-derived K088 such as K088-
contaminated soil and groundwater.. Southwire is currently implementing a ground waste
remediation project at one of their facilities. This operation will also generate sludge from the
treatment of the groundwater. These sludges will probably not be treatable by the Gum Springs
process. (62-p.l-3) Ravenswood Aluminum states that EPA failed to account for material
generated from CERCLA or RCRA corrective actions. These wastes will probably not be
treatable by the Gum Springs process. (68-p.5-6)
Response:
Soil and debris contaminated with K088 were addressed in the Background Document for
Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III - Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners (Proposed Rule), U.S. EPA, February
1995. EPA concluded that both these contaminated media could be treated using thermal
destruction (not necessarily treatment at the Gum Springs plant) and that, given lack of data to the
contrary, adequate capacity existed for any soil and debris contaminated with K088. EPA did not
receive any data contradicting these assumptions. EPA acknowledges that it did not include K088-
contaminated groundwater or sludge from treating such groundwater in its capacity analysis.
However, as discussed in the capacity analysis background document for the final rule, EPA believes
that there is adequate treatment capacity for this media as well (at facilities other than the Gum
Springs plant). EPA notes that the LDRs do not apply to remediation wastes if they are treated in
situ or within a corrective action management unit (CAMU). If in the future, a significant quantity
of K088 contaminated media is generated during a RCRA or CERCLA cleanup, the site generating
the waste may apply for a site-specific variance from the LDRs under §268.7. Also, if such media is
not amenable to treatment using available methods, the facility may seek a treatability variance
under §268.44.
Comments:
* Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (22-p.l5)
* Southwire Corporation (62-p.l-3)
* Ravenswood Aluminum (68-p.5-6)
4-27
-------
Commcntcr: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 22
Page Number: 15
EPA also Ms to account for material generated from either CERCLA or RCRA
corrective actions that would be initiated by either EPA or state agency actions. From the
calculations of volumes addressed in the preamble to this rule, neither RCRA corrective action
nor CERCLA cleanup sources were included in the capacity estimates. EPA must, therefore,
put in place the two-year capacity variance to cover CERCLA and RCRA actions, because
Reynolds' capacity only meets the need for ongoing generation of potliner.
4-28
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Southwire Corporation
62
1
In proposing treatment standards for K088, it appears that EPA has focused solely upon spent
potliners in the solid form in which they are initially generated. Additionally, EPA's analysis of whether
sufficient capacity exists for the amount of K088 to be restricted from land disposal focuses on spent
potliner that is currently managed in land-based units. Based upon its analysis, EPA determined that
there is sufficient commercial capacity to manage all of these spent potliners in solid form and has
therefore not proposed to grant a national capacity variance for these wastes. 60 Fed. Reg. At 11734.
In addition to spent potliner in solid form removed from the production process, contaminated
media at aluminum smelting facilities may also be classified as K088 under EPA's contained-in-poiicy.
Such contaminated soils and ground water are clearly significantly different in their treatability
characteristics from the form of spent potliner that was evaluated in proposing the land disposal
restrictions.
Currently, Southwire Corporation is implementing a ground water remediation project as an
interim remedial action under CERCLA at its Hawesville, Kentucky, aluminum smelting facility. It is our
understanding that similar ground water remediation projects either are or will be implemented at other
aluminum smelting facilities. Under EPA's contained-in rule, the extracted ground water that is treated to
remove cyanide is considered by EPA to contain K088 wastes. Trotted effluent is discharged pursuant to
a state-issued NPDES permit, with appropriate limitations for total and free cyanide. Sludge generated
from the treatment process will have to be disposed of off-site at an appropriate facility.
4-29
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Southwire Corporation
62
2
The proposed rule does not address whether proposed treatment standards for K088 would apply
to contaminated media such as the ground water at Southwire Corporation's Hawesville, Kentucky
facility. EPA should clarify in the final rule that the treatment standards promulgated for K088 were not
developed for contaminated media and that ultimate treatment standards for ground waters or soils that
contain K088 will be addressed as part of EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Rule effort for
contaminated media. As noted in the September 19, 1994 Federal Register, this approach would
encourage national consistency and prevent K088-contaminated media from bang .subjected to standards
that were developed for the specific underlying waste (i.e., K088).
Similarly, sludge generated from the treatment of K088-contaminated ground water should not be
subject to the treatment standards for K088. First, such sludges may not be treatable in the processes for
K088 referenced in the March 2, 1995 proposal. For example, it is our understanding that the Reynolds
Metals process can only accept wastes with a limited concentration of cyanide. Sludges from the
treatment of K088 contaminated waste waters will likely contain higher concentrations of cyanide than
can be treated in that process. Additionally, it is not known whether the treatment processes referenced
in the March 2,199S proposal can handle waste water treatment sludges. Therefore, it is not appropriate
to apply to sludges that have different physical and chemical characteristics treatment standards based
upon technology available for spent potliner.
For the same reason, EPA should grant a national capacity variance for K088-contaminated media
and the sludges and effluents generated from the treatment of such media. EPA has not determined
whether sufficient commercial capacity exists to manage all of these wastes. Without a national capacity
variance, CERCLA remedial actions, such as the one under way at the Hawesville, Kentucky, facility that
were not designed to achieve the proposed treatment standards for K088, may be jeopardized and may
need to be discontinued or modified to meet the treatment standards. This would clearly be an
undesirable result since such remedial actions have been designed to protect human health and the
environment
EPA, in its Phase II LDR promulgation on September 19, 1994, expressed many of the same
concerns as those of the Southwire Corporation. In the preamble to the September 19, 1994
promulgation, EPA described its position in the following terms:
The Agency has stated a presumption, however, that the treatment standards for as-generated
wastes are generally inappropriate or unachievable for soils contaminated with hazardous wastes,
within the meaning of 40 CFR 268.44(a) (see 55 FR 8759-60, March 8, 1990). It has been the
Agency's experience that contaminated soils are significantly different in their treatability
characteristics from the wastes that have been evaluated in establishing the BDAT standards, and
thus, will generally qualify for treatability variin&i under 40 CFR 268.44.
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Southwire Corporation
62
3
59 Fed Reg at 4798647987.
In the same promulgation, EPA expressed its concern regarding use of the treatability variances as
follows:
Until LDR standards specific to soils are promulgated, EPA believes that trsstabiity variances will
generally be appropriate when hazardous soils are managed as part of site remediation activities.
The Agency recognizes, however, that in some cases obtaining a treatability variance as provided
under § 268.44 could cause delays in implementing remedial actions. The Agency is currently
considering whether changes to the existing variance of authorization procedures should be made
as a means of expediting cleanup actions that are conducted under RCRA or other Federal or
State authorities, or other cleanups initiated by responsible parties. Such changes, if necessary,
will be addressed in a future rulemaking.
59 Fed Reg at 47987.
As stated previously, Southwire Corporation has undertaken the interim remedial action at its
Hawesville, Kentucky, facility in the interest of protecting human health and the environment, and it
would be unfortunate if the project was delayed while a treatability variance was obtained. Such a delay
can be avoided if the applicability of the K088 treatment standard was limited to the waste in its as-
generated form.
4-31
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ravenswood Aluminum
68
5
In addition, large amounts of spent potliner have been disposed of in landfills at some
facilities. Should excavation of this waste be required due to corrective or remedial action,
excavated K088 waste, along with any impacted soil or groundwater, would have to be treated
to meet LDR standards, thereby generating additional K088 waste, K088-contaminated media
and K088 wastewater treatment sludges. Also, leachate generated from previously disposed
spent potliner will need to be treated to meet LDR standards, thereby generating K088
4-32
-------
J
Commenter: Ravenswood Aluminum
Comment Number: 68
Page Number: 6
wastewater treatment sludges. EPA's capacity determination has not taken these wastes into
account. Further, Acre has been no demonstration that the Reynolds' technology, or any other
technology, can adequately treat K088 contaminated media or wastewater treatment sludges to
the proposed LDR standards.
4-33
-------
4.2.1.5 Stockpiled Waste
Summary:
Four comments discuss potentially stockpiled K088 wastes. "The Companies" state that
the capacity analysis should take into account stockpiled K088. (37-p.l2) Southwire Corporation
disposed spent potliner and spent potliner-related wastes have not been taken into account. (63-
p.2) Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation states that the capacity analysis should take into
account stockpiled K088. (67-p.l8) Ravenswood Aluminum states that the capacity analysis
should take into account stockpiled K088. (68-p.5)
Response:
In the Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III
- Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners
(Proposed Rule), U.S. EPA, February 1995, EPA stated that it did not believe that stockpiled K088
would require alternative treatment because the Agency believed that facilities would dispose of such
waste prior to the effective date of the LDRs for economic reasons. Since no commenter provided
information on actual quantities of stockpiled waste, EPA can not incorporate stockpiled wastes into
the final capacity analysis. EPA notes that storage of wastes is not prohibited if such storage begins
prior to the effective date of the rule. In addition, EPA notes that the LDRs do not require
previously disposed wastes to be treated to meet LDR standards.6
Comments:
~ Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (37-p.l2)
~ Southwire Corporation (63-p.2)
• Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67-p.l8)
• Ravenswood Aluminum (68-p.5)
6In certain circumstances, such as the excavation of previously disposed wastes, such wastes may
require treatment prior to being replaced in or on the land.
4-34
-------
Commenter: Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number: 37
Page Number: 12
The EPA annual input numbers, even if accurate with respect
to current generation of "new" SPL, simply do not account at all
for existing stocks of SPL in storage, all of which will be
required to be processed at the Reynolds facility if the proposed
rules are finalized. There is no explanation of whether the
Reynolds facility is capable of handling such an influx of SPL
for processing, and there are no data on how much SPL exists in
this category."
15 There is also no calculation of the volume of SPL which
was formerly landfilled. There is no suggestion that such SPL
must be treated in this rulemaking, however; the lack of any
such suggestion and the lack of any discussion of that volume
indicates that EPA has no intention of requiring such treatment.
If EPA has different intentions, then a discussion of. the volume
of such materials would appear to be mandatory.
4-35
-------
Commenter: Southwire Corporation
Comment Number: 63
Page Number: 2
C. Previously disposed spent potliner waste and spent potliner-related wastes
(contaminated soils and debris, wastewater treatment sludges, etc.) have not
been taken into account
4-36
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:.
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
18
e) EPA's
estimates includes only current generation and ignores not only additional generation which
would result from capacity coming on line, but older spent potliner currently stored at
numerous facilities around the country which may heed to be handled.
4-37
-------
Commenter: Ravenswood Aluminum
Comment Number: 68
Page Number: 5
d. Previously-Disposed K088 Waste And K088-Related
Wastes Have Not Been Taken Into Account
As noted in the Capacity Background Document, some K088 waste has been stockpiled
on some sites. EPA, however, did not cite any data as to the amount of waste that may be
stockpiled, and there is no indication that EPA has attempted to gather this information.
Ravenswood believes that, in some instances, large amounts of K088 waste have been
stockpiled. EPA stated in the Capacity Background Document that these stockpiles will not add
to demand for future capacity because EPA believes that facilities storing these wastes will
dispose of them prior to the effective date of the LDRs for economic reasons. Again, no data
is given to support this conclusion, and there is no indication that industry has been surveyed
on this issue.
4-38
-------
4.2.2 Logistics
Summary;
One commenter, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, urges EPA to grant a
capacity variance because seven smelters, including Kaiser, have not qualified for the Reynolds'
Gum Springs facility. The commenter notes that qualification takes at least seven months, if not
more, and case-by-case variances cannot be used in this instance because the facilities will not
have contracts with Reynolds. (22-pp.ll-12) Reynolds Metals Company provides additional
information on its verification procedures. (L15-p.3)
Response:
As discussed in more detail in the final capacity analysis background document, EPA is
granting a nine-month variance to K088 wastes, because EPA believes that facilities may need to
time identify and secure adequate treatment capacity for their wastes. EPA acknowledges that the
Reynolds' verification procedure will require time and that some facilities will not have completed the
procedure prior to the promulgation of this rule. Other logistical delays that facilities could
encounter include setting up appropriate infrastructure to store wastes prior to shipment, negotiating
contracts for both shipment and treatment of wastes, and adjusting treatment and pre-trealment
processes to new waste matricies. For these and other reasons, EPA has decided to grant a nine-
month variance to K088 wastes.
Comments:
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (22-pp.l 1-12)
* Reynolds Metals Company (L15-p.3)
4-39
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
22
11
A. EPA Should Allow Adequate Time For Industry to Comply.
The implementation of Phase HI Land Disposal Restriction regulations presents for the
aluminum industry several action items that will require close management of time and
resources.
Presently there are seven smelters in the country that have not qualified for the Reynolds
facility in Arkansas. Kaiser is currently in the process of making its demonstration for approval
by Reynolds. Among the preparations currently under way are: leasing of custom-made 20 ton
container boxes; rental of a crusher to prepare the potliner to comply with Reynolds'
4-40
-------
Commenter: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 22
Page Number: 12
requirements; acquisition of loaders to move the container boxes for mil transport; and
ultimately, granting of a test bum with Reynolds. Without any competition from other
smelters attempting to acquire Reynolds* approval prior to the effective date of the Phase in
rule, Kaiser estimates this process will take at a minimum seven months. Complicating the
efficiency of this time estimate is the fact that there are seven smelters competing for supplies
and test burn schedules with Reynolds.
Under the scenario set forth above, it is conceivable that the Phase HI rule could become
effective prior to all facilities receiving Reynolds' certification, which would result in cessation
of land disposal by those unqualified smelters, storage of potliner subject to the 90-day
hazardous waste storage rule, and the regulatory dilemma of how to manage the accumulated
potliners where there exist no legal options for potliner management by an unqualified generator.
The effective result of proposing and promulgating this regulation in advance of the
recycling and treatment industries developing and receiving approval of their processes is to
eliminate any case-by-case capacity variance option for those smelters that do not have a contract
with Reynolds. The case-by-case variance from land disposal restrictions, as set forth under
RCRA § 3004(h)(3), would be rendered ineffective under the proposed Phase IU regulation. For
there to exist a binding contractual obligation which would justify a site-specific temporary
capacity variance, a smelter would first have to identify alternative capacity.
4-41
-------
Commenter: Reynolds Metals Company
Comment Number: L15
Page Number: 3
Some oorrrnfirtmittttdttoRe^hfr would not be tide&sts^{)riQrtoiised&ctividMBof fhiic III LDR. regulation. Since Jtnmffy 199$,
htl fequnftd flrf pffitffll fflflWffHti 4
tacoalve offers. R^oUU»ftjibrpr«p<^ to •eoooinoctoifloftheraruining tour noelters that request
vatfteatton testing {Mtorto Aw Flm in LDReflbnfrt das. If noccswy, Reynolds wiU cnraU shipmate
fff spurt p<*i"*r frftm &—•**'' f*d —^w hjghrrt |ii ihn f'y ft computing wfificatioit tests lb? tho
remaining generator*. Ttarefbrerailprtntary atufanaua cneltertvill bo provided SofBokot opportunity to
complete vtrificitiooteto prior to tfaoPfatwOILDRfeffitcdvo dm Ifaoysmstatftil to complete fee
tatting prior to fee effective date, ft would be doe only to their wmrffltagaess to sdiedato fee tens witfc
Reynolds.
t.
%
4-42
-------
4.2.3 Variance Determination
4.23,1 Support EPA's Capacity Analysis for K088
Summary:
Reynolds Metals Company agrees with EPA's assessment that there is sufficient capacity
to treat all K088 generated in the U.S. Reynolds states that given the availability of treatment
capacity, EPA should accelerate the final adoption of LDR standards for K088. (14-pp.2,3,6)
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenter's support Based on available data, EPA has determined
that there is adequate treatment capacity for K088 wastes. However, the difference between available
and required capacity for K088 wastes may be very small Since K088 wastes are generated
sporadically, if a large quantity of waste is generated over a short period of time, facUMes may not be
able to find sufficient available capacity. In addition, EPA believes that facilities may need to time
identify and secure adequate treatment capacity for their wastes. For these reasons, EPA has
decided to grant a nine-month variance to K088 wastes. A detailed discussion of the justification for
such a variance is provided in the capacity analysis background document for the final rule.
Comments:
• Reynolds Metals Company (14-pp.2,3,6)
4-43
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Reynolds Metals Company
14
2
Land Disposal Restriction* for K088 Should be Accelerated
Reynolds agrees with EPA's determination that sufficient capacity exists to treat all K088
generated in the Unites States. Because of tins capacity, EPA should accelerate the schedule for
imposing Land Disposal Restrictions on K088. We strongly believe that the BDAT treatment
standards for K088 are long overdue. Spent potliner (K088) has been regulated as a listed
hazardous waste since September 1988. The annual generation of K088 exceeds 100,000 tons.
K088 contains numerous hazardous constituents that, if not managed properly, clearly pose a risk
to human health and the environment Large quantities of untreated K088 continue to be
disposed of in landfills. The continued disposal of untreated K088 in landfills is contrary to the
4-44
-------
Commenter: Reynolds Metals Company
Comment Number: 14
Page Number: 3
19S4 Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Considering these
undisputed facts and that Reynolds has demonstrated to EPA that its Gum Springs plant provides
sufficient K0S8 treatment capacity, we believe the time has come for the Agency to quickly
accelerate the final adoption of BDAT for spent potliner.
4-45
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
14
6
Reynolds Metals Company
KOSS Treatment Capacity
As EPA indicates in Its capacity determination, Reynolds Gum Springs Plant has sufficient
capacity to effectively treat all as-generated spent potliner currently generated in the United
States. A national edacity variance, therefore, is not warranted since there is not a treatment
capacity shortage. The Reynolds Gum Springs Plant is currently operating at approximately 55
60% of capacity. Quite clearly, additional capacity is available to apply the proven Reynolds
technology to the quantity ofK088 currently being disposed directly in landfills without any
effective treatment This clearly underscores the need for EPA to move aggressively to finalize
the BDAT rule and the ensure that K088 is effectively treated. Reynolds believes that EPA
should not, therefore, provide a national capacity variance for K088.
4-46
-------
4.2.3.2 EPA Should Grant a Capacity Variance for K088
Summary:
Seven comments state that EPA should grant a variance for K088 wastes. Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation urges EPA to grant a two year capacity variance because
EPA does not have adequate data to show that sufficient alternative capacity exists. (22-p.ll)
Kaiser also states that the effective date of the rule should be the same as the court ordered
deadline for these wastes, June 30, 1996. (22-p. 15-16) Alumax Inc. suggests that EPA provide a
two-year capacity variance in order to allow potential treatment options other than Reynolds'
Gum Springs plant to reach commercial status. (34-p.2) "The Companies" suggest that EPA grant
a two-year capacity variance due to lack of adequate treatment capacity (based on the belief that
EPA has miscalculated both required and available treatment capacity). A two-year variance will
also encourage the development of recycling technologies (37-pp. 13-14) Southwire Corporation
believes that there is an insufficient margin between required and available K088 capacity. (63-
pp.1,3) Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation believes that there is an insufficient margin
between required and available K088 capacity. In addition Ormet states that its facility meets all
seven criteria established for receiving a case-by-case capacity variance. (67-pp. 18-21)
Ravenswood Aluminum believes that there is an insufficient margin between required and
available K088 capacity. (68-pp.3-4) The State of New York Department of Environmental
Conservation believes that a capacity variance should be granted to encourage development of
recovery technologies. (L8-pp.3-4)
Response:
Based on available data, EPA has determined that there is adequate treatment capacity for
K088 wastes. However, the margin between the available and required capacity is not large. In
addition, facilities may have logistical problems in securing adequate treatment capacity for their
waste. Therefore, EPA has decided to grant a nine-month capacity variance for these wastes.- A
detailed discussion of the justification for such a variance is provided in the capacity analysis
background document for the final rule. EPA also notes that if facilities require a longer period to
come into compliance, they may apply for a case-by-case extension to the capacity variance. If
facilities wish to apply for such a variance they must follow the formal procedures for filing a petition
as outlined in §268.5.
Comments:
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (22-pp.l 1,15-16)
• Alumax Inc. (34-P-2)
• Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company (37-pp. 13-14)
• Southwire Corporation (63-pp.l,3)
• Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (67-pp.l8-21)
• Ravenswood Aluminum (68-pp.3-4)
• State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (L8-pp.3-4)
4-47
-------
Cornmenter: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 22
Page Number: 11
HI* CAPAWllY VARIANCE
The aluminum industry has made great snides in the management of its K088 wastes.
As the proposed rule notes, there are a number of technologies in development that may soot
lead to commercial availability far the processing of a spent potliner. We believe the most
important factor in allowing these technologies to become available is EPA's grant of reasonable
time in the development and implementation of this rulemaking.
Kaiser urges EPA to giant the aluminum industry a two-year capacity variance. EPA
has suggested that it believes, on a preliminary basis, that adequate treatment capacity exists to
meet proposed BDAT limits. Kaiser believes that EPA does not, in fact, have adequate data to
make this assumption or reach this conclusion.
Accordingly, Kaiser urges that the June 30, 1996 deadline as set by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia become the date of promulgation for this rule with an
effective date of June 30, 1998. This rulemaking time frame would allow technology
development and industry compliance.
4-48
-------
Commenter: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 22
Page Number: 15
f
D. EPA Should Set A Later Effective Date for this Rule.
As discussed at length above, Kaiser urges that an achievable effective date for the Phase
HI Land Disposal Restriction rule be established. The U.S. District Court for the District of
4-49
-------
Commenter: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 22
Page Number: 16
Columbia set the deadline for this rulemaking, as it ^plies to potliner, at June 30, 1996.
Consistent with the Court's order, we would propose that the June 30, 1996 deadline be
maintained as the date for promulgation of this rule accompanied by an effective date of June
30, 1998. EPA's proposal is forcing qualification tests to be undertaken during rulemaking
development, rather than after final promulgation. A two-year effective date will provide
essential time to assure compliance and appropriate technology development while still protecting
the environment
4-50
-------
Commenter: Alumax Inc.
Comment Number: 34
Page Number: 2
Although the proposed role establishes technology based standards for the treatment and disposal
of K088 waste, Alumax finds it difficult to accept the feet that EPA supports the use of one disposal
option and will not allow adequate time for other viable options to reach commercial status. This
in effect establishes a monopoly for one vendor and leaves the industry at a disadvantage in finding
the most cost effective means of disposing of or recycling waste generated by its processes.
We therefore, request Oat At effective date of die rate be extended from ninety days to
twenty-fonr months to allow for other potential options to reach commercial status.
EPA does have the option to delay the promulgation of the land Ban requirements for K088. Since
K088 waste BDAT was not required to be issued in the proposed form until June 30,1995, the
comment/review period or a request for additional information can be made and the formal activity
suspended until a more comprehensive review has been completed This is supported in EPA's
request in the proposed document concerning further information on the volumes of K088 waste
generated by the aluminum industry and comments concerning the future management of the waste.
Capacity Determination
In the proposed rule, U.S. EPA states that there is adequate capacity for managing the spent potliner
generated by the primary aluminum industry. This we believe is information received from the
industry sources concerning the operation of the only treatment facility for K088 waste. EPA states
that the capacity of the facility (120,000 tons per year) is adequate and therefore no capacity variance
is necessary for this waste.
Information presented in the capacity variance background document, shows a total generation rate
of 117,963 tons per year for U.S. primary aluminum facilities. The table shown in exhibit 4-2 does
not include the generation rate from Intalco (Alumax) which is approximately 4300 tons per year.
This would put the total estimated generation rate for the U.S. primary aluminum facilities at
122^63 tons or approximately 2200 tons greater than the capacity of the current treatment option.
EPA should also take into account the K088 waste generated by U.S. owned Canadian operations
that currently landfill K088 waste in U.S. Subtitle C facilities. This additional volume includes an
estimated 10,000 tens from Reynolds Canada and another 15,000 to 18,000 tons from consortium
owned and the Alumax (Lauralco) primary reduction plants.
4-51
-------
Commenter: Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
Comment Number: 37
Page Number: 13
EPA has also failed to account for the significant backlog
in capacity which will result when the proposed rules become
effective. It seems obvious that the Reynolds facility cannot
take the entixe output of SPL at once, so some staging is
required. It is equally obvious that no company's SPL can be
treated until verification tests have been run, since this is a
condition of the delisting. However, such tests require
processing of at least 700 tons, which for many facilities
4-52
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
requires accumulation of more than 90 days' generation.18
Further, the qualification test costs nearly $500,000, for plants
in the Pacific Northwest.19 Even though the effective date of
the rules is 90 days from the publication of the final rule, it
will not be possible to qualify within that period for many
mills, even assuming Reynolds had the capacity to store and treat
all the companies' output. Companies will therefore be forced to
undergo the significant test expense before the rule is final and
the requirement legally exists.
A further problem with the EPA capacity determination is
that it ignores the most prominent feature of the Reynolds rotary
kiln process-the generation of three times the volume of residual
materials needing land disposal. While it is true that the
material is delisted, and no longer requires land disposal in a
Subtitle C facility, it is equally true that such treatment and
disposal is the lowest-valued option of the treatment hierarchy.
This topic is discussed in more detail in Section 6 of these
comments. However, in any discussion of capacity issues, EPA*
should at least ask whether Reynolds (or any nearby location) has
the capacity for disposal of 300,000 tons per year of kiln
residues. EPA should also discuss whether it might not be better
to consider as BDAT those processes which generate less, equally
harmless residue, and which are spread out in other parts of the
country.
c. Lack of a Capacity Variance Will Discourage Other
Technologies.
EPA, in the BDAT Background Document, noted the existence of
other technologies which are higher in the treatment hierarchy
and which will provide adequate treatment of those constituents
legitimately of concern. However, in several cases, as noted by
EPA, those technologies are not quite "available", and so were
not considered as a source of the UTS set forth in the proposed
rule. However, If EPA were to consider all the available data,
and make a correct evaluation of the capacity issue, a two year
capacity variance would be justified. That, coupled with the
possibility of a further one year variance in the event of
specific, promising technology (under § 3004(h)) would allow the
opportunity for new ventures to implement better and more
environmentally sound and economically viable treatment
technologies.
Columbia Aluminum Corporation, Vanalco, Inc., Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company, and Northwest Aluminum Company
37
14
11 Depending on interpretation of the rules, storage
beyond 90 days may require a full RCRA permit, a requirement so
burdensome as to be unacceptable in the industry.
19 This includes transportation and Reynolds' fees
($400/ton) and the costs of special processing and handling
pmiinmPTif. necessary to meet Reynolds' unique requirements.
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Southwire Corporation
63
1
1 Comment 1. There is insufficient capacity for the treatment of spent potliner^
A. Insufficient margin exists between treatment capacity assumed for the Gum
Springs facility and the amount of K088 waste gwtrnttfiri
1. According to EPA's estimates, the treatment capacity of the Gum Springs
facility is 120,000 tons per year and the amount of K0S8 generated is in
excess of 118,000 tons per year.
2. Generation of spent potlining is not steady, but has annual fluctuations
that depend on operating conditions. This difference leaves less than a
2% margin of error with regard to estimates on K088 waste generated
and capacity. This margin is insufficient given these annual flucttiaiions
in aluminum production and also does not take into account provisions
for downtime.
4-54
-------
Commenter: Southwire Corporation
Comment Number: 63
Page Number: 3
A. A capacity variance should be granted for K088 waste based on the lace of
sufficient treatment capacity.
B. Promulgation of the K088 LDR should be delayed until additional treatment or
recycling alternatives are commercially available.
C. At a minimum, the proposed rule on K088 is not due out until the Phase IV
LDR (June 30,1995). Finalization of the K088 LDR standards should be
postponed so that more complete information on capacity and other issues can
be gathered and evaluated.
4-55
-------
J
Gommenter: Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
Comment Number: 67
Page Number; 18
EPA estimates that the BDAT standards to be promulgated will require additional treatment
capacity for approximately 85,000 tons. 60 Fed. Reg. at 11,734. Although at first glance
the additional capacity at the Gum Springs facility appears adequate, it is not It is
insufficient for several reasons. First, assuming arguendo that these numbers are correct,
which they are not, there is too small a margin for error.
4-56
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number;
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
19
B. Ormet Capacity Variance
Pursuant to section 3004(h)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6924(h)(3), SPA has the authority to
grant a case-by-case extension of the compliance date to individuals when a party can show
that it has made a binding contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide capacity
but the party will be unable to do so by the effective date. To obtain an individual capacity
4-57
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
20
variance, according to 40 CF.R § 368 J, an applicant must meet the following seven
elements:
1. Hie applicant most have made a good-faith effort to locate and contract with
treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities nationwide to manage its waste.
Ormet has developed a process to recycle its KQ88 on-site. This avoids the risks involved in
transporting the waste long distances to the only other treatment facility in the country.
Also, a useable product is created rather than additional solid wastes which have no use and
must be disposed of in a landfill.
2. The applicant must have entered into a binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide for alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity.
Ormet satisfies this requirement because it has taken substantial steps to commence treatment
of the K088 recycling at its Hannibal, Ohio plant. The Ormet/Vortec facility should be
capable of full-scale operation by December 1996.
3. Due to circumstances beyond its control, the applicant cannot achieve the
capacity by the applicable effective date.
Ormet has proceeded as quickly and efficiently as^jossible to study, test, engineer, and
design its facility. Ormet cannot bring the facility into full operation any sooner than
December 1996.
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation
67
21
4. The capacity being constructed or otherwise provided will be able to manage
all of the supplicant's waste.
The Ormet/Vortec Facility will be able to manage all of Qrmet's K088. Oimet produces
approximately 6,500-8,000 tons of K088 per year; the Ormet facility will have the capacity
to recycle appioxiiuatriy 8,000 tons of K088 per year.
5. The applicant must provide a detailed schedule for obtaining required
construction and operating permits, or an outline of how and when the
capacity will be available.
He capacity will be available no later than December 1996. 3^ Attachment B
(Onnet/Vortec Facility Construction Schedule).
6. The applicant must demonstrate that it has arranged for adequate capacity to
manage its waste during the extension.
Ormet will continue disposal of its K088 at the Wayne Disposal, Inc., a RGRA permitted
landfill in Belleville, Michigan, which has the capacity to continue handling Onnet's K088 at
least until December 1996.
7. Any waste to be managed in a surface impoundment or landfill will be
managed according to certain minimum standards.
As stated in regard to criterion number 6 above, Onnet's K088 will be placed in a permitted
landfill which meets all the requirements and standards set forth in Subtitle C.
4-59
-------
Commenter: Ravenswood Aluminum
Comment Number: 68
Page Number: 3
Comment 1. There is insufficient capacity for the treatment of spent potliner.
The preamble to the proposed LDR Rule states that there are "numerous technologies
other available or being devdoped that recycle or recover the value (carbon, fluoride, etc.) in
K088.* 60 Fed. Reg. 11724. The preamble goes on to describe technologies being developed
by six companies. As noted in the preamble, however, technologies associated with four of
these six companies (Enviroscience, inc.; Ormet Corporation; EDcem Technology; and Ausmelt
Limited) exist only in the form of pilot scale or bench scale testing. The remaining two
technologies (Alcan International Limited and Comalco Aluminum Ltd.) also exist only in the
pilot scale form. These technologies do not represent commercially available treatment
technologies for spent potliner. We have heard that several of these alternative technologies
have proposals before EPA awaiting review and approval.
Hie only commercially available treatment facility in the United States is a rotary kiln
treatment process owned and operated by Reynolds Metals Company. This facility is located
in Gum Springs, Arkansas. Given that there is only one treatment facility available for K088
treatment, the lack of sufficient treatment capacity is demonstrated by several factors as
described below.
a. Insufficient Margin Exists Between Treatment
Capacity Assumed For The Gum Springs Facility
And Amount of K088 Waste Generated
The treatment capacity of the Gum Springs facility is approximately 120,000 tons per
year according to the Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions, Phase III - Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes,
and Spent Potliner ("Capacity Background Document"). (While the total operating capacity is
300,000 tons per year, the delisting for treatment residues effectively limits the K088 content
of the treated waste to 120,000 tons per year. As explained lata, however, the 120,000 tons
per year estimate is incorrect.) As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule granting the
delisting petition to die Gum Springs facility, this assumes an operation of two kilns with a feed
rate of 20 tons per hour, operation 24 hours per day, operation 365 days per year with IS
percent kiln downtime. See 56 Fed. Reg. 33005 (July 18, 1991). According to the Capacity
Background Document, the domestic aluminum industry generates approximately 118,000 tons
of K088 each year. Assuming that the 118,000 tons per year estimate is accurate, this leaves
less than two percent excess capacity. In other words, if the actual amount of K088 generated
exceeds the 118,000 tons per year estimate by two percent, the treatment capacity is insufficient.
4-60
-------
Commenter: Ravenswood Aluminum
Comment Number: 68
Page Number: 4 ,
I
The estimate of 118,000 tons per year is based on data for only one year, that being 1990
(updated by Reynolds in 1992 and subsequently reviewed by EPA). Annual fluctuations occur
in the amount of potliner generated. Market forces can create increases in aluminum production
which, in turn, cause the generation of more spent potliner. The amount of spent potliner
generated each year also varies as a result of potliner life (depending upon the size, type and
design of pots at each facility). He data that SPA is using to determine the amount of K088
waste generated each year is not necessarily representative. Correspondingly, if the 120,000
tons per year capacity of the Gum Springs facility decreases by more than 1.67 percent of the
estimated capacity due to down time or other reasons, the treatment capacity is insufficient
These margins between the amount of K088 waste generated and available treatment
capacity are extremely narrow and do not support a conclusion that there is or will be sufficient
treatment capacity, particularly given fluctuations and anomalies that can impact the generation
of K088 waste. Further, as explained below, the estimate of K088 waste that will require
treatment is understated, and the amount of K088 waste actually generated likely exceeds the
available treatment capacity.
b. EPA Has Understated The Amount of K088 Waste
Generated In The United Sta
ICS
As stated above, the Capacity Background Document estimated that 118,000 tons per year
of K088 waste are generated by the domestic aluminum industry. This estimate was based only
on 1990 data (updated in 1992 by Reynolds and subsequently reviewed by EPA). This estimate
understates the actual amount of K088 waste generated because, as Exhibit 4-2 of the Capacity
Background Document shows, no specific K088 waste generation was attributed to one major
facility, Alumax (Intalco). Greater than zero (" >0") was listed for spent potliner production
from this operational facility. When waste generated from this facility is considered, the total
amount of K088 waste generated in the United States is certain to exceed the 120,000 tons per
year capacity estimated for the Gum Springs facility.
4-61
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
L8
3
New York State's main concern with the proposed treatment
standards for newly listed wastes is that the proposed
schedule for prohibiting some wastes X90 days after
promulgation) may be too rigid. In light of the developing
technologies for treatment of some wastes and delisting
applications for some treatment residuals, a national
capacity variance may be in order. If treatment capacity
has not yet been developed to meet the final disposal
standards, or if recovery technologies are developing, as
with X088, these very desirable technologies, versus simple
treatment, could be impacted negatively by imposing full LOR
regulation (i.e., storage prohibitions) before these
technologies are commercially proven and available.
4-62
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation
L8
4 •
This is especially true for contaminated debris and
hazardous soils that may be generated as part of the
anticipated remedial activities. No mention was made in the
proposed rule as to the existing treatment technologies for
these waste streams. Because of the apparent complexity in
treating K088 wastes, we urge the EPA not to discourage
technology development by a prohibition date which may
result in treatment that meets the regulation, while
stopping short of achieving proficiency in recovery and
recycling.
New York State is also concerned about the economic impact
to companies generating K088. EPA states that, in one
situation, a delisting determination was given to treatment
residuals of K088 for one company, and further states
companies that do not have a delisting determination will*
have to suffer the cost disadvantages with the promulgation
of these proposed regulations. EPA goes on to state that,
with regard to K088 recovery technologies, regulation under
the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) rule, and the
limitations caused by this rule (BIFs. in existence on
August 21, 1991 could operate without first obtaining a
permit), "could create a significant barrier to commercial
operation in the near term." New York State would like to
see the final handling of K088 wastes as one that promotes
technology development and recycling while limiting risks to
human health and the environment. We would not like to see
the aluminum industry severely impacted by a forced
prohibition date when this date can be extended under RCRA
3004 (h)(2) and (3) for a short period of time, providing
economic relief to the industry with no negative effects on
environmental protection.
4-63
-------
4.2.33 Capacity Variance for Remediation Waste
One commenter, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, states that EPA must grant a
two year variance for remediation waste, since it did not include these wastes in its proposed
capacity analysis for K088. (22-p.l5)
Response;
Soil and debris contaminated with K088 were addressed in the Background Document for
Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III - Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners (Proposed Rule), U.S. EPA, February
1995. EPA concluded that both these contaminated media could be treated using thermal
destruction (not necessarily treatment at the Gum Springs plant) and that, given lack of data to the
contrary, adequate capacity existed for any soil and debris contaminated with K088. EPA did not
receive any data contradicting these assumptions. EPA acknowledges that it did not include K088-
contaminated groundwater or sludge from treating such groundwater in its capacity analysis.
However, as discussed in the capacity analysis background document for the final rule, EPA believes
that there is adequate treatment capacity for this media as well (at facilities other than the Gum
Springs plant).
As is discussed in more detail in the capacity analysis background document for the final
rule, EPA has decided to grant a nine-month capacity variance for K088 wastes (including
remediation wastes) in order to allow facilities time to identify and secure treatment capacity. If
after the expiration of this variance, a significant quantity of K088 contaminated media is generated
during a RCRA or CERCLA cleanup, the site generating the waste may apply for a site-specific
variance from the LDRs under §268.7. Abo, if such media is nbt amenable to treatment using
available methods, the facility may seek a treatability variance under §268.44.
Comments;
~ Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (22-p.l5)
4-64
-------
Commenter: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Comment Number: 22
Page Number: 15
EPA also Ms to account for material generated from either CERCLA or RCRA
corrective actions that would be initiated by either EPA or state agency actions. From the
calculations of volumes addressed in the preamble to this rule, neither RCRA corrective action
nor CERCLA cleanup sources were included in the capacity estimates. EPA must, therefore,
put in place the two-year capacity variance to cover CERCLA and RCRA actions, because
Reynolds* capacity only meets the need for ongoing generation of potliner.
4-65
-------
CHAPTER 5;
MIXED WASTES
The Agency has proposed a two-year national capacity variance for the newly listed
hazardous wastes or decharacterized wastes when mixed with radioactive wastes that are currently
regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. All three commenters on the mixed waste capacity
analysis (Molten Metals Technology, Inc (41); The Department of Energy (52); and Westinghouse
Electric Corporation (56)) agree that a capacity variance should be granted.
Summary:
Molten Metal Technology, Inc. believes it is unrealistic to assume that sufficient mixed
waste combustion capacity using the current technology will develop with time especially given the
difficulties and opposition such a project will face. Therefore, the commenter acknowledges the
necessity of granting a capacity variance for mixed wastes in this rule, but feels that the Agency
should require proper treatment to occur in the future before granting the variance. (41-pp. 10-11)
The Department of Energy supports the capacity variance since it has limited treatment capacity,
for mixed wastes, and intends to give priority to mixed wastes already subject to LDR standards by
earlier rules. (52-p .27) Westinghouse Electric Corporation recommends finalizing the 2-year
national capacity variance based upon the low priority of waste subject to the proposed rule and
the limited capacity to treat the mixed waste. (56-p,8)
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenters' support of its capacity analysis for mixed wastes. EPA
notes that under RCRA Section 3004(h)(1), it does not have the authority to place conditions on
national capacity variances, but must make its variance determinations based on the availability of
treatment capacity as of the effective date of the rule.
Comments:
• Molten Metal Technology, Inc. (41-pp. 10-11)
• Department of Energy (52-p.27)
• Westinghouse Electric Corporation (56-p.8)
-------
Commenter: Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
Comment Number: 41
Page Number: 10
There is no reasonable basis lor assuming that traditional combustion
technologies will in the foreseeable future provide adequate or appropriate
treatment capacity for mixed waste. Thus, the continuing practice of granting
capacity variances amounts to little more than a holding action which will
not allow time for mixed waste combustion capacity to develop, but rather
just delays the time when it will become obvious that these wastes must be
treated using new, innovative technologies that specifically address and
minimize all the hazards presented by mixed waste, including radioactive
hazards.
M4 Environmental LP., a partnership of MMT and Lockheed Martin, has
presented information and data to the Department of Energy (TOE) which
demonstrate that CEP is available and am provide a unique innovative
solution to many of the most difficult mixed waste management issues that
the DOE faces. A copy of these comments is attached. MMT urges EPA to
reconsider its practice of assuming that LDR requirements for mixed waste
can be achieved by using traditional hazardous waste treatment technologies
to treat the hazardous portion of mixed waste, and instead identify and
designate as BDAT technologies which address and effectively minimize all
the hazards presetted by mixed waste, including radioactive hazards.
MMT recognizes that the needs of DOE and others who currently store mixed
waste because of the current shortage of available capacity must be responsibly
addressed in accordance with current laws and regulations. Thus, MMT does
not question the need for, or oppose the granting of, mixed waste capacity
-------
Commenter: • Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
Comment Number: 41
Page Number: 11
variances- However, MMT strongly urges EPA to condition such variances
upon a commitment to deploy and use technology which can address both
the RCRA and radiologic hazards posed by mixed waste and realistically can
be sited and permitted.
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Department of Energy
52
27
2. p. 11734. col. 3 — EPA proposes to grant a two-year national capacity variance to
radioactive wastes mixed with the hazardous wastes affected by the LDR Phase
in final rale.
DOE supports EPA's proposal to grant a two-year national capacity variance for radioactive
wastes mixed with decharacterized D001-D003 or newly identified D012-D017 wastes
managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent or Class I nonhazardous injection well systems, or mixed
with affected organic toxicity characteristic wastes. As EPA states in die preamble, DOE has
limited treatment capacity with which to treat mixed wastes, and die Department intends to
give priority to mixed wastes already subject to LDR treatment standards imposed by earlier
rules.. Therefore, a capacity variance for die affected wastes is appropriate.
5-4
-------
Commenter:
Comment Number:
Page Number:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
56
8
Issue 9: Capacity Determinations
Reference: Preamble at Section IX, page 11734
The EPA proposes to grant a 2-year national capacity variance for radioactive mixed
decharacteraed wastes managed in CWA systems and organic toxicity characteristic wastewaters
subject to this proposed rule. We recommend the EPA finalize the 2-year national capacity
variance based cm the low priority of the wastes subject to this rulemaking and the limited
capacity to provide LDR compliant treatment of mixed wastes.
5-5
------- |