Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restrictions

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[SWH-FRL-5050-8]

Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restrictions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to approve application for a case-by-case

extension of land disposal restrictions effective date and request for

comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 3004(h)(3) of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(3) and 40 CFR 268.5), EPA is

proposing to approve the application submitted by Great Lakes Chemical

Corporation (Great Lakes), requesting an extension of the June 30,

1994, effective date of the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR)

applicable to wastewaters with the hazardous wastes codes K117, K118,

K131, K132, and F039. To be granted such a request, the applicant must

demonstrate that there is insufficient capacity to manage its waste and

that he has entered into a binding contractual commitment to construct

or otherwise provide such capacity but due to circumstances beyond its

control, such capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the

effective date. If this proposed action is finalized, Great Lakes will

be allowed to continue to treat, store, or dispose of its K117, K118,

K131, K132, and F039 wastes as currently practiced, until June 30,

1995, without being subject to the land disposal restrictions

applicable to such wastes. If warranted, EPA may grant a renewal of

this extension, for up to one year, which, if requested and granted,

would extend the effective date of the LDR for these wastestreams to,

at a maximum, June 30, 1996.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before September

14, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The official record of this action is identified by Docket

number F-94-GLCP-FFFFF. The public must send an original and two copies

of their comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA

Information Center (5305), Room M2616, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. Place the Docket Number F-94-GLCP-FFFFF on all copies of your

comments. Documents in the docket are available for viewing at this

same address. The RCRA Information Center is open from 9:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The

public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling

(202) 260-9327. Copies cost $.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800)

424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412-9810, in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area. The TDD Hotline number is (800) 553-7672, or (703)

486-3323, locally. For information on specific aspects of this notice

contact William J. Kline, Office of Solid Waste, Capacity Programs

Branch (5302W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,

S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 308-8440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Congressional Mandate

Congress enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984 to amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), to

impose additional responsibilities on persons managing hazardous

wastes. Among other things, HSWA required EPA to develop regulations

that would impose restrictions on the land disposal of hazardous

wastes. In particular, Sections 3004 (d) through (g) prohibit the land

disposal of certain hazardous wastes by specified dates in order to

protect human health and the environment except that wastes that meet

treatment standards established by EPA are not prohibited and may be

land disposed. Section 3004(m) requires EPA to set ``levels or methods

of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the

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.''

In developing such a broad program, Congress recognized that

adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which is

protective of human health and the environment may not be available by

the applicable statutory effective dates. Section 3004(h)(1) authorizes

EPA to grant a variance (based on the earliest dates that such capacity

will be available but not to exceed two years) from the effective date

which would otherwise apply to specific hazardous wastes. In addition,

under Section 3004(h)(2), EPA is authorized to grant an additional

extension of the applicable deadline on a case-by-case basis for up to

one year. Such an extension is renewable once for up to one additional

year.

On November 7, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 40572)

establishing the regulatory framework to implement the land disposal

restrictions program, including the procedures for submitting case-by-

case extension applications.

On August 18, 1992, EPA published a final rule (57 FR 37194,

37252), establishing treatment standards under the land disposal

restrictions (LDR) program for certain hazardous wastes listed after

November 8, 1984, including the following:

1. K117-Wastewaters from the reactor vent gas scrubber in the

production of ethylene dibromide via the bromination of ethylene.

2. K118-Spent adsorbent solids from the purification of EDB

produced by bromination of ethylene.

3. K131-Wastewater from the reactor and acid dryer from the

production of methyl bromide.

4. K132-Spent adsorbent and wastewater separator solids from the

production of methyl bromide.

Because of a determination that available treatment, recovery, or

disposal (TRD) capacity did not exist at that time for wastewaters

K117, K118, K131, and K132 that are underground injected, EPA granted a

two-year national capacity variance for these wastes. The variance

expired on June 30, 1994.

B. Summary of Application

The Great Lakes facility, located in El Dorado, Arkansas, uses

extracted bromine from brine-bearing groundwater formations in the El

Dorado, Arkansas area to produce bromine and brominated specialty

chemicals. This case-by-case LDR extension application addresses

effluent from the on-site process water treatment plant (PWTP) and

ground water treatment plant (GWTP) that currently is disposed in Class

I underground injection wells at this facility. Wastewaters (K117,

K131) recovered as a result of ongoing corrective action, at a rate of

up to 100 gallons per minute, and leachate (K118, K132) that is

currently recovered, at a rate of up to 10 gallons per minute, from two

closed on-site landfills, are treated in the GWTP. Effluent from the

GWTP is piped to the PWTP where it is mixed with approximately 233

gallons per minute of wastewater from production processes (K131), for

equalization and neutralization. The more than 500,000 gallons per day

of effluent that is generated from the PWTP for subsequent management

by underground injection constitutes the full volume of wastes for

which an extension of the LDR effective date is sought by Great

Lakes.1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Under 40 CFR 261.3 (a)(2)(iv), the waste codes that apply to

this effluent are K117, K118, K131, and K132. However, the mixture

will also be subject to the treatment standards for F039, since that

is a component of the mixture. See 268.41(b). In particular,

treatment standards for K118 and K132 were promulgated in the LDR

Phase 1 rule published on August 18, 1992. Since leachate from the

land disposal of more than one waste code is considered multisource

leachate (F039), the leachate generated at Great Lakes is considered

F039 and the treatment standards for F039 apply. In addition,

multisource leachate that is derived solely from newly identified

wastes (such as from K118 and K132 only) is considered a newly

identified waste.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great Lakes states in its application that the effluent waste

stream being disposed by underground injection will meet the applicable

BDAT standards if the leachate is treated separately. Great Lakes has

evaluated numerous treatment processes to determine which one will meet

the BDAT standards; based on this evaluation, Great Lakes has concluded

that conventional wastewater treatment technology cannot be used due to

the complex chemistry posed by the presence of organic and inorganic

brominated compounds in the leachate. As such, Great Lakes is proposing

to construct a treatment system using ozonation technology, in

conjunction with air stripping and carbon adsorption, to treat the

leachates to applicable BDAT treatment standards, prior to their

continued disposal in onsite Class I underground injection wells. This

treatment system is expected to be completed and functional within 121

days of receiving approval from the Arkansas Department of Pollution

Control and Ecology (ADPCE) to construct the treatment system.

In addition to constructing a treatment system to treat the

leachates to BDAT standards, Great Lakes also considered segregating

the leachates and sending it off-site for treatment and disposal as an

interim measure to manage its leachates during the construction of the

proposed treatment system. As discussed below, although there is

insufficient off-site commercial treatment capacity to treat the more

than 500,000 gallons per day of waste for which Great Lakes is

requesting a case-by-case extension, there is enough capacity to manage

the segregated leachates component of the wastes, i.e., approximately

14,000 gallons per day.

However, in order to use the available off-site commercial capacity

to treat its leachates, Great Lakes would need to construct a transfer

facility to enable the loading of the leachates onto trucks for off-

site transport. Great Lakes applied for a permit modification to the

ADPCE for the construction of an interim transfer facility on May 10,

1994. The ADPCE determined that a permit modification was necessary

because the transfer facility requires the use of a filtration system

(a type of hazardous waste treatment). It is unclear at present how

much time it will take for ADPCE to approve the permit modification and

for Great Lakes to construct the transfer facility, upon receiving

approval of the permit modification. EPA believes, based on past

experience, that the permit modification approval process and facility

construction will take between several months and six months.

In the process of evaluating the Great Lakes case-by-case extension

application, EPA considered several options. One option was simply to

propose to approve the case-by-case extension, until June 30, 1995, to

allow Great Lakes to continue disposing of these wastes by on-site

underground injection until the proposed treatment system is

constructed and brought on-line in Spring 1995. Another option

considered by EPA was to propose a case-by-case extension, for a period

of time less than one year, to allow Great Lakes the time to receive

approval for and to construct a transfer facility to send that portion

of the more than 500,000 gallons per day of wastes (including the

leachates) being generated for which off-site treatment capacity is

available, i.e., between 298,000 to 385,000 gallons per day of

capacity. A third option, given the availability of off-site treatment

capacity, was to propose to approve the case-by-case extension, for a

limited period of time --perhaps six months,-- to allow the continued

injection of the wastes until Great Lakes received approval for and

constructed the necessary transfer facility to send the leachates

portion of the waste stream to off-site treatment and disposal.

As discussed below, EPA is convinced of Great Lakes' commitment to

construct and operate a treatment system to treat the leachates to BDAT

standards prior to underground injection. Indeed, Great Lakes plans to

proceed with the construction of the treatment system whether or not a

transfer facility is provided to temporarily send these wastes to off-

site treatment/disposal. Permit modification approval and construction

of a transfer facility may take as much or nearly as much time as would

permit approval and construction of the proposed treatment system.

Thus, the interim transfer facility would likely only need to be used

for a very short period of time, if at all, until the proposed

treatment system is brought on-line in early 1995. As such, EPA

believes the most reasonable, desirable, and efficient use of all

concerned parties resources would best be focused on bringing Great

Lakes' proposed treatment system on-line as soon as possible. With this

in mind, EPA is proposing the option of considering the Great Lakes

case-by-case extension application based on the need to allow the

construction of the proposed treatment system.

EPA invites public comment on the proposed option as well as the

other options described above.

C. Applicant's Demonstrations Under 40 CFR 268.5 for Case-by-Case

Extension

Case-by-case extension applications must satisfy the requirements

outlined in 40 CFR 268.5. Great Lakes must address each of the

following seven demonstrations of 40 CFR 268.5(a)(1)-(7):

Section 268.5(a)(1). The applicant has made a good-faith effort to

locate and contract with treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities

nationwide to manage its waste in accordance with the effective date of

the applicable restriction (i.e., June 20, 1994).

Great Lakes asked ten hazardous waste management facilities located

throughout the nation whether they could treat the waste for which the

case-by-case extension is being requested. Of these ten facilities,

five facilities indicated they had some available capacity to treat the

waste: the Chemical Waste Management, Inc. facilities in Corpus

Christi, Texas and Vickery, Ohio, the Gibraltar Chemical Resources

facility in Winona, Texas, the GNI Group, Inc. facility in Deer Park,

Texas and Rollins Environmental Services in Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana.

The facilities indicated they, collectively, had between 298,000 to

385,000 gallons per day of available treatment capacity. Thus, there

may be enough available treatment capacity to manage approximately two-

thirds of the more than 500,000 gallons per day of waste being

generated by Great Lakes, for which a case-by-case extension is being

requested.

While there apparently is treatment capacity available to manage a

significant portion of this waste, Great Lakes noted that there are

potential risks to human health and the environment resulting from the

transportation of these hazardous wastes. Great Lakes would have to

transport the restricted waste to a number of different treatment

facilities by truck or railcar, the closest of which is 180 miles away.

Great Lakes estimates that between 300,000 and 385,000 gallons of waste

per day would require over 75 truckloads per day or one truckload

approximately every 20 minutes.

Although off-site treatment capacity is available to treat a

portion of Great Lakes' wastewaters, the construction and permitting of

transfer facilities is also needed to use this capacity. Great Lakes

states that it would take between several months and six months to

construct loading, unloading, and handling equipment to enable this

waste to be transported off-site, once necessary permits are approved;

a significant but unknown amount of time would be needed to permit such

facilities. It should also be noted that even if this waste were

shipped off-site for treatment, Great Lakes would still need a case-by-

case extension for the remainder of the waste for which no treatment

capacity is available.

Hence, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude, under

Sec. 268.5(a)(1), that, because of a lack of existing transfer

facilities at this facility and the time needed to permit and construct

such facilities, Great Lakes is unable to locate and contract for

adequate, alternative treatment capacity for the off-site management of

its waste.2 EPA believes that an equal or perhaps even less amount

of time may be necessary to construct the proposed treatment system and

obtain the necessary permit modifications as it would take for Great

Lakes to construct facilities to transport these wastewaters to off-

site treatment. EPA agrees that the limitations faced by Great Lakes in

using the limited available treatment capacity to treat the wastes

generated at its El Dorado, Arkansas facility provide an adequate basis

to fulfill the requirements of this demonstration. EPA is specifically

interested in receiving comments on this proposed application of the

Sec. 268.5(a)(1) standard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\As discussed previously, the Agency also considered an option

of limiting the case-by-case to the leachate generated from the on-

site landfills. See Section B for discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 268.5(a)(2). The applicant has entered into a binding

contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide alternative

treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity that meets the treatment

standards specified in 40 CFR Part 268, subpart D or, where treatment

standards have not been specified, such treatment, recovery, or

disposal capacity is protective of human health and the environment.

Great Lakes plans to construct a treatment system, using ozonation

in conjunction with air stripping and carbon adsorption, at its El

Dorado, Arkansas facility to treat the subject wastes to meet BDAT

standards. To support its demonstration of a binding contractual

commitment to construct the treatment system, Great Lakes has provided

EPA with the following documentation:

Corporate approval of funds to purchase and construct the

proposed treatment system at the El Dorado, Arkansas facility to treat

the wastes to BDAT standards.

Purchase Orders for equipment.

A copy of the contract between Great Lakes and Milam

Construction Company, as the general contractor, for the installation

of equipment and the construction of the treatment system.

Great Lakes has also provided data showing that its proposed

treatment system will be capable of providing the necessary treatment

to meet the applicable BDAT standards for these waste codes. Great

Lakes will employ air stripping, ozonation, and carbon adsorption units

to remove listed organic constituents to applicable BDAT limits.

EPA recently proposed to list certain 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP)

wastes as hazardous waste and to add these wastes to the list of

hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 (see 59 FR

24530, May 11, 1994). These wastes also are generated at the Great

Lakes El Dorado facility and the proposed hazardous waste listing of

TBP, if finalized, would require that Great Lakes eventually treat

these wastes to BDAT (not yet specified). In any case, Great Lakes has

stated that it anticipates that its proposed treatment system will

effectively treat TBP at such time that treatment of TBP is required.

(EPA is investigating what BDAT levels for TBP would ensure that any

treated discharge would not be expected to have any significant aquatic

effects.) Because the treatment levels for TBP have not yet been

established by the Agency, it is impossible to determine if the

proposed treatment system will meet such requirements. However, the

Agency will expect Great Lakes to modify the treatment system if

necessary to meet TBP treatment standards when and if such standards

are set.

EPA believes, as evidenced by the progress made by Great Lakes

towards the construction of this wastewater treatment facility, that it

is fully committed to and aggressively pursuing construction of the

necessary on-site treatment capacity. EPA is convinced that Great Lakes

is making a good-faith effort to construct a treatment unit that will

treat the K117, K118, K131, K132, and F039 wastes generated at its El

Dorado, Arkansas facility to BDAT standards. EPA believes Great Lakes

has provided the necessary documentation to meet the requirements of

this demonstration.

Section 268.5(a)(3). Due to circumstances beyond the applicant's

control, such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available

by the applicable effective date. This demonstration may include a

showing that the technical and practical difficulties associated with

providing the alternative capacity will result in the capacity not

being available by the applicable effective date.

Great Lakes initiated a no-migration petition, under 40 CFR 268.6,

for its existing injection wells in 1988. Despite extensive modeling

and surveying, and considerable discussion by Great Lakes with EPA,

unresolved issues have delayed final action on the no-migration

petition. Finally, in 1993, Great Lakes concluded that its no-migration

petition would not be granted prior to the impending land disposal

restrictions effective date.

Concurrently, Great Lakes had been evaluating various treatment

technologies, including steam stripping, carbon adsorption, biological

degradation, catalytic destruction, and membrane separation to treat

their wastes. In fact, a previous case-by-case extension application by

Great Lakes, submitted prior and rendered moot by EPA's issuance of a

national capacity variance, was based on the proposed installation of a

steam stripper. Subsequently, for various reasons, Great Lakes

determined that steam stripping was not as feasible a treatment

alternative as initially thought. Great Lakes' inability to get

approval for its no-migration petition coupled with the difficulties

encountered in identifying a feasible treatment process caused Great

Lakes to accelerate further its research into a treatment process that

would achieve BDAT. The system being proposed by Great Lakes, i.e., an

ozonation treatment system supplemented with air stripping and an

activated carbon adsorption system, was determined by Great Lakes to be

the appropriate technology to achieve applicable BDAT treatment

standards.

Based on the above, EPA believes that Great Lakes has made a good-

faith effort to provide treatment capacity by the effective date. Great

Lakes has aggressively pursued the development of technology capable of

treating their wastes to BDAT standards. EPA believes Great Lakes has

acted in good faith to provide the necessary treatment capacity but

that such capacity could not reasonably be made available by June 30,

1994, the effective date of the land disposal restriction for these

wastes. As such, EPA believes this demonstration of non-availability of

capacity, due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, is

adequate for the purposes of Sec. 268.5(a)(3).

Section 268.5(a)(4). The capacity being constructed or otherwise

provided by the applicant will be sufficient to manage the entire

quantity of waste that is the subject of the application.

Great Lakes, in its application, states that the treatment system

to be constructed will have sufficient capacity to adequately treat the

leachate wastestreams generated by the El Dorado, Arkansas facility.

The air stripping/ozonation/carbon adsorption system to be constructed

at Great Lakes' El Dorado, Arkansas facility has a design capacity of

28,800 gallons per day (20 gallons per minute) and thus has adequate

capacity to treat the leachates, generated at a rate of up to 10

gallons/minute, prior to it being managed by underground injection. As

such, the planned treatment system is expected to have sufficient

treatment capacity. EPA believes that Great Lakes has adequately

demonstrated that the treatment unit to be constructed will provide the

necessary treatment capacity to ensure that the entire quantity of

these leachates for which Great Lakes is requesting a case-by-case

extension will meet applicable BDAT standards.

Section 268.5(a)(5). The applicant provides a detailed schedule for

obtaining operating and construction permits or an outline of how and

when alternative capacity will be available.

Great Lakes has provided EPA with a detailed schedule for the

construction and permitting of the treatment system to be constructed

at its El Dorado, Arkansas facility. Although Great Lakes had planned

to begin construction of the treatment system in March 1994, final

approval of required State permits still is pending. Great Lakes

expects that construction of the treatment system will take 121 days

from when ADPCE approves construction and that within 210 days of

beginning construction, the treatment system will begin normal

operation. EPA believes that Great Lakes has provided the necessary

construction and permitting milestones for bringing its treatment

system on-line and therefore meets the requirements of this

demonstration.

Section 268.5(a)(6). The applicant has arranged for adequate

capacity to manage its waste during an extension, and has documented

the location of all sites at which the waste will be managed.

Great Lakes will continue to inject these wastes into the on-site

Class I wells it has been using for this purpose. Great Lakes has

indicated that these wells will have the necessary capacity available

to manage these wastes during the extension, if approved. To provide

even more assurance of adequate capacity, Great Lakes is pursuing a

process wastewater minimization program to reduce the load on the PWTP

and thus the quantity of waste needing underground injection. Two new

Class I wells in a different and deeper geological formation (the

Hosston Formation) are also planned. EPA believes that this

documentation satisfies Sec. 268.5(a)(6).

Section 268.5(a)(7). Any waste managed in a surface impoundment or

landfill during the extension period will meet the requirements of 40

CFR 268.5(h)(2).

The subject wastes are hard-piped directly to the on-site Class I

injection wells. As such, Great Lakes will not be using any surface

impoundments or landfills to manage this waste during the extension

period.

II. Consultation With State

In accordance with 40 CFR 268.5(e), EPA consulted with the State of

Arkansas (Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology) to

determine if the State had any permitting, enforcement, or other

concerns regarding this respective facility that EPA should take into

consideration in deciding to grant or deny Great Lakes' application for

a case-by-case extension of the LDR effective date. No such concerns

were identified by the State of Arkansas.

III. EPA's Proposed Action

For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that Great Lakes has

made and is continuing to make a good-faith effort towards providing

sufficient and appropriate treatment capacity for the K117, K118, K131,

K132, and F039 wastes that are the subject of its case-by-case

application. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant an extension, until

no later than June 30, 1995, of the land disposal restrictions

effective date for these wastes generated at the El Dorado, Arkansas

facility. If the extension is granted, these wastes could continue to

be managed in the manner that they are currently handled until no later

than June 30, 1995 (unless the extension is renewed for up to one

additional year, in which case the extension would expire no later than

June 30, 1996), while the proposed treatment system is being

constructed.

Great Lakes applied for an extention of the LDR effective date

until June 30, 1995. Depending on the time needed to permit and start-

up the system, a full one-year period may not be needed. It is possible

that Great Lakes will complete process shakedown and also receive the

permits necessary to put the treatment system into routine operation in

less time. EPA is proposing to grant a case-by-case extension of the

LDR effective date for the K117, K118, K131, K132, and F039 wastes

generated at Great Lakes' El Dorado, Arkansas facility for a period of

up to June 30, 1995. Nonetheless, EPA shares Great Lakes' desire to

have the treatment system become fully operational as soon as possible.

As such, EPA is proposing to grant the extension with the understanding

that Great Lakes would put the treatment system into routine operation

as soon as feasible. The extension would expire at such time the

treatment system becomes fully operational and permitted. Under any

circumstances, this proposed case-by-case extension would expire no

later than June 30, 1995.

After an applicant has been granted a case-by-case extension, he

must immediately notify EPA of any change in the demonstrations made in

the petition (40 CFR 268.5(f)). He must also submit progress reports at

specified intervals that describe the progress being made towards

obtaining adequate alternative capacity, identify any delay or possible

delay in developing the capacity, and describe the mitigating actions

being taken in response to the event (40 CFR 268.5(g)). EPA is

proposing that Great Lakes submit monthly progress reports.

EPA seeks public comment regarding the appropriateness of the

approach in which the extension is approved with the understanding that

Great Lakes will bring the proposed treatment system on-line as soon as

feasible, as would be evidenced in the proposed monthly progress

reports.

The extension, if approved, will require that the facility make a

good-faith effort to meet the schedule for completion. Should the

facility not make a good faith effort, or should the Agency (or State)

deny or revoke any required permit, conditions certified in the

application change, or should the facility violates any law or

regulations implemented by EPA, the Agency will consider taking action

to terminate the extension. (Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and 3004 of

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

and 6924)).

Dated: July 28, 1994.

Peter Robertson,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response.

[FR Doc. 94-19890 Filed 8-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P