# Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restrictions

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-19890

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** August 15, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-19890. Public record. Not legal advice.